A couple has brought a case before the Rennes administrative court, seeking €51,000 in compensation from the Brittany South Brittany hospital (GHBS) in Lorient, Morbihan. The claim arises from the couple’s distress following the medical interruption of pregnancy (IMG) of thier severely disabled baby.

Compensation Claim

The case centers around a 40-year-old resident of Lorient who learned of her unborn child’s “crucial handicap.” An IMG was scheduled at the Lorient hospital for December 27, 2021. Subsequently, the woman and her partner sought legal recourse, filing a claim for damages with the administrative court of Rennes.

“This violation of intimacy was notably hard to live,” insisted the couple’s lawyer at the hearing.

Dispute Over Cremation

The couple’s complaint highlights the “conditions” surrounding the cremation of their child on April 6, 2022. They allege that the GHBS failed to “respected deadlines” for the cremation, despite assurances in a letter that the hospital would “take charge” within “the quarter” that followed the procedure. Furthermore, the parents claim they were not informed of the date and time of the cremation.

According to the public rapporteur, who provides legal analysis to the judges, “The mother or the father has ten days from childbirth to claim the child’s body.” The rapporteur added that “in the event of non-recovery of the body, the hospital has two clear days to carry it out in cremation.”

An administrative magistrate noted, “The GHBS admits that he did not meet the deadlines,” a point not disputed by the hospital’s lawyer.

While the public rapporteur acknowledged that “It is good practice to inform parents of the Crémation date and time,” he also stated that this is merely a “simple ‘proposal’,” and therefore no “fault” can be attributed to GHBS on this matter.

breach of Professional Secrecy Allegation

The couple also alleges a “misfortune otherwise more delicate,” accusing a hospital thanatopractor of having “Violed professional secrecy” by “opened the closed envelope which was to rest with the body of their child.”

The mother received “a WhatsApp message” from an acquaintance who had “knowledge of her IMG.” The acquaintance was the wife of the thanatopractor, who allegedly confirmed her husband’s role when asked if he had communicated the protected information.

The message stated,”It was he who came to recover your baby,he took care of it in his service … He recognized you in the photo.”

However, the acquaintance later “retracted” her statement, claiming she wanted to “protect her colleague,” a friend of the applicant. She then claimed to have obtained the information “during a meal between colleagues on December 16, 2021.” the public rapporteur deemed these explanations “not credible,” arguing that even if she learned of the IMG thru another source, it does not negate the fact that her husband recognized the mother in a photo.

Impact on the Parents

“This violation of intimacy was particularly hard to live,” insisted the couple’s lawyer. She added that she had “advised” her clients against pursuing the case in administrative court, given the emotional toll it would take. The parents reportedly waited “several months” before being able to “turn this complex page” and “mourn” due to the delay in the incineration of their child’s body.

The mother is also seeking compensation for “loss of professional earnings,” claiming that she could not fulfill her obligations as a business owner or pursue new “projects” due to the situation.

The public rapporteur stated that the evidence presented does not “allow us to assert with certainty” that the hospital’s “breaches” caused her absence from work. However, he proposed granting €3,000 to each parent to address their “moral damage,” a sum “slightly above the average fixed by case law.”

The GHBS lawyer countered that “the certificates diverge” and that “We cannot establish with certainty by which bias was aware of the information,” as the thanatopractor denies having “the photo in his hands.”

The mother’s lawyer refuted this, stating that the applicant “said she talked to anyone.” The Administrative Court of Rennes is expected to render a decision within “a month.”