. 12
( 12)

n. 215 above.
Tony Sheldon, ˜Killing or Caring?™ (2005) 330 British Medical Journal 560.
Management of the disabled neonate 295

Needless to say, the Groningen proposals have attracted considerable
criticism. The majority of these will be well known to anyone who has
considered the euthanasia debate in general. The counter-arguments are
amplified in the case of children and have been well described in a short,
but telling, article from the Israeli Center for Medical Ethics.222 The
gravamen of the argument lies in the fact that, whereas the case for
adult euthanasia is founded on respect for human autonomy, no such
justification is available in the case of the infant who has not reached the
age of capacity. Conversely, even the Dutch currently repudiate surrogate
consent to euthanasia in adults. Why, then, should we countenance it in
infants?223 Significantly, in my view, Jotkowitz and Glick question the
whole ethos of guidelines and protocols:

[A] detailed protocol with internal checks and balances tends to minimise the
impact of what we feel is a morally unacceptable act.224

Or, in other words, given such a protocol, the temptation is to ask if a
child fits within its terms rather than to consider that child™s condition as
an individual problem ab initio. In the end, however, they resort to the
˜slippery slope™ argument “ and who should blame them, given the
suspect history of adult euthanasia in the Netherlands?225
At the time of writing, neonatal euthanasia has not been seriously
mooted in the United Kingdom nor has a declaration of its lawfulness
been sought from any court. Were such a case to be brought, it would, in
present circumstances, have to be rejected. The problem remains as to
what would be the outcome were criminal charges to be brought against a
paediatrician who, say, followed the Groningen Protocol. Would he or
she follow the path of Dr Arthur “ whose case we have discussed at length
at p. 254 “ or that of Dr Cox,226 who injected his suffering adult patient
with potassium chloride and was found guilty of attempted murder?

A. B. Jotkowitz and S. Glick, ˜The Groningen Protocol: Another Perspective™ (2006) 32
Journal of Medical Ethics 157“8. It is only fair, however, to refer to a very recent article
that is strongly supportive of the protocol: B. A. Manninen, ˜A Case for Justified
Non-voluntary Active Euthanasia: Exploring the Ethics of the Groningen Protocol™
(2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 643“51.
The BMA (n. 201 above) firmly believes that parents are generally the best judges of
their young children™s, and the family™s, interests; this, however, cannot be applied to
euthanasia which is not considered as a management option.
n. 222 above, at 157.
See, for example, the disquieting article by L. Pijnemborg, P. J. van der Maas,
J. J. M. van Delden and C. W. M. Looman, ˜Life Terminating Acts without Explicit
Request of Patient™ (1993) 341 Lancet 1196“9 “ the reason for concern lies in the title.
R v. Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38.
296 The troubled pregnancy

Fortunately, the question is hypothetical. Nonetheless, I should, perhaps,
fly my colours for the last time and quote again, and with approval, from
Jotkowitz and Glick:
We agree that in certain circumstances it is reasonable and desirable to limit the
level of care in these severely disabled and suffering infants: but the direct taking
of human life crosses a major boundary line.

The case of Baby K227 has been reported as this book is at the page-
proofing stage and justifies the forewarning offered in the last lines of
p. 289. K was a child aged 5½ months suffering from congenital myo-
tonica dystrophy “ a severe muscle wasting disease. Her situation was,
therefore, very comparable to that of Baby MB which we have discussed
at p. 284. She was very severely disabled, lying somewhere between
categories 3 and 4 of those set out by the Royal College of Paediatrics
and Child Health as justifying consideration of withdrawal of treatment “
for which, see p. 291. The responsible NHS Trust sought a declaration
enabling the withdrawal of nutrition and fluids and this was granted
by the court as being in the child™s best interests. Since this decision
seems to be one in direct contrast to that reached in A NHS Trust
v. MB, it is worth outlining some preliminary thoughts as to the points
which might distinguish the cases. These include: K was considerably
younger than M; she was being fed by total parenteral nutrition rather
than by way of a less invasive and less technically complicated feeding
by gastrostomy; she was undoubtedly dying from a combination of sep-
ticaemia and liver failure; due to the nature of her condition, she had
less, if any, evidence of cognitive function than had MB; and, unusually,
the parents, the guardian and the local authority were in complete agree-
ment with the Trust as to the course to be adopted. Sir Mark Potter P very
appropriately reiterated (at para [51]) the widely agreed comment that
˜all cases of this king are highly fact sensitive™.

Re K (A child) (Medical treatment: Declaration) [2006] EWHC 1007, [2006] 2 FLR 883.
8 Conclusion

The abiding impression following the completion of this book is that the
analysis of the legal approach to the management of the troubled preg-
nancy discloses a mix of well-established patterns which, nonetheless,
include some difficult anomalies.

Patterns and anomalies
In general, the decisions reached by the courts on an international scale
have demonstrated a surprising consistency over the years which is only
now being challenged. Surprising, first, because the various jurisdictions
that we have considered have approached the available actions either de
novo or have relied heavily on experience in the United States which,
inevitably in view of the large number of separate judiciaries involved and
the wide cultural differences imposed by the size of the country, has
provided a number of possible solutions to virtually every problem raised.
And, second, because many of the landmark decisions made, have turned
as much on the judicial interpretation of the moral issues involved as on
anything else. A remarkable corollary to this has been the way in which
public opinion, in the form of elected parliaments, has responded quickly
whenever the courts have stepped out of the established line in the
name of legal principle. Thus, we have seen a knee-jerk reaction on the
part of the French Parliament to the acceptance by the highest court of a
˜wrongful life™ action on the part of a disabled neonate.1 Similarly, the
Parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland rapidly closed the door
on actions involving wrongful pregnancy after the High Court of
Australia had opened it widely in a case involving a negligent failure to
sterilise a woman.2
Yet, as I have suggested, this apparently regular pattern contains a
number of anomalies which, ultimately, derive from the difficulty of

1 2
See p. 233. Cattanach v. Melchior (2003)199 ALR 131 (see p. 128).

298 The troubled pregnancy

accommodating the normal principles of tort law within a setting that is
charged with emotions ranging from an ingrained respect for the ˜sanc-
tity™ of human life to an equally ingrained resistance to its ˜commodifica-
tion™. Courts across the world have struggled with this problem and, as a
result, we are left with a jurisprudence which, although it cannot be said
to be ˜bad law™, still demonstrates a lack of coherence.
My strong impression is that, because of this ambivalence, courts have
a tendency to look at the end results of negligence rather than at the
primary reasons for actions that result from a troubled pregnancy. An
example lies in the simple situation of the wrongful pregnancy. As things
stand, if each of two ˜sterilised™ women unwillingly bears a child and one
of the children is healthy while the other is, unexpectedly, disabled, the
mother of the latter stands to receive some recompense while the former is
left to her own devices. Yet the negligence is the same in each case. There
may be a case for a differential assessment of the quantum of damages but
such an exercise becomes illogical if the basic quantum is nil “ as it was
established in McFarlane.3 This anomaly may be, at least, smoothed over
by Lord Bingham™s ˜conventional award™ “ which I have attributed to ˜the
conscience of the Lords™.4 We will have to wait and see if that will
materialise for, even if it is applied across the whole spectrum, there is
still the hurdle of the level of the award to overcome.
We can also point the finger at the seemingly bizarre distinction that is
drawn between wrongful birth and wrongful life actions. How can it be
anything other than anomalous that we should compensate the person
who is given the wrong message to carry “ the mother who is misinformed
as to the risk of a disabled fetus “ and yet to deny the claims of one who
was never given any warning message “ that is, the consequently disabled
neonate? The conceptual difficulty here is that, while there are two
offended parties, there has been only one offence “ the failure to deliver
the correct message. Can it, then, be seen as fair to place the tortfeasor in
double jeopardy? Currently, insofar as the wrongful birth action is widely
accepted and that for wrongful life is equally widely refused, the answer is
˜no™. But, again, one can ask “ is this right when, in fact, the ˜injuries™ are
quite distinct? The parents are claiming for the costs of rearing a disabled
child. The neonate, however, as we have seen, is claiming compensation
for the pain and suffering of a diminished life resulting from negligent
advice. Provided the heads of damage are kept quite distinct, it seems

McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board (2000) 2 AC 59, 2000 SC 1 which occupies the greater
part of Chapter 4.
Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] AC 309, see p. 176.
Conclusion 299

right that the recompense should be allocated appropriately “ but only the
European continental courts seem, thus far, to have acknowledged that.5

Conflicts of values

The fetal status “ again
Deep down, at source, I suggest that there are two main concerns that
combine to confuse the courts in their search for coherent solutions to the
troubles of pregnancy. First is what many would regard as the prime
anomaly “ the legal insistence that the fetus has ˜no rights™. It is a truism
that one marker of the civilisation of a society is the quality of the
protection it provides for its vulnerable citizens. This, of course, has
been evident over the past decades throughout advanced societies within
which such protection has been provided progressively to those groups
in need “ that is, until we come to possibly the most vulnerable of all
sections of society, the unborn child, whose survival is still determined by
seventeenth-century jurisprudence.6
The case of Vo v. France7 must surely be convincing evidence that some
protection of the fetus against the negligent or criminal antenatal carer is a
requisite for the twenty-first century “ the step between the ˜no interests™
of the fetus and the paramountcy of the ˜best interests™ of the neonate
spans too great a divide. Mrs Vo™s case emphasises that the barrier to the
recognition of fetal interests lies in the abortion issue. The impregnability
of that barrier is, however, founded on a misconstruction of the motives
behind the call for review. The target is not the repeal of the Abortion Act
which, like it or not, is here to stay. What is needed is a change in the
˜mind-set™ to abortion which would recognise that the fetus has at least
some interests, or even rights, which need to be placed in the balance pan.
Our main concern here is with termination of pregnancy on the grounds
of fetal disability and, while we have considered the position of the fetus
whose interests are unlikely to be served by being born at considerable length
under the rubric of wrongful life, we have, to all intents, ignored that of
the one who might well wish to be born irrespective of physical imperfection “
and the 1967 Act, section 1(1)(d) makes no allowance for such a
possibility. In essence, this is something of a plea that we should approach
the section 1(1)(d) case from a different angle and, rather than asking the

See p. 233.
See Lord Mustill in Attorney General™s Reference (no. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 quoting
Co. Inst., Part III, ch.7, p. 50.
(2004) 79 BMLR 71.
300 The troubled pregnancy

pregnant woman: ˜do you want to abort this pregnancy?™, we should, first,
look to the option: ˜would you consider offering your unwanted baby for
adoption when it is born?™8 The choice would always be the woman™s, but
attitudes might well be changed for the better. In fact, it is surprising how
little adoption features in the cases that have been studied here “ possibly
because the outcome of an offer for adoption is so uncertain, especially at
the fetal stage of development.9 Where, it is taken up, it is mentioned as an
alternative to abortion but on an equal footing; in fact, of course, abortion
and adoption are widely distinct concepts “ the former actively destroys
life, the latter preserves it. They should not be regarded as being on a par
either as to morality or as a practical refuge.
All of which relates, in the end, to one of the main problems within the
1967 Act “ that of the failure of demarcation as to ˜substantial risk™ of
˜serious handicap™ in section 1(1)(d).10 There is no ˜bright ring™ to guide
us “ nor is there likely to be given the current wording of the Act. This is,
surely, a matter which Parliament ought to, and could, look at urgently
without reopening controversy. Having said which, it is, perhaps para-
doxical that I should go on to isolate the wrongful birth action as being
one aspect of litigation in this field that stands out as having been solved
logically in the courts of the United Kingdom. The essential distinguish-
ing feature of such an action is that the parents concerned wanted a child;
they did not, however, want a disabled child which they now have as a
result of the antenatal carers™ negligence. It, therefore, seems to be as fair
as is possible11 to both sides in such a situation that the parents should
accept the child but that the carers should recompense them fully for the
difference in the costs of rearing a disabled rather than a healthy child “
and there need be no difficulty in assessing such costs.12 Almost

This is not an entirely original script but was first suggested, albeit in the context of
terminations under s.1(1)(a), by Sheila A. M. McLean, ˜Abortion Law: Is Consensual
Reform Possible?™ (1990) 17 Journal of Law and Society 106“23.
And even in the case of the neonate. See, for example Re B (a minor)(wardship: medical
treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421, [1982] 3 FLR 117, discussed at p. 256, n. 60.
An interesting article has been published while this book was being processed which
considers the problem of mental handicap and the treatment of the disabled neonate
which I have addressed in Chapter 7. As part of the solution, it introduces the concept of
˜reduced benefits of life™ in assessing such infants: D. Wilkinson, ˜Is it in the Best Interests
of an Intellectually Disabled Infant to Die?™ (2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 454.
Although it is almost impossible to accommodate the emotional cost within the envelope
of ˜fairness™ “ so many variables are involved.
It has been reported recently that another European country, Austria, has, for the first
time, allowed such an action. The Supreme Court does appear from the brief report
available, however, to have muddied the waters by ordering full support of a Down™s
syndrome child: Bojan Pancevski,˜Doctor Must Pay Child Support after Inadequate
Warning of Disability™ (2006) 333 British Medical Journal 168.
Conclusion 301

perversely, however, the current UK jurisprudence on wrongful birth was
founded inaccurately on analyses of McFarlane,13 the case of wrongful
pregnancy which forms the hub of this book and which leads to what I see
as the second main reason behind the courts™ anxieties “ that is, the
conflict between human emotion and legal principle that is such a feature
of cases involving the uncovenanted birth of a healthy child.
We have seen the development of this struggle on an international scale
throughout this book “ demonstrated by, on the one hand, a reluctance to
see the birth of a child as anything other than something to be welcomed
and, on the other, taking the black-letter view that wrongful pregnancy, in
particular, is as much a matter of negligence as of reproduction and that
the normal rules of medical negligence must apply. And although it may
seem trite to remind the reader, this conflict is epitomised by the unan-
imous support for the former view by the House of Lords in the Scottish
case of McFarlane and the majority opinion in favour of the latter in the
Australian case of Cattanach, both of which have been extensively
reviewed in Chapter 4.

Legal or moral principle?
This is no place to recapitulate the arguments employed on each side
which have already been reviewed in detail. In summary, however, it
seems to me that the whole discourse is based on a fundamental mis-
conception. I have tried to emphasise throughout this book that the basis
of the uncovenanted pregnancy action implies no disrespect of the fetus
that has been unwittingly conceived or for the child that it has become. It
is the consequences of a new addition to the family that are in issue and
these may go deeper than has, perhaps, been portrayed up till now.
Looking back over the previous chapters, I feel I may have concentrated
too much on the pure financial costs of a new baby. But there is more at
stake than this. It has to be remembered that the uncovenanted child is
not simply unplanned “ rather, positive plans have been made and positive
steps have been taken not to have an addition to the family. In the event,
the whole modus vivendi of the family as an item has been distorted. What
is being asked in an action for wrongful pregnancy, and to much the same
effect in that for wrongful birth, is that the family ambience should be
restored so far as is possible to what was planned before the plans were
disrupted by the negligence of another. To what extent, if any, then,
should the ordinary rules of tort be modified in order to accommodate a

n. 3 above.
302 The troubled pregnancy

very particular aspect of negligence? The answer is, perhaps, not so
simple as appeared when the first of the articles on which this book is
founded was written.14
The majority decision in Cattanach was, on a subjective view, a triumph
for anyone who believed that McFarlane was wrong on the grounds that
the decision flew in the face of the established law of negligence. Why,
then, does it take on the mantle of a Pyrrhic victory? The minority in
Cattanach appear to have thrown legal principle to the winds and the
answer to that question can only lie in an intuitive “ and, arguably,
unreasonable “ preference for their idiosyncratic and undoubtedly emo-
tional approach over the attempts in the House of Lords to achieve a
rational reason for an irrational decision. In short, what Cattanach does is
to emphasise that, as we all know, there are two sides to every question “
and to the question of recompense for wrongful pregnancy in particular.
But, it has to be said, the train stops there; on pure legal principle, Mr and
Mrs McFarlane deserved more than they got and one must save some
sympathy for those who have to follow in their footsteps. At least in my
view, the House of Lords recognised that in Rees,15 even if only sub silentio.
Thus, the final question remains “ should matters such as these, which
are so fundamental to societal morality, be decided on the basis of judicial
activism or should they be left to Parliament? Perhaps it would be best to
leave the answer to that question for another day.

J. K. Mason, ˜Unwanted Pregnancy: A Case of Retroversion?™ (2000) 4 Edinburgh Law
Review 191“206.
See p. 174 above.

Alfirevic, Zarko and James P. Neilson, ˜Antenatal Screening for Down™s
Syndrome™ (2004) 329 British Medical Journal 811“12
Anonymous, ˜Informed Consent: A Proposed Standard for Medical Disclosure™
(1973) 48 New York University Law Review 548“63
Atiyah, P. S., The Damages Lottery (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997)
Bainham, Andrew, ˜Do Babies Have Rights?™ (1997) 56 Cambridge Law Journal
Balfour-Lynn, Ian M. and Robert C. Tasker, ˜Futility and Death in
Paediatric Medical Intensive Care™ (1996) 22 Journal of Medical Ethics
Baugher, Patricia, ˜Fundamental Protection of a Fundamental Right: Recovery of
Child-rearing Damages for Wrongful Pregnancy™ (2000) 75 Washington Law
Review 1205“36
Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New
York: Oxford University Press, 5th edn 2001)
Beaumont, Patricia M. A., ˜Wrongful Life and Wrongful Birth™ in S. A. M. McLean
(ed.), Contemporary Issues in Law, Medicine and Ethics (Aldershot: Dartmouth
Publishing, 1996), chapter 6
Bickford-Smith, Margaret, ˜Failed Sterilisation Resulting in the Birth of a
Disabled Child: The Issues™ (2001) 4 Journal of Personal Injury Law 404“10
Booth, Penny, ˜A Child is a Blessing “ Heavily in Disguise, Right?™ (2001) 151
New Law Journal 1738
Boyd, Kenneth, ˜Euthanasia: Back to the Future™ in John Keown (ed.),
Euthanasia Examined (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
chapter 7
Boyle, R. J., R. Salter and M. W. Arnander, ˜Ethics of Refusing Parental Requests
to Withhold or Withdraw Treatment from their Premature Baby™ (2004) 30
Journal of Medical Ethics 402“5
Brahams, Diana, ˜Religious Objection versus Parental Duty™ (1993) 342 Lancet
Brazier, Margaret, Medicine, Patients and the Law (London: Penguin Books, 3rd
edn 2003)
Brazier, Margaret and Jose Miola, ˜Bye-bye Bolam: A Medical Litigation
Revolution?™ (2000) 8 Medical Law Review 85“114
Brazier, M., ˜Letting Charlotte Die™ (2004) 30 Journal of Medical Ethics 519“20
Brazier, Margot, ˜Times of Change?™ (2005) 13 Medical Law Review 1“16

304 Bibliography

˜Human(s) (as) Medicine(s)™ in Sheila A. M. McLean (ed.), First Do No Harm:
Law, Ethics and Health Care (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), chapter 12
BBC News, ˜Cardinal Urges Abortion Rethink™, 21 June 2006 at http://news.
British Medical Association, Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical
Treatment (London: B.M.A., 2001)
Parental Responsibility (London, B.M.A., 2004)
Brody, Baruch, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A Philosophical View
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985)
Brown, M. T. ˜A Future Like Ours Revisited™ (2002) 28 Journal of Medical Ethics
Burgermeister, Jane, ˜Doctor Reignites Euthanasia Row in Belgium after Mercy
Killing™ (2006) 332 British Medical Journal 382
Callahan, Daniel J., Abortion, Law, Choice and Morality (New York: Macmillan,
Callus, Therese, ˜ ˜˜Wrongful Life™™ a la Francaise™ (2001) 5 Medical Law
International 117“26
Cameron, C. and R. Williamson, ˜Is there an Ethical Difference between
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Abortion?™ (2003) 29 Journal of
Medical Ethics 90“2
Cameron-Perry, J. Ellis, ˜Return of the Burden of the ˜˜Blessing™™ ™ (1999) 149 New
Law Journal 1887“8
Campbell, A. G. M. and H. E. McHaffie, ˜Prolonging Life and Allowing Death:
Infants™ (1995) 21 Journal of Medical Ethics 339“44
Cane, Peter, ˜Another Failed Sterilisation™ (2004) 120 Law Quarterly Review
Capron, Alexander Morgan, ˜Tort Liability in Genetic Counselling™ (1979) 79
Columbia Law Review 618“84
Chalmers, Don and Robert Schwartz, ˜Rogers v. Whitaker and Informed Consent
in Australia: A Fair Dinkum Duty of Disclosure™ (1993) 1 Medical Law
Review 139“59
Clarke, Angus, ˜Is Non-directive Genetic Counselling Possible?™ (1991) 338
Lancet 998“1001
(ed.), Genetic Counselling: Practice and Principles (London, Routledge, 1994)
De Garis, C., H. Kuhse, P. Singer and V. Y. Yu, ˜Attitudes of Australian Neonatal
Paediatricians to the Treatment of Extremely Preterm Infants™ (1987) 23
Australian Paediatric Journal 223“6
Deliens, Luc, Freddy Mortier, Johan Bilsen et al. ˜End of Life Decisions in
Medical Practice in Flanders, Belgium: A Nationwide Survey™ (2000) 356
Lancet 1806“11
Department of Health, A Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment (HC (90)
22 amended by HSG (9) 32)
Our Inheritance, Our Future (2003), Cm 5791-II
Devaney, Sarah, ˜Autonomy Rules OK™ (2005) 13 Medical Law Review 102“7
Dickens, Bernard, ˜Wrongful Birth and Life, Wrongful Death before Birth and
Wrongful law™ in Sheila A. M. McLean (ed.), Legal Issues in Human
Reproduction (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1989), chapter 4
Bibliography 305

Dixon, Clare, ˜An Unconventional Gloss on Unintended Children™ (2003) 153
New Law Journal 1732“3
Dorozynski, Alexander, ˜Highest French Court Awards Compensation for
˜˜Being Born™™™ (2001) 323 British Medical Journal 1384
Drife, James Owen, ˜Deregulating Emergency Contraception™ (1993) 307 British
Medical Journal 695“6
Duguet, A.M., ˜Wrongful Life: The Recent French Cour de Cassation Decisions™
(2002) 9 European Journal of Health Law 139“49
Dyer, Clare, ˜Gynaecologist Acquitted in Hysterectomy Case™ (1996) 312 British
Medical Journal 11“12
˜HFEA Widens its Criteria for Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis™ (2006)
332 British Medical Journal 1174
Earle, Murray, ˜The Future of Informed Consent in British Common Law™
(1999) 6 European Journal of Health Law 235“48
Ferguson, Pamela R., Drug Injuries and the Pursuit of Compensation (London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1996)
Fleming, J. G., The Law of Torts (London: LBC Information Services, 9th edn 1998)
Ford, Norman M., When Did I Begin? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Fortin, Jane E. S., ˜Is the ˜˜Wrongful Life™™ Action Really Dead?™ [1987] Journal of
Social Welfare Law 306“13
Fovargue, Sara and Jose Miola, ˜Policing Pregnancy: Implications of the Attorney-
General™s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)™ (1998) 6 Medical Law Review 265“96
Fox, Marie and Jean McHale, ˜In Whose Best Interests?™ (1997) 60 Modern Law
Review 700“9
Francome, Colin, Abortion in the USA and the UK (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing,
Furedi, Ann, ˜Wrong but the Right Thing to Do: Public Opinion and Abortion™ in
Ellie Lee (ed.), Abortion Law and Politics Today (London: Macmillan Press,
1998), chapter 10
General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice (2001)
Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in
Decision-making (2002)
Gillam, Lynn, ˜Prenatal Diagnosis and Discrimination against the Disabled™
(1999) 25 Journal of Medical Ethics 163“71
Gillon, Raanan, ˜Euthanasia, Withholding Life-prolonging Treatment, and
Moral Differences between Killing and Letting Die™ (1988) 14 Journal of
Medical Ethics 115“17
˜˜˜Futility™™ “ Too Ambiguous and Pejorative a Term?™ (1997) 23 Journal of
Medical Ethics 339“40
˜Is there a ˜˜new ethics of abortion™™?™ (2001) 27 Journal of Medical Ethics supp.
Gledhill, Ruth, ˜Curate Loses Legal Challenge over ˜˜Cleft-palate™™ Abortion™,
(2005) The Times, 17 March, p. 14
Golder, Ben, ˜From McFarlane to Melchior and beyond: Love, Sex, Money and
Commodification in the Anglo-Australian Law of Torts™ (2004) 12 Torts Law
Journal 128
306 Bibliography

Green, J. M., ˜Obstetricians™ views on Prenatal Diagnosis and Termination
of Pregnancy: 1980 Compared with 1993™ (1995) 102 British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology 228“32
Grey, Alice, ˜Harriton v Stephens: Life, Logic and Legal Fictions™ (2006) 28
Sydney Law Review 545“60
Grubb, Andrew, ˜Damages for ˜˜Wrongful Conception™™ ™ (1985) 44 Cambridge
Law Journal 30“2
˜Abortion Law in England: The Medicalization of a Crime™ (1990) 18 Law,
Medicine & Health Care 146“61
Harris, John, ˜Consent and End of Life Decisions™ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical
Ethics 10“15
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetics: The
Science and its Consequences, Third Report (1995)
Hoyano, Laura C. H., ˜Misconceptions and Wrongful Conceptions™ (2002) 65
Modern Law Review 883“906
Hugh-Jones, G., ˜Commentary on Taylor v. Shropshire HA™ [2000] Lloyd™s Rep
Med 107
Huxtable, Richard and Karen Forbes, ˜Glass v. UK: Maternal Instinct v. Medical
Opinion™ (2004) 16 Child and Family Law Quarterly 339“54
Jackson, Anthony, ˜Wrongful Life and Wrongful Birth. The English conception™
(1996) 17 Journal of Legal Medicine 349“81
Jackson, Emily, ˜Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis™ (2000) 9 Social &
Legal Studies 467“94
Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy (Oxford: Hart
Publishing, 2001)
Jackson, Mark, ˜Infanticide: Historical Perspectives™ (1996) 146 New Law Journal
Jotkowitz, A. B. and S. Glick, ˜The Groningen Protocol: Another Perspective™
(2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 157“8
Kashi, Joseph S., ˜The Case of the Unwanted Blessing: Wrongful Life™ (1977) 31
University of Miami Law Review 1409“32
Kennedy, B., ˜The Trend Toward Judicial Recognition of Wrongful Life:
A Dissenting View™ (1983) UCLA Law Review 473“501
Kennedy, I., ˜Legal and Ethical Implications of Postcoital Birth Control™ in Treat
Me Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), chapter 3
Kennedy, I. and A. Grubb, Medical Law (London: Butterworths, 3rd edn 2000)
Keown, I. J., ˜ ˜˜Miscarriage™™: A Medico-Legal Analysis™ [1984] Criminal Law
Review 604“14
Keown, J., Abortion, Doctors and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988)
Keown, John, ˜Reining in the Bolam test™ (1998) 57 Cambridge Law Journal 248“50
Koogler, T. K., B. S. Wilfond and L. F. Ross, ˜Lethal Language, Lethal
Decisions™ (2003) 33 Hastings Center Report 37“41
Kuhse, Helga and Peter Singer, Should the Baby Live? (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985)
Laurie, Graeme T., ˜In Defence of Ignorance: Genetic Information and the Right
not to Know™ (1999) 6 European Journal of Health Law 119“32
Bibliography 307

Law Commission, Report on Injuries to Unborn Children (1974, Law Com. No 60)
(Cmd. 5709)
Leading Article ˜Life and Law™ (2004) The Times, 8 October, p. 15
Lewis, Penney, ˜The Necessary Implications of Wrongful Life Claims: Lessons
from France™ (2005) 12 European Journal of Health Law 135“52
Lorber, J., ˜Ethical Problems in the Management of Myelomeningocele™ (1975)
10 Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 47“60
Lorber, J. and S. A. Salfield, ˜Results of Selective Treatment of Spina Bifida
Cystica™ (1981) 56 Archives of Disease in Childhood 822“30
McHaffie, Hazel et al., Crucial Decisions at the Beginning of Life (Oxford: Radcliffe
Medical Press, 2001)
McHaffie, Hazel E., Ian A. Laing, Michael Parker and John McMillan, ˜Deciding
for Imperilled Newborns: Medical Authority or Parental Autonomy?™ (2001)
27 Journal of Medical Ethics 104“9
Maclean, Alasdair, ˜Beyond Bolam and Bolitho™ (2002) 5 Medical Law
International 205“30
McLean, Sheila A. M., A Patient™s Right to Know: Information Disclosure, the Doctor
and the Law (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1989)
˜Abortion Law: Is Consensual Reform Possible?™ (1990) 17 Journal of Law and
Society 106“23
McLean, Sheila, Old Law, New Medicine (London: Pandora Press, 1999)
McLean, S. A. M. and J. K. Mason, Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003)
McLean, Sheila A. M. and J. Kenyon Mason, ˜Our Inheritance, Our Future:
Their Rights?™ (2005) 13 International Journal of Children™s Rights 255“72
Manninen, A. B., ˜A Case for Justified Non-voluntary Active Euthanasia:
Exploring the Ethics of the Groningen Protocol™ (2006) 32 Journal of
Medical Ethics 643“51
Marquis, Don, ˜Why Abortion is Immoral™ (1989) 86 Journal of Philosophy
˜Abortion and the Beginning and End of Human Life™ (2006) 34 Journal of Law
and Medical Ethics 16“25
Mason, J. K., ˜Master of the Balancers: Non-Voluntary Therapy under the
Mantle of Lord Donaldson™ [1993] Juridical Review 115“32
Medico-Legal Aspects of Reproduction and Parenthood (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2nd edn 1998)
˜A Lords™ Eye View of Fetal Status™ (1999) 3 Edinburgh Law Review 246“50
˜Unwanted Pregnancy: A Case of Retroversion?™ (2000) 4 Edinburgh Law
Review 191“206
˜Wrongful Pregnancy, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Terminology™ (2002) 6
Edinburgh Law Review 46“66
˜Wrongful life: The problem of causation™ (2004) 6 Medical Law International
˜A Turn-up Down Under: McFarlane in the Light of Cattanach™ (2004) 1
SCRIPT-ed, at http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-
˜From Dundee to Darlington: An End to the McFarlane Line?™ [2004] Juridical
Review 365“86
308 Bibliography

˜What™s in a Name? The Vagaries of Vo v France™ (2005) 17 Child and Family
Law Quarterly 97“112
˜Ethical Principles and Ethical Practice™ (2006) 1 Clinical Ethics 3“6
Mason, J. K. and G. T. Laurie, Mason and McCall Smith™s Law and Medical Ethics
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 7th edn 2005)
Mason, J. K. and R. A. McCall Smith, Law and Medical Ethics (Butterworths:
London, 1982)
Mason, J. K. and David W. Meyers, ˜Parental Choice and Selective Non-
treatment of Deformed Newborns: a View from mid-Atlantic™ (1986) 12
Journal of Medical Ethics 67“71
Mason, Kenyon and Douglas Brodie, ˜Bolam, Bolam . . . Wherefore Art Thou
Bolam?™ (2005) 9 Edinburgh Law Review 298“306
Meyers, David, ˜Chester v. Afshar: Sayonara, Sub Silentio, Sidaway?™ in Sheila
A. M. McLean (ed.), First Do No Harm (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), chapter 16
Meyers, David W., ˜Wyatt and Winston-Jones: Who Decides to Treat or Let Die
Seriously Ill Babies?™ (2005) 9 Edinburgh Law Review 307“16
Miola, Jose, ˜Autonomy Rued OK?™ (2006) 14 Medical Law Review 108“14
Morris, Anne and Severine Saintier, ˜To Be Or Not To Be: Is That The Question?
Wrongful Life and Misconceptions™ (2003) 11 Medical Law Review 167“93
Mueller, Robert F. and Ian D. Young, Emery™s Elements of Medical Genetics
(Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, 11th edn 2001)
Muramoto, Osamu, ˜Bioethical Aspects of the Recent Changes in the Policy
of Refusal of Blood by Jehovah™s Witnesses™ (2001) 322 British Medical
Journal 37“9
Norrie, Kenneth McK., ˜Damages for the Birth of a Child™ 1985 Scots Law
Times 69“74
Norrie, Kenneth, ˜Post-Coital anti-pregnancy techniques and the law™ in A. Allan
Templeton and Douglas Cusine (eds.), Reproductive Medicine and the Law
(Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1990), chapter 2
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues (1993)
Nys, H. F. L. and J. C. J. Dute, ˜A Wrongful Existence in the Netherlands™ (2004)
30 Journal of Medical Ethics 393“4
O™Donovan, Katherine, ˜The Medicalisation of Infanticide™ [1984] Criminal Law
Review 259“64
˜Taking a Neutral Stance on the Legal Protection of the Fetus™ (2006) 14
Medical Law Review 115“23
O™Donovan, Katherine and Roy Gilbar, ˜The Loved Ones: Families, Intimates
and Patient Autonomy™ (2003) 23 Legal Studies 332“58
O™Neill, Onora, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002)
Otlowski, Margaret, Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000)
Pace, P. J. ˜Civil Liability for Pre-natal Injury™ (1977) 40 Modern Law Review 141“58
Pancevski, Bojan, ˜Doctor Must Pay Child Support after Inadequate Warning of
Disability™ (2006) 333 British Medical Journal 168
Pedain, Antje, ˜Unconventional Justice in the House of Lords™ (2004) 63
Cambridge Law Journal 19“21
Bibliography 309

Perry, Michael J., Under God? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Pijnemborg, L., P. J. van der Maas, J. J. M. van Delden and C. W. M. Looman,
˜Life Terminating Acts without Explicit Request of Patient™ (1993) 341
Lancet 1196“9
Plomer, Aurora, ˜A Foetal Right to Life? The Case of Vo v France™ (2005) 5
Human Rights Law Review 311“36
Pradel, Jean, ˜Violences involontaires sur femme enceinte et delit d™homicide
involontaire™ (2004) 7/7148 Recueil Dalloz 449“50
Priaulx, Nicky, ˜Parental Disability and Wrongful Conception™ [2003] Family
Law 117“20
˜That™s One Heck of an ˜˜Unruly Horse™™! Riding Roughshod over Autonomy in
Wrongful Conception™ (2004) 12 Feminist Legal Studies 317“31
Priaulx, Nicolette M., ˜Damages for the ˜˜Unwanted™™ Child: Time for a Rethink?™
(2005) 73 Medico-Legal Journal 152“63
Radley-Gardner, Oliver, ˜Wrongful Birth Revisited™ (2002) 118 Law Quarterly
Review 11“15
Rogers, Lois, ˜Fifty Babies a Year are Alive after Abortion™ (2005) Sunday Times,
27 November
Rotkin, Jeffrey R. and Maxwell J. Mehlman, ˜Wrongful Birth: Medical, Legal and
Philosophical Issues™ (1994) 22 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 21“8
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Termination of Pregnancy for
Fetal Abnormality in England, Wales and Scotland (1996)
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, The Care of Women Requesting
Induced Abortion: Guideline (2000)
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Withholding or Withdrawing
Life Sustaining Treatment in Children: A Framework for Practice (2nd
edn 2004)
Rudman, Stanley, Concepts of Person and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997)
Russell, Eleanor J., ˜Is Parenthood an ˜˜Unblemished Blessing™™ in Every Case?™
1998 Scots Law Times 191“7
Sanger, Carol, ˜Regulating Teenage Abortion in the United States™ (2004) 18
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 305“18
Savulescu, J., ˜Abortion, Embryo Destruction and the Future of Value Argument™
(2002) 28 Journal of Medical Ethics 133“5
Schneiderman, L. J. and N. Jecker, ˜Futility in Practice™ (1993) 153 Archives of
Internal Medicine 437“41
Scott, Rosamund, ˜The English Fetus and the Right to Life™ (2004) 11 European
Journal of Health Law 347“64
Seneviratne, Mary, ˜Pre-natal Injury and Transferred Malice: The Invented
Other™ (1996) 59 Modern Law Review 884“92
Shapira, Amos, ˜ ˜˜Wrongful life™™ Lawsuits for Faulty Genetic Counselling:
Should the Impaired Newborn be Entitled to Sue?™ (1998) 24 Journal of
Medical Ethics 369“75
Sheldon, Sally and Stephen Wilkinson, ˜Termination of Pregnancy for Reasons of
Foetal Disability: Are There Grounds for a Special Exception in Law?™
(2001) 9 Medical Law Review 85“109
310 Bibliography

Sheldon, Tony, ˜Court awards Damages to Disabled Child for Having Been
Born™ (2003) 326 British Medical Journal 784
˜Dutch Supreme Court Backs Damages for Child for Having Been Born™
(2005) 330 British Medical Journal 747
˜The Netherlands Regulates Ending the Lives of Severely Ill Neonates™ (2005)
331 British Medical Journal 1357
˜Killing or Caring?™ (2005) 330 British Medical Journal 560
Singer, Peter, Rethinking Life and Death (New York: St. Martin™s Press, 1995)
Singer, S., ˜Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] 1 AC 309™
[2004] 26 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 403“15
Smith, J. C., D. Cranston, T. O™Brien et al., ˜Fatherhood without Apparent
Spermatozoa after Vasectomy™ (1994) 344 Lancet 30
Spriggs, M. and J. Savulescu, ˜The Perruche Judgment and the ˜˜Right Not to Be
Born™™™ (2002) 28 Journal of Medical Ethics 63“4
Steinbock, Bonnie, Life before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and
Fetuses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
Stewart, Angus, ˜Damages for the Birth of a Child™ (1995) 40 Journal of the Law
Society of Scotland 298“302
Stirrat, G. M. and R. Gill, ˜Autonomy in Medical Ethics after O™Neill™ (2005) 31
Journal of Medical Ethics 127“30
Strasser, Mark, ˜Yes, Virginia, There Can Be Wrongful Life: On Consistency,
Public Policy, and the Birth-Related Torts™ (2004) 4 Georgetown Journal of
Gender and Law 821“61
Stretton, Dean, ˜The Birth Torts: Damages for Wrongful Birth and Wrongful
Life™ (2005) 10 Deakin Law Review 310“64
Suter, Sonia Mateu, ˜The Routinization of Prenatal Testing™ (2002) 28 American
Journal of Law and Medicine 233“70
Teff, Harvey, ˜The Action for ˜˜Wrongful Life™™ in England and the United States™
(1985) 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 423“41
Temkin, Jennifer, ˜Pre-natal Injury, Homicide and the Draft Criminal Code™
(1986) 45 Cambridge Law Journal 414“29
Templeton, Sarah-Kate, ˜Doctors: Let Us Kill Disabled Babies™ (2006) Sunday
Times, 5 November, p. 1.1
Templeton, Sarah-Kate and Lois Rogers, ˜Babies that Live after Abortion Are
Left to Die™ (2004) The Sunday Times, 20 June, p. 1.3
Thomson, Joe, ˜Abandoning the Law of Delict?™ 2000 Scots Law Times 43“5
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, ˜A Defense of Abortion™ (1971) 1 Philosophy and Public
Affairs 47“66
Tingle, J. H., ˜Do Guidelines Have Legal Implications?™ (2002) 86 Archives of
Disease in Childhood 387“8
Todd, Stephen, ˜Wrongful Conception, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life™
(2005) 27 Sydney Law Review 525“42
Tooley, Michael, ˜In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide™ in J. Feinberg (ed.),
The Problem of Abortion (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1973), pp. 83“114
Abortion and Infanticide (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)
Treneman, A., ˜Sex and Relationships Muddy the Debate™ (2005) The Times,
20 July, p. 28
Bibliography 311

Trotzig, Marten A., ˜The Defective Child and the Actions for Wrongful Life and
Wrongful Birth™ (1980) 14 Family Law Quarterly 15“40
Tunkel, Victor, ˜Modern Anti-Pregnancy Techniques and the Criminal Law™
[1974] Criminal Law Review 461“71
Verhagen, Eduard and Pieter J. J. Sauer, ˜The Groningen Protocol “ Euthanasia
in Severely Ill Newborns™ (2005) 352 New England Journal of Medicine
Verkuyl, Douwe A. A., ˜Two World Religions and Family Planning™ (1993) 342
Lancet 473“5
Wald, N. J., H. C. Watt and A. K. Hackshaw, ˜Integrated Screening for Down™s
Syndrome on the Basis of Tests Performed During the first and Second
Trimesters™ (1999) 341 New England Journal of Medicine 461“7
Walker, C. H., ˜. . . Officiously to Keep Alive™ 63 Archives of Disease in Childhood
Warden, John, ˜Abortion and Conscience™ (1990) 301 British Medical
Journal 1013
Warnock, Dame Mary (Chairman), Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human
Fertilisation and Embryology (1984), Cmd. 9314
Watson, Penelope, ˜Wrongful Life Actions in Australia™ (2002) 26 Melbourne
University Law Review 736“49
Weir, Robert F., Selective Non-treatment of Handicapped Newborns (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1984)
Weir, Tony, ˜The Unwanted Child™ (2000) 59 Cambridge Law Journal
˜The Unwanted Child™ (2002) 6 Edinburgh Law Review 244“53
Wennberg, R. N., Life in the Balance (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans,
Whitelaw, Andrew, ˜Death as an Option in Neonatal Intensive Care™ (1986) 328
Lancet 328“31
Whitfield, Adrian, ˜Common Law Duties to Unborn Children™ (1993) 1 Medical
Law Review 28“52
Wicks, Elizabeth, Michael Wyldes and Mark Kilby, ˜Late Termination of
Pregnancy for Fetal Abnormality: Medical and Legal Perspectives™ (2004)
12 Medical Law Review 285“305
Wilkinson, D., ˜Is it in the Best Interests of an Intellectually Disabled Infant to
Die?™ (2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 454“9
Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (London: Stevens & Sons, 2nd edn
Woolley, S., ˜Children of Jehovah™s Witnesses and Adolescent Jehovah™s
Witnesses: What are their Rights?™ (2005) 90 Archives of Disease in
Childhood 715“19
Wyatt, John, ˜Medical Paternalism and the Fetus™ (2001) 27 Journal of Medical
Ethics suppl. II:ii15“ii20
Zucker, Marjorie B. and Howard D. Zucker (eds.), Medical Futility (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997)

abortion, 1, 14“52, 81, 196, 204, 207, 211, Baker J, Scott, 268
216, 238, 239, 261, 299 Balcombe LJ, 19, 50, 263“4, 269
ban, 30 benefits rule, 107
criminalisation, 22 Bingham, Lord, 77, 118, 167, 168, 169,
gradualist approach, 16“17 172, 173, 176“9, 180, 181,
late, 54“66 182, 185, 298
live birth, 54 birth
Muslim views, 78 live, definition, 20, see also viability
registered medical practitioners, 25, 27 unconvenanted, definition, 4
risk, to the mother, 28, 31 ˜birth actions™, in United States, 80
of fetal disability, 57 Black, Sir Douglas, 255
Roman Catholic views, 17“52 Blair, J., 118
serious handicap, 58 Bolam test, 9, 10“12, 13, 70, 75, 101,
three trimester rule, 19 283, 285, 294
under-age, 32“5 Brazier, Professor Margaret,
abortion laws, 25“32 27, 277
attack on, 26“7 Bridge, Lord, 69
˜bad faith™, 29 British Medical Association, 292
Channel Islands, 29 Brooke LJ, 21, 93, 105, 135, 147,
conscience clause, 29 148“9, 154, 155“6, 182,
in practice, 27“30 277, 279
Northern Ireland, 28 Brown J, Simon, 41
reform, 30“2 Brown P, Sir Stephen, 270, 281
abortionist, 15 Browne-Wilkinson, Lord, 11
abortus, living, 54 Butler-Sloss, Dame Elizabeth, 34, 83,
Ackner LJ, 206, 209, 212 111, 248, 249, 250, 265, 278,
adoption, 54, 108, 116, 117, 129, 140, 300 279, 282, 283
amniocentesis, 65, 77“8 Buxton LJ, 143, 144“5
anencephaly, 63, 260
ante-natal care California
principles of 66“79 action against parents, 195
counselling, 67“71 birth torts recognised, 5, 199
investigations, 63“6 Callinan, J, 134
Arthur, Dr., 254, 258, 295 Cameron, Lord, 124, 125, 137
Astill J, 184 Canada
Auld LJ, 94, 111 fetal/maternal unity, 44
Australia wrongful birth, 82
information disclosure, 69 wrongful life, 224“31
jurisprudence, 4, 167, 213 wrongful pregnancy, 107“8
wrongful birth, 82“3 Capron, Alexander, 6, 189
wrongful life, 213“24 Cazalet J, 271“2, 279
wrongful pregnancy, 108, 125“41, 297 Chadwick LJ, 184“5
Austria, wrongful life, 300 child, ˜conventional™, 123“4

Index 313

child, uncovenanted Connell J, 265
compensation for, 2“3, 84, 110, 143, consent, informed, 67, 76 see also
145, 149, 152“63, 298 information based negligence
in Australia, 128, 139, 140, 141 contraception, 1“2, 35“8
in Canada, 107 compensation, following failure, 2
in the United States, 107 displanting methods, 37“8
meaning, 4, 105 interceptive methods, 35“7
disabled child, 6, 7, 53, 126, 136“7, 145, contragestation, 22, 35
150“2, 188“90 et seq, 300 Cory J, 75
compensation for birth of, 3, 80, Council of Europe
84“99, 125, 298 protection of of fetus, 48
in the commonwealth, 82 Cox, Dr, 295
best interests, test of treatment, Crennan J, 220, 223, 224
246“50, 259“60, 262, 265, 268, Cullen LJ-C, Lord, 112
269, 274, 276“9, 280“1, 282,
287“9, 292, 293 damnum, 86, 113, 180“1
emotional distress, 81, 85, 92, 153 Deane J, 130
management delict, 87
medical futility, 244, 246, 251 diminished life, 237“9, 240
professional guidelines, 290“3 Diplock, Lord, 68
withdrawal of life support, 244, discrimination on the grounds of disability,
255, 284“6 56, 235
withholding and withdrawal of Dixon, Clare, 183
treatment, 245, 268, 284“6 doctors,
withholding nutrition, 254, 255 abortion, 25, 27, 28, 29“30, 31, 33, 53
substituted judgement, 248, 259, 293 conscience, 252, 260, 264, 281
child destruction, 20, 22 and abortion, 8“9
child murder, 242 and clinical judgment, 261
chorionic villus sampling, 65“6 see also, duty of care, information based
Clark J, 146“7, 148 negligence, medical negligence
Clarke JA, 199 Donaldson, Lord, 209, 245, 247, 250,
Clyde, Lord, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 124, 260, 262, 263, 266, 274, 277,
138, 145, 150, 151, 170 282, 283
Coleridge LCJ, Lord, 215 Down™s syndrome, 61“2, 63“5
communication-based negligence see cases involving, 72“3, 77, 80, 83, 192,
information based negligence 194, 203, 233, 253, 254, 300
compensation, 236 Dunn LJ, 67, 247, 253, 256, 258, 269
disabled child, 3, 80, 81, 82, 84“99, 150“63 duty of care, 9, 68“71, 103, 120, 133, 197,
and age of majority, 201, 240 209, 219, 220, 229“31
healthy child, 96“7, 105“49 to the abortus, 55
in the United States, 107 to the fetus, 79, 206“9, 218, 236
no-recovery school, 107, 132“4, to the mother, 54, 68“71, 79, 155,
139“40, 145, 163 207, 231
compensatory principle, 214“15 to the neonate, 229“31
human inviolability begins at, believers Eastham J, 101
of, 37 Elias CJ, 41
congenital disability, causes embryo in vitro, 17, 22
chromosomal, 61 Epstein J, 191, 226, 227
translocation defect, 61, 65, 73, 77, 88 Ethics
combined effects, 63 principlism, 12
environmental, 62 European Court of Human Rights, 31,
drugs, 62 48, 292
haemolytic disease, 62 euthanasia, neonatal, 242, 292“6
genetic, 196 Ewbank J, 253, 256
314 Index

Farquharson J, 254“5, 256, 257 Huntington™s disease, 60
fetal maternal relationship, 43“4 Hutchison J, 73, 75
fetal rights, 17 Hutton, Lord, 169, 171“2, 174, 175, 182
feticide, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 230 hydrocephalus, 266
fetus, 16“23
beginning of life, 45, 48 Iacobucci J, 75
French law, 48 implantation, 35
choice of abortion, 238 moral significance, 17
duty of care to, 79, 207“10, 218, 221, starting point of meaningful human
225“6, 236 life, 17
involuntary death of, 41“9 infanticide, 242
transferred malice, 43“4 information based negligence, 68“71, 196,
moral status, 17, 18, 30, 40, 43, 299“301 226 see also Bolam test
protection in Europe, 47 causation, 71“7
unintentional fetal homicide, 47, 48 duty of care, 68, 69
viability, 19“21, 22, 23, 40, 45, understanding, 78
46, 50 intolerability of continued life, 247, 269,
Fortin, Jane, 212 276“9, 296
France, wrongful life actions, 231, 232“4 inuria, 86, 113, 180
Fragile-X syndrome, 61 Ipp, JA, 214, 216, 224
Fraser, Lord, 34 Islam, and abortion, 35
IUD, 35, 37, 38
Gans J, 227
Garett J, 106 Jehovah™s Witnesses, 251
genetic disease, 59“61 Jennings J, 226, 227
history, 57 Jotkowitz, 295, 296
late-onset, 60 Judge LJ, 186“7
multifactoral type, 60 Jupp J, 89, 108“10, 117, 136
Gibson LJ, 104
Gill, Lord, 112 Kennedy J, 105, 142“3
˜Gillick-competent™ child, 33“4 Kennedy, LJ, 184, 185
Gillon, 246 Kerr LJ, 94, 102, 110
Gleeson CJ, 128“9 Kirby, 7, 43, 83, 86, 123, 135“7, 140“1,
Goff, Lord, 285 162, 220“2, 223
Griffiths LJ, 206, 209, 222, 238 Kleinfelter™s syndrome, 58, 61
Groningen Protocol, 293“5
Gudron J, 70 Lakin CJ, 72
Gummow, J, 132“4, 140, 162 Lambert, JA, 74
Laws LJ, 94, 144
Hale LJ, 98, 137, 138, 139, 147, 149, Lawson J, 206, 237
156“61, 162, 164“5, 166, 170, Lax J, 134, 219, 224
175, 179, 241, 264 Leggatt LJ, 263
Hayne J, 129“30 Levenson J, 93, 94
Henriques J, 80, 92, 95, 124, 162 Longmore, J, 151, 156
Heydon, 130“2 Lorber, John, 244
Hedley J, 252, 260“1, 273“5, 278, Lowry, Lord, 285
280“1, 282
Hoffmann LJ, 273, 274 MacFadyen, Lord, 88
Hollinrake JA, 74 Marnoch, Lord, 89
Holman J, 277, 278, 279, 284, 285“9 Mason P, 214, 216“18, 219, 220
Holmes J, 127, 156 maternal serum tests, 64
Hope, Lord, 76, 116, 117, 120, 122, 138, McCluskey, Lord, 31, 113, 123, 158
151, 155, 171, 172, 174“5, 178, McHugh J, 132“4, 140
180, 181, 182 McKenzie, J, 247
Hoyana, Laura, 114, 119, 124, 165 McLachlin J, 75
Index 315

Maclean, Alasdair, 71 Pain J, Peter, 2, 102, 105, 109
McLean, Professor Sheila, 18, 26 Park J, 115, 142
medical negligence, 9“13 et seq, 83, 218, partial birth, 23
232, 235 see also information patients
based negligence autonomy, 24, 71, 79, 86, 140
and abortion, 38“40, 229 breach of, 77, 86, 100, 157, 179, 241
causation, 12“13, 74, 76“77, 148, 197, 225 and choice, 12, 179
communication, 12, 68, 104 decision, 12
duty of care, 9, 68“71, 103, 124“5, 196, 236 ˜reasonable™, 69, 73“5, 77
immunity, 132“3, 136, 221, 285 Pearson J, 239
general standard of care, 10“12 personhood, 243
legal, 10 Pollock J, 221
professional, 10 pre-conception tort, 196“9, 224
proximity, 147“9, 183 causation, 197
Millett, Lord, 116, 117, 120“1, 122, 138, pregnancy
144, 151“2, 168, 169, 170, 172, uncovenanted, 4, 84, 105, 160
174, 178, 179 unwanted, 1, 2“3, 4, 132
minors Priaulx, Nicolette, 177, 179, 180, 309
and abortion, 32 Priestly JA, 116
consent to treatment, 32 privacy, women™s right to, 18, 20
medical confidentiality, 32 Prosser, Lord, 89
protection of, 262 Purchas LJ, 102, 111
miscarriage, 15, 36, 65, 78
Morison, Lord, 89, 98“9 Queensland, 127, 141, 297
Morland J, 78
morning after pill, 35 reasonable woman, 73“5
Morris, Anne, 233, 234, 239 risk
mothers abortion laws, 25“32
disabled, 163“6 and tort law, 154
status of, 24 Roman Catholicism, 17“52, 246
Munby J, 36, 37 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child
muscular dystrophy, 87 Health, 290“1
Mustill, Lord, 43, 245, 299 Rubella (German measles), 62, 213“16
cases, 91“3, 202, 205“10, 213“16, 232“4
negligent injury, 189 Ryan J, 197
neonaticide, 57, 242, 295
Netherlands, 236, 293“5 Saintier, Severine, 234, 235, 239
neural tube defects, 62, 64“65, 260 sanctity of life, 140, 204, 242“4, 245, 263,
cases, 54, 96“7 289, 292
New South Wales, 86, 117, 125, 127, 141, Scarman, Lord, 29, 34, 101
213, 216, 222, 297 Schneiderman, L.J., 246
New Zealand, 118, 213, 289 Scotland, 22, 84, 113, 204, 212, 235
Newman J, 80, 90“1, 95, 115, 120, 124 Scott, Lord, 169, 174, 178, 180, 182
Nicholl J, 152 Sharpe J, 227
Nicholls Lord, 73, 169, 174, 176, 177, 178 Silber J, 34
Nimmo Smith, Lord, 87“8, 89 Simon J, 78
non-treatment decisions, 251, 255 see also Singer, S., 119, 121, 180
child disabled, withdrawal and Skipp J, 228, 229“31
withholding treatement Slade LJ, 102, 110
Northern Ireland, 28 Slynn, Lord, 113, 118, 119“20, 122, 123,
Nourse LJ, 102 138, 150, 151, 155, 181
Smith LJ, Stuart, 72, 101
O™Connor, Justice, 20 social security
Ognall J, 111 France, 233“4
Oliver, Lord, 125 Sopinka J, 75
316 Index

South Australia, 141 United States
South Dakota ˜partial birth™ terminations, 23
abortion in, 30, 37 privacy, 35
Spigelman CJ, 44, 215“16, 223 substituted judgement, 248
spina bifida, 64, 160, 244, 294 wrongful birth, 80“2
spinal muscular atrophy, cases, 263, 284 wrongful pregnancy, 106“7
standard of care recovery following, 107, 137
professional, 69“70, 77
reasonable patient, 69, 73“5, 77 varicella (chicken-pox), 62
in the USA, 69 vasectomy, 100“1, 102
subjective standard, 69 cases, 103, 106, 112“13, 125
Stephenson LJ, 205, 206“9, 210, 212, ventilation, artificial, 268, 270, 273, 281,
218“19, 237 282“3, 284, 285, 288
sterilisation vitalism (absolutism), 243, 247,
already pregnant, 104, 143 268“9, 273
breach of duty, 104“5
duty of care to partner, 103“4 Waite J, 262, 264
natural failure, 100, see also tubal Walker LJ, Robert, 137, 158, 164, 166,
occlusion and vasectomy 170, 171
negligent, 100“5 Waller LJ, 110, 154, 161, 162, 163, 166,
non-voluntary, 100 171, 174, 182
voluntary, 100 Ward J, 267
reversibility, 101“2 Warnock Committee, 17
Steyn, Lord, 67, 76, 115, 116, 117, 118, Weir, Tony, 141, 231
121, 122, 125, 138, 145, 150, 151, Williams, Glanville, 56
167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, women™s rights, 50
178, 179, 182 medicalisation of, 29
Strasser, Mark, 5 Wood JA, 74
Stretton, Dean, 130, 216 Woods J, 198, 200
Substituted judgement test, see disabled Woolf, Lord, 70, 71
child Wright J, 37
syphilis, cases, 198 wrongful birth, 4, 6“7, 122, 172, 216
Australia, 69, 82“3
Tasker, Robert C., 244 Canada, 82
Tay-Sachs disease causation, 71
cases, 82, 194 compensation, 84“97
Taylor LJ, 269, 270, 274, 276 Europe, 233, 234
Templeman LJ, 188, 209, 228, 247, 257“8, lack of conceptual difference
269, 276 between wrongful, birth, life,
thalidomide, 210 pregnancy, 96, 133, 217“18,
Thomas J, Swinton, 91 219, 239
Thorpe LJ, 246, 248, 250, 279, 282, 287 negligence, headings, 85
Toulson J, 86, 91, 96“7, 98, 115, normal neonate, 86
124, 125 UK, 75, 83“97
tubal ligation and occlusion, 101 USA, 107, 199
cases, 103, 125, 126“37, 153, 164 wrongful conception, 6, 115, 145
Twaddle JA, 225 wrongful life, 5, 7“8, 121, 189, see also
preconception tort
ultrasonography, 64 abortion, effect on, 211
United Kingdom Australasia, 213“24
attitudes to abortion, 14, 18 Canada, 224“31
˜Bolam™ test, 70 causation, 207, 217, 221, 225, 227“8,
child murder, 242 231, 235, 236“7, 238
wrongful life, 204“13, 224 compensation, 192“5, 201“2, 235, 236
wrongful pregnancy, 108“25 beyond age of majority, 201, 240
Index 317

lack of conceptual difference between disabled mother, 163“6
wrongful, birth, life, pregnancy, duty of care, 113, 172
210, 217“18, 219, 298 history of
public policy, 209 in the UK, 108“25
refusal of, 216 in the US, 106“7
United Kingdom, 199, 204“13 injury to the mother, 113
United States, 191“204 invasion of autonomy, 156, 179“80,
acceptance, 194“6 180“1, 185
wrongful pregnancy, 4, 6, 172, 301 lack of conceptual difference between
and abortion, 109, 116, 117“19, wrongful birth, life, pregnancy, 96,
142“143, 157, 300 217“18, 219
and adoption, 116, 117“19, 127, 300 legal policy, 135, 179
Australia, 125“41 liability, 105, 119, 138, 150, 159“61,
benefits rule, 107 172, 183
rejection, 123, 137 mother™s claim, 103, 105, 112, 114, 143,
Canada, 106, 107“8 177
costs of maintaining a child, 139, 164, New Zealand case, 116, 118
175, 183 novus actus interveniens, 110, 115“17, 160
disabled child, 145, 147, 150“2, 158 public policy, 109, 110, 117“19, 129,
healthy child, 2, 114, 118 130, 134, 136, 140
˜conventional award™, 177, 183
˜deemed equilibrium™, 158, 165 Zuber J, 82


. 12
( 12)