Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrelyre
My torts professor said that no court has allowed a suit for “wrongful birth.”
|
Actually, according to at least one court,
Since Roe, an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions has recognized wrongful birth claims. See Lininger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202, 1208 n. 9 (Colo.1988) (citing numerous cases in which the cause of action has been recognized); see also Note, Father and Mother Know Best: Defining the Liability of Physicians for Inadequate Genetic Counseling, 87 YALE L.J. 1488 (1978) (discussing the issue and concluding that imposing liability on physicians vindicates societal interest in reducing the incidence of birth defects); but see Azzolino v. Dingfelder, 315 N.C. 103, 337 S.E.2d 528 (1985) (denying wrongful birth claim), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 835, 107 S.Ct. 131, 93 L.Ed.2d 75 (1986).
Walker by Pizano v. Mart, 164 Ariz. 37, 39 n3, 790 P.2d 735, 737 n3 (Ariz. 1990).
This isn't a wrongful birth action, though.
"Wrongful birth" is a tort action where "the parents of a child born with birth defects allege that the negligence of those charged with prenatal testing or genetic counseling deprived them of the right to make a timely decision regarding whether to terminate a planned pregnancy because of the likelihood that their child would be born physically or mentally impaired." Id.
This what the Arizona Court, at least, called a
"'wrongful conception or pregnancy.' In such actions, parents of a normal but unplanned child seek damages either from a physician who allegedly was negligent in performing a sterilization procedure or abortion, or from a pharmacist or pharmaceutical manufacturer who allegedly was negligent in dispensing or manufacturing a contraceptive prescription or device." Id. See also University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court, 136 Ariz. 579, 667 P.2d 1294 (1983).
Oh, I need a life.
Threaded Mode
