Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

"Wrongful life" claims.

¹MDA National. sbird@mdanational.com.au

Australian Family Physician

|August 9, 2006

Summary

Australian courts rejected "wrongful life" claims, including a case of alleged medical negligence in diagnosing prenatal rubella. This decision impacts legal recourse for patients alleging harm from birth.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

The pitfalls of prescribing for family and friends.

Australian prescriber·2016

Same author

Patients' use of social media: e-rating of doctors.

Australian family physician·2015

Same author

How to write a medico-legal report.

Australian family physician·2014

Same author

Advance care planning.

Australian family physician·2014

Same author

Genetic testing: medico-legal issues.

Australian family physician·2014

Same author

Mohammed's case.

Australian family physician·2014

Area of Science:

Medical Law
Public Health
Genetics

Background:

Discusses the legal and ethical considerations surrounding "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claims.
Examines a specific Australian High Court case from 2006 involving alleged medical negligence.
Highlights the complexities of proving harm in cases of prenatal conditions.

Observation:

The High Court of Australia dismissed "wrongful life" claims for two patients.
One case involved a general practitioner's alleged failure to diagnose prenatal rubella.
The practitioner also allegedly failed to inform the mother of risks to the fetus.

Findings:

The court's decision denied compensation in these specific "wrongful life" cases.
This ruling sets a precedent for similar medical negligence claims in Australia.
The article analyzes the legal basis for "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claims.

Implications:

Impacts the legal landscape for medical malpractice and birth-related injury claims.
Raises questions about parental rights and responsibilities in prenatal care.
May influence future medical practice regarding the diagnosis and communication of prenatal risks.

Related Experiment Videos