Posted on 05/08/2006 7:43:29 PM PDT by Piefloater
THE High Court today ruled against two severely disabled people who claimed they should not have been born.
In what's been termed a case of “wrongful life,” the judges found the pair did not have a right to mount a case for negligence against their mothers' doctors. The case was launched by two disabled people, Sydney woman Alexia Harriton, 25, and Keeden Waller, five.
Ms Harriton was born deaf, blind, physically and mentally disabled and was not expected to live more than six months. She needs 24-hour care.
She claimed Dr Paul Stephens negligently failed to diagnose the disease rubella early in her mother Olga's pregnancy and did not advise there was a very high risk of having a child with congenital abnormalities.
Olga Harriton said that she would have terminated the pregnancy had she received proper advice.
Keeden, an IVF baby, through his parents also claimed wrongful life after inheriting the clotting disorder AT3 from his father.
He was born with brain damage, suffers from cerebral palsy, has uncontrolled seizures and requires constant care.
Had the Wallers known of this risk, they said they would have deferred IVF until such time that safe methods were available or terminated the pregnancy.
In the NSW Supreme Court, Justice Timothy Studdert dismissed both damages claims, holding they had no cause of action.
The Court of Appeal, by majority, also dismissed each appeal.
The action on behalf of Alexia and Keeden then turned to the High Court.
By a six to one majority, the High Court judges today dismissed each appeal, ruling that a cause of action in negligence required each to show damage had been suffered and the doctors had a duty of care to avoid that damage.
They found no legally recognisable damage - loss, deprivation or detriment caused by an alleged breach of duty - could be shown.
The judges held that comparing a life with non-existence for the purposes of proving actual damage was impossible as it could not be determined that the children's lives represented a loss, deprivation or detriment, compared with non-existence.
In the lead judgment, Justice Susan Crennan said physical damage such as a broken leg was within the common experience of judges who had no difficulty assessing the claimed loss.
But it was altogether more difficult when the assessment had to be made between present disability and non-existence.
”There is no present field of human learning or discourse, including philosophy and theology, which would allow a person experiential access to non-existence, whether it is called pre-existence or afterlife,” she said.
``There is no practical possibility of a court (or jury) ever apprehending or evaluating, or receiving proof of, the actual loss or damage as claimed by the appellant. It cannot be determined in what sense Alexia Harriton's life with disabilities represents a loss, deprivation or detriment compared with non-existence.”
Justice Michael Kirby, the sole dissenting voice, said denying the existence of wrongful life actions erected an immunity around health care providers whose negligence resulted in a child, who would not otherwise have existed, being born into a life of suffering.
”The law should not approve a course which would afford such an immunity and which would offer no legal deterrent to professional carelessness or even professional irresponsibility,” he said.
Why couldn't this just have been filed as malpractice cases?
Take them to Holland........
Well, they could always sue their mothers for failing to abort them. Wrongful life, huh?
These were malpractices cases, and the article states the definition of malpractice very similar to that in the states.
They need to seriously study karma and reincarnation.
"The judges held that comparing a life with non-existence for the purposes of proving actual damage was impossible as it could not be determined that the children's lives represented a loss, deprivation or detriment, compared with non-existence."
God bless these Judges and God Bless Australia, that has such people in it!
The fact that a "deaf and blind" Harriton could converse at this level (immoral though it be) speaks to the dedication of someone in her life. It is like the story of Helen Keller. Except Keller didn't grow bitter like this.
You don't think that this could be lawyers shopping clients to set precedent, like in the case of Roe vs. Wade? The culture of death and all that.
I don't know anything about this story except for what is in this article. But, it made me think of that. I mean, how can a five year old even know about such court goings on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.