- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-McKay v Essex AHA (1982) - Wrongful Life
Core Principle
Being born, even with severe disabilities, is not a legal harm for which a child can claim damages. This is a "wrongful life" claim.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff: A child born with severe congenital disabilities.
Cause: The mother contracted rubella (German measles) during pregnancy.
Negligence: Doctors (defendants) wrongly informed the mother she didn't have rubella, so she wasn't given the option of abortion.
Dispute: The defendants admitted liability for causing the disabilities.
Claim: The plaintiff also claimed damages for being born at all into a life of severe disability.
Court Decision (Court of Appeal)
Rejection of "Wrongful Life" Claim: The court rejected the argument that the child had a right to never be born.
Reasons for Rejection:
Sanctity of Life: A duty to prevent a birth goes against the principle of the sanctity of life.
Impossible Comparison: It's impossible for the courts to compare the value of a disabled life with non-existence. How can you determine if being born disabled is worse than not existing at all? This is a philosophical, not a legal, question.
Key Concepts & Implications
Wrongful Life vs. Wrongful Birth: This case deals specifically with "wrongful life," the child's perspective. Note: There is also "wrongful birth" (parents' perspective).
Sanctity of Life: This principle played a significant role in the court's decision.
Causation: The defendants were liable for the disabilities caused by their negligence. However, they were not liable for the child being born.
Damages: The court struggled with how to calculate damages for not being born.
Study Questions
What is the difference between a "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claim?
Why did the court emphasize the "sanctity of life" in this case?
What practical problems did the court identify in trying to assess damages for a "wrongful life" claim?
How does this case relate to the broader debate about abortion and disability?
Core Principle
Being born, even with severe disabilities, is not a legal harm for which a child can claim damages. This is a "wrongful life" claim.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff: A child born with severe congenital disabilities.
Cause: The mother contracted rubella (German measles) during pregnancy.
Negligence: Doctors (defendants) wrongly informed the mother she didn't have rubella, so she wasn't given the option of abortion.
Dispute: The defendants admitted liability for causing the disabilities.
Claim: The plaintiff also claimed damages for being born at all into a life of severe disability.
Court Decision (Court of Appeal)
Rejection of "Wrongful Life" Claim: The court rejected the argument that the child had a right to never be born.
Reasons for Rejection:
Sanctity of Life: A duty to prevent a birth goes against the principle of the sanctity of life.
Impossible Comparison: It's impossible for the courts to compare the value of a disabled life with non-existence. How can you determine if being born disabled is worse than not existing at all? This is a philosophical, not a legal, question.
Key Concepts & Implications
Wrongful Life vs. Wrongful Birth: This case deals specifically with "wrongful life," the child's perspective. Note: There is also "wrongful birth" (parents' perspective).
Sanctity of Life: This principle played a significant role in the court's decision.
Causation: The defendants were liable for the disabilities caused by their negligence. However, they were not liable for the child being born.
Damages: The court struggled with how to calculate damages for not being born.
Study Questions
What is the difference between a "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claim?
Why did the court emphasize the "sanctity of life" in this case?
What practical problems did the court identify in trying to assess damages for a "wrongful life" claim?
How does this case relate to the broader debate about abortion and disability?
0 Comments