High Court rules against “wrongful life” cases

“Wrongful life” has been a contentious and difficult medico-legal issue. The term refers to mounting a case of negligence by those people who claim that they should not have been born.

The ruling by the High Court of Australia is against two specific cases; that of a severely disabled 25-year-old woman with congenital rubella and a young IVF baby with brain damage and cerebral palsy after suffering a cerebral bleed from an inherited clotting disorder. Both cases have previously gone through the NSW Supreme Court and The Court of Appeal unsuccessfully.

In the judgement, states Justice Susan Crennan:

“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…

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.”

In my humble opinion, this is a key finding. You cannot be harmed from “non-existence” in being given life.

This is all very existential but I think to be a satisfactory outcome. With this ruling, I hope that the concept of “wrongful life” is finally thrown out the window.

From: The Sydney Morning Herald

Two lose wrongful life case (excerpt)
May 9, 2006 - 12:00PM

...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...

...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...