Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:35:26.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wrongful Birth: Medical, Legal, and Philosophical Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jeffrey R. Botkin  and
Maxwell J. Mehlman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Wrongful birth” is a controversial malpractice action, which has arisen in the past two decades, secondary to an expanding knowledge of human genetics and the constitutionally protected access to abortion. Under the wrongful birth claim, parents of a child with a congenital illness or abnormality may bring suit against a physician who allegedly failed to provide appropriate prenatal counseling or information. Typically, the parents claim that they were inadequately warned of a potential problem in their child, and that this paucity of timely information prevented them from avoiding the pregnancy or from obtaining an abortion. While these cases have arisen in a variety of clinical circumstances, a characteristic example is the obstetrician who fails to offer amniocentesis to a woman of advanced maternal age who subsequently gives birth to a child with Down syndrome. Since the parents were prevented from learning of the abnormality and therefore exercising the option to terminate the pregnancy, they may claim damages for themselves for the wrongful birth of the infant.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Spring 1994 , pp. 21 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fleisher, L., “Wrongful Births: When Is There Liability for Prenatal Injury?,” AJDC, 141 (1987): 1260–65.Google Scholar
Botkin, J.R., “The Legal Concept of Wrongful Life,” JAMA, 259 (1988): 1541–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, A.M., “Legal Aspects of Prenatal Diagnosis,” Clin. Obstet. and Gynecol., 31, no. 2 (1988): 233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberle, I., Rousseau, F., Heitz, D., Kretz, C. et al., “Instability of 550-base Pair DNA Segment and Abnormal Methylation in Fragile X Syndrome,” Science, 252 (1991): 1097–1102; Yu, S., Pritchard, M., Kremer, E., Lynch, M. et al., “Fragile X Genotype Characterized by an Unstable Region of DNA,” Science, 252 (1991): 1179-81; and Ramos, F.J., Eunpu, D.L., Finucane, D., Pfendner, E.G., “Direct DNA Testing for Fragile X Syndrome,” AJDC, 147 (1993): 1231-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder v. Perkel, 432 A.2d 834 (N.J. 1981).Google Scholar
Ellis v. Sherman, 515 A.2d 1327 (Pa. 1986).Google Scholar
Andalo v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d 600 (1984); Haymon v. Wilkerson, 535 A.2d 880 (D.C. 1987); Fassoula v. Ramey, 450 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1984); Blake v. Cruz, 108 Idaho 253, 698 P.2d 315 (1984); Goldberg v. Ruskin, 128 Ill. App. 3d 1029, 471 N.E.2d 530 (1984); Eisbrenner v. Stanley, 106 Mich. App. 357, 308 N.W.2d 209 (1981); Smith v. Cote, 513 A.2d 341 (N.H. 1986); Berman v. Allen, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A.2d 8 (1979); Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 386 N.E.2d 807 (1978); Speck v. Finegold, 497 Pa. 77, 439 A.2d 110 (1981); Jacobs v. Theimer, 519 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1975); Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406, 290 S.E.2d 825 (1982); Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 98 Wash.2d 460, 656 P.2d 483 (1983); James G. v. Caserta, 332 S.E.2d 872 (W.Va. 1985); Gallagher v. Duke University Hospital, 638 F. Supp. 979 (1986); Pitre v. Opelousas General Hospital, 519 So.2d 105 (La. 1987); Linenger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1988); Garrison by Garrison v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., 571 A.2d 786 (Del. 1989); Viccara v. Milunsky, 406 Mass. 777, 551 N.E.2d 8 (1990); Arche v. United States Dept. of Army, 798 P.2d 477 (Kan. 1990); Walker by Pizano v. Mart, 790 P.2d 735 (Ariz. 1990); Reed v. Campagnolo, 630 A.2d 1145 (Md. 1993); and Keel v. Banach, 624 So.2d 1022 (Ala. 1993).Google Scholar
Roback v. United States, 658 F.2d 471 (7th Cir. 1981); Gildiner v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 451 F. Supp. 692 (E.D. Pa. 1978); and Phillips v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 1309 (D.S.C. 1989).Google Scholar
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, 2931 (Supp. 1988).Google Scholar
Schork v. Huber, 648 S.W.2d 861 (Ky. 1983); Wilson v. Kuenzi, 751 S.W.2d 741 (Mo. 1988); Azzolino v. Dingfelder, 315 N.C. 103, 337 S.E.2d 528 (1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 835 (1986); Spencer v. Seikel, 742 P.2d 1126 (Okla. 1987); and Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v. Abelson, 398 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1990).Google Scholar
Idaho Code 5–334 (Supp. 1986); Minn. Stat. 145.424 (1987 Supp.); Mo. Ann. Stat. 188.130 (Vernon Supp. 1987); S.D. Codified Laws Annual 21-55-2 (Supp. 1986); Utah Code Ann. 78-11-24 (1986 Supp.); and 42 Pa. Const. Stat. Ann. 8305 [Purdon 1990 Supp.].Google Scholar
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1986); and Dansby v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 623 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1993).Google Scholar
Andrews, L.B., “Torts and the Double Helix: Malpractice Liability for Failure to Warn of Genetic Risks,” Houston L. Rev., 92 (1992):149–84.Google Scholar
See Note: “Wrongful Birth Actions: The Case against Legislative Curtailment,” Harvard L. Rev., 100 (1987): 2017–34; Johnston, R.K., “Medical Malpractice and ‘Wrongful Birth’: A Critical Analysis of Wilson v. Kuenzi,” U.M.K.C. L. Rev., 57 (1989): 337-53; Jankowski, K.J., “Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life Actions Arising from Negligent Genetic Counseling: The Need for Legislation Supporting Reproductive Choice,” Fordham Urban L. J., 17 (1989): 27-62; Smith v. Cote, 513 A.2d 341 (N.H. 1986); Haymon v. Wilkerson, 535 A.2d 880 (D.C. App. 1987); Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10 (Amdahl, dissenting opinion); and Roback v. United States, 658 F.2d 471.Google Scholar
Lyons, J., “To Be or Not To Be: The Pennsylvania General Assembly Eliminates Wrongful Birth and Life Actions,” Villanova L. Rev., 34 (1989): 681–96; Bopp, J., Bostrom, B.A., McKinney, D.A., “The ‘Rights’ and ‘Wrongs’ of Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Birth Related Torts,” Duquesne L. Rev., 27 (1989): 461-515.Google Scholar
Supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Harbison v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983).Google Scholar
Reed v. Campagnolo, 630 A.2d 1145 (Md. 1993).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Informed Consent, Cancer, and Truth in Prognosis,” N. Engl. J. Med., 330 (1994): 223–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, J.R., “Prenatal Screening: Professional Standards and the Limits of Parental Choice,” Obstet. Gynecol., 75 (1990): 875–80.Google Scholar
Cantebury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
Faden, R.R., Beauchamp, T.L., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 306–07.Google Scholar
Mehlman, M.J., “Assuring the Quality of Medical Care: The Impact of Outcome Measurement and Practical Standards,” Law, Med. & Health Care, 18, no. 4 (1990): 368–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The American Society of Human Genetics, “The American Society of Human Genetics Statement on Cystic Fibrosis Screening,” Am. J. Hum. Genet., 46 (1990): 393.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Cystic Fibrosis and DNA Tests: Implications of Carrier Screening, OTA-BA-532 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1992).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Is a Genetic Screening Test Ready When the Lawyers Say It Is?,” Hastings Center Report, 15 (1985): 16–18.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Issues in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Making Health Care Decisions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 31–65.Google Scholar
See Bopp, et al. supra note 15.Google Scholar
Becker v. Schwartz, 486 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1978); Haymon v. Wilkerson, 535 A.2d 880 (D.C. 1987); Berman v. Allen, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A.2d 8 (1979); James v. Vaserta, 332 S.E.2d 872 (W.Va. 1985); Garrison v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., 571 A.2d 786 (Del. 1989); Phillips v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 1309 (D.S.C. 1989); Wilson v. Kuenzi, 751 S.W.2d 741 (Mo. banc 1988); Azzolino v. Dingelder, 337 S.E.2d 528 (N.C. 1985); Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic, 260 Cal. Rptr. 772 (Cat. App. 2d Dist. 1989); Alquijay v. St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 473 N.E.2d 244 (N.Y. 1984); Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v. Abelson, 398 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1990); and Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1986).Google Scholar
Harberson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983).Google Scholar
Blake v. Cruz, 698 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1984); Eisbrenner v. Stanley, 308 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1981); Smith v. Cote, 513 A.2d 341 (N.H. 1986); Jacobs v. Theimer, 519 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1975); Walker by Pizano v. Mart, 790 P.2d 735 (Ariz. 1990); Roback v. United States, 658 F.2d 471 (7th Cir. 1981); Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 478 A.2d 755 (N.J. 1984); Proffitt v. Bartolo, 412 N.W. 2d 232 (Mich. App. 1987); and Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 227 A.2d 689 (N.J. 1967).Google Scholar
Linenger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1988).Google Scholar
Reed v. Campagnolo, 630 A.2d 1145 (Md. 1993); Keel v. Banach, 624 So.2d 1022 (Ala. 1993); and Dansky v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 623 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1993).Google Scholar
Park v. Chessin, 400 N.Y.2d 110 (1977).Google Scholar
Goldberg v. Ruskin, 471 N.E.2d 530 (Ill. 1984); Gildiner v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 451 F. Supp. 692 (1978); and Munro v. Regents of the University of California, 263 Cal. Rptr. 878 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1989).Google Scholar
Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1984).Google Scholar
Schroeder v. Perkel, 432 A.2d 834 (N.J. 1981).Google Scholar
Viccaro v. Milunsky, 551 N.E.2d 8 (Mass. 1990).Google Scholar
Dorlin v. Providence Hospital, 325 N.W.2d 600 (Mich. 1982).Google Scholar
Payne by and through Payne v. Myers, 743 P.2d 186 (Utah 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moores v. Lucas, 405 So.2d 1022 (Fla. App. 1981).Google Scholar
Pitre v. Opelousas General Hospital, 519 So.2d 105 (La. 1987).Google Scholar
Nolan v. Lee Ho, 577 A.2d 143 (N.J. 1990).Google Scholar
Shelton v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, 781 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. banc 1989).Google Scholar
Ellis v. Sherman, 515 A.2d 1327 (Pa. 1986); and Speck v. Finegold, 439 A.2d 110 (Pa. 1981).Google Scholar
Lloyd v. North Broward Hospital Dist., 570 So.2d 984 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1990).Google Scholar
Siemieniec v. Lutheran General Hospital, 512 N.E.2d 691 (Ill. 1987).Google Scholar
Arche v. United States Dept. of Army, 798 P.2d 477 (Kan. 1990).Google Scholar
King, M. C., Rowell, S., Love, S. M., “Inherited Breast and Ovarian Cancer: What are the Choices?,” JAMA, 269 (1993): 1975–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, A., “Reproductive Technology and Disability,” in Cohen, S., Taub, N., eds., Reproductive Laws for the 1990's (Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press, 1989), pp. 69–124.Google Scholar
See Bopp, et al. supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Note: “Wrongful Birth Actions: The Case against Legislative Curtailment,” Harvard L. Rev., 100 (1987): 2017–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheid, J.H., “Benefits vs. Burdens: The Limitation of Damages in Wrongful Birth,” J. Fam. Law, 23 (1984–1985): 57–98; and Bogdan, F.W., “Wrongful Birth: Who Owes What to Whom and Why?,” Wash. and Lee L. Rev., 40 (1983): 123-41.Google Scholar
Gath, A., “The Impact of an Abnormal Child upon the Parents,” Brit. J. Psychiat., 130 (1977): 405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar