Wrongful life, wrongful birth, wrongful death, and the right to refuse treatment: can reasonable jurisdictions recognize all but one?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We trust that this communication will further the understanding of the concepts involved in wrongful life and wrongful birth and will assist the conduct of medical practice in such a way to minimize risks to patients and ultrasound physicians with regard to their liability. When these physicians are involved in wrongful life cases, we believe that the concepts presented will assist them in understanding the legal and societal environment in which they find themselves. We hope also that this communication may assist the defense attorney to more effectively prepare a response to the plaintiff's legal theory. Knowledge should provide understanding, if not relief.
Over the past two decades, numerous suits for damages have been brought against physicians for the injury of wrongful life, or wrongful birth. Within the past 5 years, several precedents have been set that broaden the physician's legal obligation to recognize and act upon foreseeable or potentially recurrent genetic, teratogenic, or chromosomal disorders. These precedents may be expected to affect all physicians, but particularly pediatricians, because of the increased frequency of such disorders in the pediatric population.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
'Wrongful life' torts raise a number of interesting and perplexing philosophical issues. In a suit for 'wrongful life', the plaintiff (usually an infant) brings an action (usually against a physician) claiming that some negligent action has caused the plaintiff's life, say by not informing the parents of the likely prospect that their child would be born with severe defects. The most perplexing feature of this is that the plaintiff is claiming that he would have been better off if he had never been born. A number of arguments have appeared which purport to show that "wrongful life' claims should not be allowed, either because it is senseless to claim that one would be better off if one had not existed or that it is impossible to assess the extent to which someone has been damaged by being brought into existence. In our paper we rebut these arguments and suggest a procedure for determining damages in 'wrongful life cases'.
A wrongful life action is a claim brought by a disabled child who asserts that but for a physician's negligence he or she would not have been born, thereby being spared the suffering of life. The action is inherently controversial because the alternative to an impaired life is non-existence. Lord Griffiths has described such claims as 'utterly offensive; there should be rejoicing that the hospital's mistake bestowed the gift of life upon the child.' This paper cuts through the rhetoric that the debate has generated and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognizing wrongful life actions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Park v. Chessin, a recent New York case, marked the first step toward judicial acceptance of the theory of "wrongful life." Wrongful life suits involve a cause of action brought by an infant, against a physician, alleging that the physician's failure to inform the child's parents of the possibility of their bearing a severely defective child was the proximate cause of the infant's birth, and thus resulted in harm to the infant. This Note explores recent legal developments that give precedential support to the development of the theory of wrongful life. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the awarding of monetary damages is an appropriate remedy for the wrongful life plaintiff, and it examines possible methods for measuring those damages. The Note concludes with an analysis of the capability of courts to adjudicate wrongful life suits, and of the possible ramifications of judicial acceptance of the theory of wrongful life.