Wrongful life
By Wendy McElroy
web posted March 25, 2002
A new legal industry is arising to enrich lawyers, clog the court
systems and further saturate society with litigation. It revolves
around the concepts of "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life."
In "wrongful birth," the parents of a disabled child initiate a
lawsuit, typically against a doctor who is accused of not
performing proper genetic screening or not adequately
counseling prospective parents. The essence of wrongful birth is
that the defendant's negligence resulted in the birth of a disabled
child whom the mother would have aborted had she received
adequate medical information.
In "wrongful life," the disabled child — or those acting on the
child's behalf — sues for being alive. Sometimes, the parents
become defendants. In essence, the child claims he/she was
damaged by being born and should be compensated.
The difference between wrongful birthgenetic screening and prenatal
diagnosis. For example, the French parliament recently
prohibited wrongful life but not wrongful birth suits.
An ongoing court case before a Supreme Court in Australia is
being brought on behalf of three disabled people, whose ages
and complaints open many doors for litigation. The eldest, 20
years old, is disabled due to her mother contracting rubella
during pregnancy. The second, 2 years old, was born after a
failed vasectomy. The third, 17 months old, inherited a disorder
that screening could have detected.
The implications of this and other wrongful life cases around the
world are staggering — even without considering theological
objections and the background abortion debate. Merely some of
the questions they raise are:
Should the court system legally devalue the life of a disabled
person? An English court rejected a wrongful life case (McKay
v. Essex Area Health