LIKE new parents the world over, Gordon and Sarah Brown wept tears of joy yesterday as their baby came into the world.

After the heartbreaking loss of their premature baby daughter Jennifer in January last year, the safe arrival of their son must be even more special.

The Browns' happiness - a reminder of the fragility and preciousness of life - comes the day after the stark contrast presented by a traumatic courtroom wrangle over the birth of a child here in the North-East.

Karina Rees, a virtually blind single mother, gave birth to a son - now aged six - after a sterilisation operation went wrong at Darlington Memorial Hospital.

She had decided to be sterilised because she feared her disabilities would pose great difficulties in raising a child and that he or she might inherit genetic problems.

Last year, she won a landmark legal victory when the Appeal Court awarded her damages, which could have been worth more than £1m, against the trust in charge of the hospital.

Yesterday, The Northern Echo reported that the House of Lords had overturned the Appeal Court's decision and told her she was entitled to just £15,000.

The justification for the decision was, in the view of Lord Scott, that Miss Rees did not have to go ahead with her baby's birth - she could have had it adopted or aborted.

Even in the hard and cold confines of the legal system, it is a most extraordinarily crass statement to make.

Having discovered she was pregnant, Miss Rees could not face the prospect of giving her baby away or having it terminated.

She took a sensible, pragmatic and laudable decision to avoid having a child and she was let down by the health service.

With the added complication that her child has recently been diagnosed with a bone disease, she will need considerable support in raising him to adulthood.

In our view, that support should be provided - because no one should be asked to make the kind of impossible choice suggested by Lord Scott.