Wrongful life

Last updated

Wrongful life is the name given to a cause of action in which someone is sued by a severely disabled child (through the child's legal guardian) for failing to prevent the child's birth. Typically, a child and the child's parents will sue a doctor or a hospital for failing to provide information about the disability during the pregnancy, or a genetic disposition before the pregnancy. Had the mother been aware of this information, it is argued, she would have had an abortion, or chosen not to conceive at all.

Contents

The term "wrongful life" is also sometimes applied to what are more accurately described as wrongful living claims [1] alleging that doctors or hospitals failed to follow a patient's end-of-life directive (for example, a MOLST or POLST) and kept the patient alive longer than preferred, thereby causing unnecessary and unwanted suffering. [2] However, the confusion between the two is understandable and readily explained. Although wrongful life and wrongful living claims arise at opposite ends of the human lifespan, they are related in the sense that both types of claims seek the same relief: a judgment awarding monetary damages for "unwanted life." [1]

History

Historically, only parents could sue for their own damages incurred as a result of the birth of a disabled child (e.g., the mother's own pregnancy medical bills and cost of psychiatric treatment for both parents' emotional distress resulting from the realization that their child was disabled). This cause of action is known as wrongful birth. But the child could not sue for his or her own damages, which were often much more substantial, in terms of the cost of round-the-clock personal care and special education.

In four U.S. states—California, Maine, New Jersey, and Washington—the child is allowed to bring a wrongful life cause of action for such damages. [3] In a 1982 case involving hereditary deafness, the Supreme Court of California was the first state supreme court to endorse the child's right to sue for wrongful life, but in the same decision, limited the child's recovery to special damages. [4] [5] This rule implies that the child can recover objectively provable economic damages, but cannot recover general damages like subjective "pain and suffering"—that is, monetary compensation for the entire experience of having a disabled life versus having a healthy mind and/or body.

The Supreme Court of California's 1982 decision, in turn, was based on the landmark California Court of Appeal decision in Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories (1980). [6] The Curlender decision involved a child who was allegedly born with Tay–Sachs disease after the parents relied upon the defendants' representations about the reliability of their genetic tests in refraining from proceeding with amniocentesis.

The most famous passage [7] [8] [9] [10] from the Curlender opinion is as follows:

The circumstance that the birth and injury have come hand in hand has caused other courts to deal with the problem by barring recovery. The reality of the "wrongful-life" concept is that such a plaintiff both exists and suffers, due to the negligence of others. It is neither necessary nor just to retreat into meditation on the mysteries of life. We need not be concerned with the fact that had defendants not been negligent, the plaintiff might not have come into existence at all. The certainty of genetic impairment is no longer a mystery. In addition, a reverent appreciation of life compels recognition that plaintiff, however impaired she may be, has come into existence as a living person with certain rights.

Curlender was not the first appellate decision to authorize a cause of action for wrongful life—it noted that a 1977 decision of the intermediate appellate court of New York had taken the same position, and was promptly overruled by the highest court of that state a year later. However, Curlender stands as the first such appellate decision which was not later overruled.

Most other jurisdictions, including New York, [11] England and Wales, [12] Ontario, [13] and Australia, [14] [15] have refused to allow the wrongful life cause of action.

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court declared wrongful life claims unconstitutional. The court reasoned that such a claim implies that the life of a disabled person is less valuable than that of a non-disabled one. Therefore, claiming damages for one's life as such violates the human dignity principle codified in the first article of the German Basic Law. [16]

Nevertheless, the German Federal Court stuck to its previous practice of granting to suffered families indemnification in form of living expenses for a child. [17] It emphasized that damages referred to did not imply the existence of the child by itself but the economical obligation of parents to pay maintenance. It was finally upheld by the Constitutional Court in 1998, stating no matter what was the difference between existence of a child and parents' obligation to pay maintenance in terms of damage, because the recognition of a child as a person after Art. 1 I GG did not lay on the undertaking that obligation by parents. [18]

In 2005, the Dutch Supreme Court fully upheld a wrongful life claim in the Netherlands' first wrongful life case ever. [19]

Ethics

Since wrongful life suits are a relatively new application of human rights, doctors and scholars have not come to consensus regarding their place in medical ethics. [20] [21] Others have objected to wrongful life claims on conceptual grounds, including the question of whether there exist rights and duties with regards to non-existent persons. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

The system of Tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.

The term wrongful abortion refers to an abortion that a pregnant woman undergoes as a result of negligent or malicious conduct by a physician or health care provider.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-economic damages caps</span> Limitations in lawsuits

Non-economic damages caps are tort reforms to limit damages in lawsuits for subjective, non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. This is opposed to economic damages, which encompasses pecuniary harms such as medical bills, lost wages, lost future income, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, and loss of employment or business opportunities. Non-economic damages should not be confused with punitive or exemplary damages, which are awarded purely to penalise defendants and do not aim to compensate either pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.

<i>Cattanach v Melchior</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. It was held by a majority of the High Court that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child.

Robert A. Clifford is a Chicago trial lawyer and principal partner at Clifford Law Offices. Clifford's firm specializes in "personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, consumer and health care fraud, product liability, and aviation and transportation disasters." He attended DePaul University for both his undergraduate work and Juris Doctor, finishing in 1976. The firm was founded in 1984 to represent plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death cases.

Paternity fraud, also known as misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy, occurs when a man is incorrectly identified as the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of "paternity fraud" is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father, while "misattributed paternity" may be accidental.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.

<i>Harriton v Stephens</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Harriton v Stephens, was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), is a decision of the California Supreme Court, authored by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar. In Hamidi the California Supreme Court held that a former Intel Corporation employee's e-mails to current Intel employees, despite requests by Intel to stop sending messages, did not constitute trespass of Intel's e-mail system.

Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities. Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.

Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 (1977), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Baby M was the pseudonym of an Australian girl named Allison who was born with severe birth defects, whose treatment and eventual death caused significant controversy and international discussion about the medical ethics of disabled newborns. Right to Life activists accused her parents and the hospital of murdering the infant, leading to a lengthy legal inquest.

References

  1. 1 2 Peters Jr., Philip G. (February 1998). "The Illusion of Autonomy at the End of Life: Unconsented Life Support and the Wrongful Life Analogy". UCLA Law Review. 45 (3): 673–731. PMID   11660813 . Retrieved 7 March 2021.
  2. ↑ Span, Paula (2021-01-22). "Filing Suit for 'Wrongful Life' - More Americans are writing end-of-life instructions as the pandemic renders such decisions less abstract. But are medical providers listening?". The New York Times . In an interview four years ago, Mr. Pope noted that nobody at that point had received compensation from any "wrongful life" suit. Since then, several plaintiffs have received hefty payments, and courts have weighed in as well.
  3. ↑ Fox, Dov (11 June 2018). "Privatizing procreative liberty in the shadow of eugenics". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 5 (2): 355–374. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy011 . PMC   6121041 . PMID   30191069 . Retrieved 12 September 2020.
  4. ↑ Turpin v. Sortini, 31 Cal. 3d 220 (1982).
  5. ↑ Mathew O. Jannol (2004). "Wrongful Life and Pragmatic Justice in Light of Changing Societal Values: Turpin v. Sortini". Tort Stories – Student Papers from 2003–04. Steve Sugarman; UC Berkeley School of Law. Archived from the original (doc) on February 21, 2015. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
  6. ↑ Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories, 106 Cal. App. 3d 811 (1980).
  7. ↑ Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 293.
  8. ↑ Cowen, Zelman (1992). "Medical Responsibility in Obstetrics and Gynaecology". In Tsakok, F.H.M.; Liauw, P.; Yu, S.L. (eds.). Proceedings Of The 1st International Scientific Meeting, Royal College Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. pp. 112–126. ISBN   9789814555654 . Retrieved 23 July 2023. (at p. 125.)
  9. ↑ Robert H. Blank, Fetal Protection in the Workplace: Women's Rights, Business Interests, and the Unborn (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 139.
  10. ↑ Robison, Shea K. (2018). Epigenetics and Public Policy: The Tangled Web of Science and Politics. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 284. ISBN   9781440844706 . Retrieved 28 January 2019.
  11. ↑ Sheppard-Mobley v. King, 4 N.Y.3d 627, 797 N.Y.S.2d 403, 830 N.E.2d 301 (2005).
  12. ↑ McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority [1982] 1 QB 1166.
  13. ↑ Bovingdon v. Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2, 290 D.L.R. (4th) 126.
  14. ↑ Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 , (2006) 226 CLR 52, High Court (Australia).
  15. ↑ Waller v James [2006] HCA 16 , (2006) 226 CLR 136, High Court (Australia).
  16. ↑ BVerfGE 88, 203 (296).
  17. ↑ Vgl. BGH, NJW 1994, 788.
  18. ↑ BVerfGE 96, 375, 400.
  19. ↑ Buijsen, Martin (3 June 2005). "Wrongful life-vordering gehonoreerd" [Wrongful life claim honored]. Medisch Contact (in Dutch). Utrecht: Royal Dutch Medical Association. 60 (22): 946–948. ISSN   0025-8245. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 May 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  20. ↑ Lane, Richard (7 Jul 2015). "Avraham Steinberg: leading light in faith-based medical ethics" (PDF). The Lancet. 386 (10005): 1723. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61218-1. PMID   26159397. S2CID   33903773 . Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  21. ↑ Gillon, Raanan (1998). "'Wrongful life' claims". Journal of Medical Ethics. 24 (6): 363–4. doi:10.1136/jme.24.6.363. PMC   479131 . PMID   9873973.
  22. ↑ Mũrĩithi, Paul Mũtuanyingĩ (2011). "Does the rejection of wrongful life claims rely on a conceptual error?". Journal of Medical Ethics. 37 (7): 433–436. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.042051. PMID   21303794. S2CID   24063351 . Retrieved 12 December 2017.

Further reading

http://www.bormanviolins.com/SC/belsky.htm

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.