Damages for the 'Unwanted' Child: Time for a Rethink?

Medico-Legal Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4

Posted: 27 Dec 2005

See all articles by Nicolette M. Priaulx

Nicolette M. Priaulx

Cardiff University; Cardiff University - Cardiff Law School

Abstract

If a healthy child born as a result of clinical negligence is a blessing which should not resound in child maintenance damages, can one create an exception for the birth of a disabled child? If so, should the law then permit a further exception for the disabled parent of a healthy child? And, even if the healthy child is not the proper subject-matter of damages, is this the same as saying that those who actively sought to avoid parenthood suffer no loss at all? The author considers the relevance to these issues of McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board (1999), Parkinson v. St. James' (2001) and Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2003). She concludes that the amount of judicial activity since McFarlane demonstrates the controversial and difficult (if not incoherent) nature of that decision, and suggests that the reproductive torts now require a serious rethink.

Keywords: wrongful conception, wrongful birth, McFarlane v. Tayside, Parkinson v. St. James', Rees v. Darlington, reproductive torts, reproduction, disability, health

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K13

Suggested Citation

Priaulx, Nicolette M., Damages for the 'Unwanted' Child: Time for a Rethink?. Medico-Legal Journal, Vol. 73, No. 4, December 2005. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=871393

Nicolette M. Priaulx (Contact Author)

Cardiff University ( email )

PO Box 427
Cardiff, Wales CF10 3AX
United Kingdom

Cardiff University - Cardiff Law School ( email )

PO Box 427
Cardiff, Wales CF10 3AX
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
1,007
PlumX Metrics