Wrongful Birth in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust
    • House of Lords
    • 16 October 2003

    The conventional award would not be, and would not be intended to be, compensatory. But it would not be a nominal, let alone a derisory, award. It would afford some measure of recognition of the wrong done. And it would afford a more ample measure of justice than the pure McFarlane rule.

    There is no difficulty about causation, whether as a matter of fact or of legal responsibility. The pregnancy and birth of a child are the very things which the defendants are employed to prevent. It is impossible to say that consequential loss falls outside the scope of their duty of care. They are accordingly liable for the normal and foreseeable heads of loss, such as the mother's pain and suffering (and where appropriate loss of earnings) due to the confinement and delivery.

    I still regard the proper outcome in all these cases is to award the parents a modest conventional sum by way of general damages, not for the birth of the child, but for the denial of an important aspect of their personal autonomy, viz the right to limit the size of their family. This is an important aspect of human dignity, which is increasingly being regarded as an important human right which should be protected by law. The loss of this right is not an abstract or theoretical one.

  • Groom v Selby
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 October 2001

    On this basis, it appears to me that this court's earlier decision in Parkinson is dispositive of this appeal. If we go to the battery of tests to which I referred in paragraph 50 of my judgment in that case, the route to the judge's conclusion in this case would be on the following lines:

  • McKay v Essex Area Health Authority
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 February 1982

    To impose such a duty towards the child would, in my opinion, make a further inroad on the sanctity of human life which would be contrary to public policy.

  • McFarlane v Tayside Health Board
    • House of Lords
    • 25 November 1999

    The Federal Court observed that "compensation not only has no detrimental effect on this child, but can be beneficial to it;" see B.S. Markesinis, The German Law of Obligations, Vol.

    In my opinion the law must take the birth of a normal, healthy baby to be a blessing, not a detriment. Individuals may choose to regard the balance as unfavourable and take steps to forego the pleasures as well as the responsibilities of parenthood. They are entitled to decide for themselves where their own interests lie. It would be repugnant to its own sense of values to do otherwise. It is morally offensive to regard a normal, healthy baby as more trouble and expense than it is worth.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
  • Provide supplemental information when making or responding to allegations of harm and domestic violence
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Standard directions forms under the Children Act.
    ... ... Name of child(ren) ... Date of birth ... Relationship to you ... C1A Allegations of harm and domestic violence ... ‘Child abduction’ is the wrongful removal of a child ... from any person having, or entitled to, lawful ... ...
  • Apply to become someone's deputy (make a declaration)
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Court of Protection forms including the COP1 application to make decisions on someone's behalf.
    ... ... (including ... Telephone no ... E-mail address ... Date of birth ... What is your connection to the person to whom the application relates? ... or section 214 (wrongful trading) of the Insolvency Act 1986? ... If Yes, please provide details ... ...
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT