This research paper consists of a Memorandum of Points and Authorities to support a motion by Dr. Well and General Hospital for summary judgment on daughter Helen's claim for wrongful birth and mother-patient Susan's claim for wrongful life.
Child's Cause of Action for Wrongful Birth
The basis for the daughter's cause of action is unclear. If she is alleging that Dr. Well's and General Hospital's negligence were the proximate cause of injury she suffered, such an action will lie, but she must prove that negligence was proximate cause of the injury and the proper cause of action is not one for wrongful birth or life. According to Prosser and Keeton, "the child, if he is born alive, is now permitted in every jurisdiction to maintain an action for the consequences of prenatal injuries, and if he dies of such injuries, action will lie for wrongful death."
Plaintiffs have their causes of action reversed. The Harvard Law Review says that in a "wrongful birth action, the parents of a child suffering from birth defects sue a health care provider;" and "wrongful life is a claim brought by or on behalf of a child with birth defects."
The New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 478 A. 2d 755 (1984), noted the confusion in terms: "The terms 'wrongful birth' and 'wrongful life' are but shorthand phrases that describe the causes of action of parents and children when medical negligent treatment deprives parents of the option to terminate a pregnancy to avoid the birth of a defective child." The two terms are used interchangeably and confusingly in California cases. Whatever her cause of action may properly be called, the daughter must show that the negligence of Dr. Well and General Hospital was the proximate cause of birth defects. California is one of only three states that allow an action by the child for wrongful life, Washington and New Jersey being the others. In none of the reported cases in...