Wrongful Birth Memo

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

. . .
22 C.R. 2d 819 (1993), a California appellate court extended the Turpin doctrine to post-conception negligence and held the health-care providers liable for failing to inform the baby's pregnant mother of the need to take a second blood sample for AFP testing. In 1993, the California Supreme Court voted six to one to re-affirm Gami. In Curlender, there is dicta in the appellate court's opinion to the effect that the child could recover pain and suffering damages. In Turpin, the California Supreme Court "found that general damages were not awardable." The policy reasons behind the California courts' reluctance to find liability where the tests results are conjectural and to limit recoverable damages even where negligence in pre-natal testing is proven are several-fold. (1) In Gami, the appellate court said that "whether it is better to have been born at all than to have been born with even gross deficiencies is a mystery left more properly to philosophers and theologians." Logically, the negligence of the health care provider has caused the birth, not the defect. The California courts have recognized that liability may exist in such cases to the parents, but not to the child, except for medical expenses and the costs
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Turpin California, Bostrom McKinney, Wrongful Life, Conclusion Defendants', Procanik Cillo, Med Center, Fov Greenblatt, Court Simmons, Bio-Science Laboratories, wrongful life, wrongful birth, cause action, child born, health care, proximate cause, ca 3d, birth defects, action wrongful, los angeles, cause action wrongful, health care provider, angeles daily journal, los angeles daily, bopp bostrom mckinney,
Approximate Word count = 2157
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)