Related Experiment Videos
What is wrong with 'wrongful life' cases?
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|May 1, 1985
Summary
Wrongful life lawsuits, where plaintiffs claim they
Area of Science:
- Legal Philosophy and Medical Malpractice
- Ethics in Healthcare and Tort Law
Background:
- Explores the complex philosophical and legal dimensions of 'wrongful life' torts.
- Focuses on cases where plaintiffs, typically infants, allege negligence led to their birth with severe defects.
Purpose of the Study:
- To address and rebut common arguments against the validity of wrongful life claims.
- To propose a framework for assessing damages in wrongful life litigation.
Main Methods:
- Philosophical analysis of arguments concerning the coherence of 'better off not existing' claims.
- Development of a procedural approach for quantifying damages in wrongful life cases.
Main Results:
- Rebuttal of arguments suggesting wrongful life claims are inherently senseless or unassessable.
- Introduction of a novel procedure for determining damages, addressing the unique challenges of these cases.
Conclusions:
- Wrongful life claims, despite philosophical objections, are legally and ethically cognizable.
- A structured approach to damage assessment can overcome the perceived impossibility of evaluating harm in wrongful life suits.