Saving to Inve$t

Helping You Save and Make Money in Today's Economy

Insuring pregnancy - is this going too far?  

Expectant mothers will now be able to insure their unborn babies against pregnancy complications, birth defects and even death. This type of insurance, possibly the first of its kind, is being offered by ING Australia. It is aimed at the growing number of older mothers (who have a greater risk of pregnancy complications and birth defects) and if successful it will only be a matter of time before it comes to America and Europe. The following are the reported coverages:

Mothers whose children have disabilities such as blindness and deafness or other congenital malformations, including spina bifida, Down syndrome.....will receive $50,000 from an insurance policy launched this week. Women suffering dangerous complications such as ectopic pregnancy or eclampsia will also get a $50,000 lump sum, while stillbirths qualify for a $10,000 payout.

Personally I think this is a bit extreme and morally questionable. Having a 2 year old myself it would have been rather strange to take out insurance for my wife's pregnancy. The local Midwives Association secretary Dr Hannah Dahlen said: "It is making women think about the terrible things that can happen when the reality is there are very few mothers who suffer from complications during pregnancy". The other argument against this is that insurance companies are exploiting the fear and uncertainty of expecting couples during a vulnerable period to make a buck wherever they can. This is the most likely reason I think.

This is a controversial topic, even here at home, and some pro-life groups would support it because the payout would almost encourage carrying a child with birth defects to full term as opposed to current practices. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this topic?

Liked what you read? Then consider subscribing (free) to get the latest articles delivered directly via RSS or Email

Post a Comment

5 comments

  • Becky  
    April 26, 2008 10:53 PM

    I will be honest with you; I lost my first child at 36 weeks pregnant due to a cord accident. I'm not saying that I would have bought the insurance because no amount of money would have made the situation any better. I became pregnant again shortly after this loss and now have a son. I am also due in just a matter of weeks with another boy. I would not have purchased this insurance, even though I am particularly skiddish about being pregnant since that first time.

  • Tim  
    April 26, 2008 10:57 PM

    This is another interesting insurance venue. I wonder what goes into underwriting it, for example what types of factors do they look at? I imagine they take the mothers health into account, and I wonder if they also look at the possibility of genetic disorders and stuff?

  • enoughwealth@yahoo.com  
    April 27, 2008 12:46 AM

    We had our two kids when we were in our late 30s and early 40s, and we were very conscious of the increased chance of Downs' and other age-related risks. If either of our kids had serious birth defects or other expensive long-term care issues it would have been a signficant financial burden. Therefore, insurance would have been a sensible option if it had been available (similar to my life, TPD, loss of income, health and other insurances).

    I'm not sure there's so much benefit in insurance against death though, as this is more of an emotional than fiscal cost. I suppose it could help if there were extra costs resulting, such as for another round of IVF.

    The actual chances of a pay-out on this type of insurance would be quit low, so the insurance premium should be affordable.

  • Anonymous  
    April 27, 2008 6:10 PM

    the insurance companies are going to market this anyway so like any financial product you need to weigh up the pros and cons based on your own personal situation.

  • Andy  
    April 27, 2008 8:01 PM

    @ becky, thanks for your very personal comments. I think your profile would be one of the targets for this type of insurance and I agree with your stance. Maybe its superstition, but taking out insurance seems a bit morbid.

    @ Tim, I am sure there are a number of pre-qualifying factors. Yes a mothers health and genetic backgound is factored in. You can see more here

    @ enought wealth. A very practical approach and I guess if you do have a kid with serious birth defects than this money would go some what to help releive the finanical burden. I don't want to offend others, but as I am not a very religious person I would personally question carrying to full term a child who will have serious birth defects (based on 3 month scans). This is my view only.

    @ anonymous - Agreed. Still I hope their marketing is ethical and does not take advantage of certain groups.

    Becky, Tim and Enough wealth thanks for stopping by and I enjoyed your blogs well.

Post a Comment

Recent Posts