Case Title: Hester v. Dwivedi

Citation: 2000-Ohio-230

Docket Number: 19990683

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575, 2000-Ohio-230.] 
 
 
 
 
 
HESTER, NATURAL FATHER & NEXT FRIEND OF HESTER, A MINOR, APPELLANT, v. 
DWIVEDI ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Hester v. Dwivedi (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 575.] 
Torts — Negligence — Child born with physical or other handicaps does not state a 
cause of action in medical negligence based upon the failure of a doctor to 
inform the child’s mother during pregnancy of test results indicating a 
possibility that the child would be born with defects. 
A child born with physical or other handicaps does not state a cause of action in 
medical negligence based upon the failure of a doctor to inform the child’s 
mother during her pregnancy of test results indicating a possibility that the 
child would be born with defects, thereby depriving the mother of the 
opportunity to make a fully informed decision as to whether to obtain a legal 
abortion. 
(No. 99-683 — Submitted January 26, 2000 — Decided September 6, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-970723. 
 
Lawrence and Patricia Hester initiated this action by filing a complaint 
asserting medical negligence claims against various defendants, including appellees 
Leela Dwivedi, M.D., Luis R. Saldana, M.D., and Dwivedi & Dwivedi, M.D., Inc.  
The Hesters alleged that the defendants did not adhere to required standards of care 
 
 
2
during Patricia’s pregnancy prior to the birth in 1993 of their daughter, Alicia Hester.  
Lawrence also asserted claims on behalf of Alicia in his capacity as her natural father 
and next friend, and this appeal concerns only those claims. 
 
As is relevant herein, the Hesters alleged that Patricia employed Drs. Dwivedi 
and Saldana to provide her with prenatal care.  The Hesters claimed that Patricia 
underwent multiple prenatal tests, including ultrasound, alpha-fetoprotein (“AFP”) 
blood testing, and amniocentesis in the course of her pregnancy.  The Hesters 
claimed that appellees breached the required standard of care in negligently 
informing, or failing to inform, them of the prenatal testing results.  They further 
alleged that the test results showed positive indicators of birth defects in the fetus 
Patricia was carrying, and that their daughter, Alicia, was, in fact, born with spina 
bifida and other complications.  The Hesters further asserted that Alicia will incur 
medical expenses, wage loss, impairment of earning capacity, and pain and suffering 
as an adult in the future as the direct and proximate result of the defendants’ 
negligence. 
 
Ultimately, appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 
12(C).  Appellees argued that, under Ohio law, Alicia Hester had no right to recover 
damages associated with her genetic abnormalities, in that Ohio does not recognize a 
claim for “wrongful life.”  Quoting Azzolino v. Dingfelder (1985), 315 N.C. 103, 107, 
337 S.E.2d 528, 531, they characterized a wrongful life claim as a “claim for relief by 
 
 
3
or on behalf of a defective child who alleges that but for the defendant’s negligent 
treatment or advice to its parents, the child would not have been born.” 
 
Appellees further moved for judgment on the pleadings in their favor as to the 
claims of Alicia’s parents. 
 
The trial court granted the appellees’ motions for judgment on the pleadings as 
to the claims of the minor, Alicia, but denied their motions as to the claims of 
Lawrence and Patricia Hester.  The trial court found no just reason for delay of 
appeal of that ruling. 
 
Accordingly, in his capacity as natural father and next friend of Alicia Hester, 
Lawrence Hester appealed the trial court’s order entering judgment in favor of the 
appellees as to his daughter’s claims against them. The court of appeals affirmed. 
 
The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Santen & Hughes and John D. Holschuh, Jr.; Gehrig, Gelwicks & Eynon 
and Thomas A. Gelwicks, for appellant. 
 
Roetzel & Andress, Ann Ruley Combs and Karen A. Caroll, for appellee 
Leela Dwivedi, M.D. 
 
Lindhorst & Dreidame and Michael F. Lyon, for appellee Luis Saldana, 
M.D. 
 
 
4
 
Mark Stephen Lally, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Right to Life 
Society, Inc. 
 
Lancione & Lancione, P.L.L., and John A. Lancione, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether Alicia’s 
wrongful life claims are sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment on the 
pleadings filed pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C).  We hold that they are not. 
 
Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), Alicia is entitled to have all the material allegations 
in her complaint, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, construed in 
her favor as true.  Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166, 63 
O.O.2d 262, 264, 297 N.E.2d 113, 117, citing 2A Moore’s Federal Practice (1965) 
2342, Paragraph 12.15; 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (1969), 
Section 1368.  Moreover, although significant discovery had taken place prior to the 
time appellees filed their Civ.R. 12(C) motions, the trial court could not properly 
consider any evidentiary material tending to disprove the complaint’s allegations in 
deciding the motions.  Rather, entry of judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) is only 
appropriate “where a court (1) construes the material allegations in the complaint, 
with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving 
party as true, and (2) finds beyond doubt, that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts 
 
 
5
in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” State ex rel. Midwest Pride 
IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931, 936. 
 
In her complaint, Alicia alleges that appellees Drs. Dwivedi and Suldana 
received test results while her mother was pregnant that indicated a possibility that 
the fetus she was carrying was not developing normally, so that, if the pregnancy 
continued, the child (Alicia) would be born with congenital abnormalities.  Alicia 
asserts that, because the pregnancy was not terminated, she was in fact born, and 
born with severe physical and neurological deficits.  She claims that she will be 
“forced to incur extraordinary medical and educational expenses throughout the 
course of her life,” for which the appellees should be held liable.  She suggests that 
her mother would have terminated the pregnancy had her parents been advised of the 
test results, so that she, Alicia, would not have been born and would never incur 
extraordinary medical and other costs.  These allegations are either alleged in the 
complaint or are reasonable inferences from it.  We accept them as true for purposes 
of reviewing appellees’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. 
 
This court has previously disposed of cases bearing factual similarities to the 
one at bar.  While these types of cases are commonly labeled “wrongful life,” 
“wrongful pregnancy,” “wrongful birth,” or “wrongful living” actions, they are not 
governed by statutory law as are wrongful death actions.  They remain, at their core, 
 
 
6
medical negligence actions, and are determined by application of common-law tort 
principles. 
 
As have other courts and commentators, we recognize that overreliance on 
terms such as “wrongful life” or “wrongful birth” creates the risk of confusion in 
applying principles of tort law to actual cases, and may compound or complicate 
resolution of the case.  See Greco v. United States (1995), 111 Nev. 405, 409, 893 
P.2d 345, 348, fn. 5, citing Capron, Tort Liability in Genetic Counseling (1979), 79 
Col.L.Rev. 618, 634, fn. 62.  Designating cases in this manner does serve a purpose 
in providing a shorthand description of the kinds of facts asserted by the plaintiffs.  
Nevertheless, determining that the instant case presents a “wrongful life” claim does 
not confer a special legal status on it, nor change the traditional legal analysis used to 
determine its merits. 
 
Rather, such cases are properly decided by applying the same legal analysis 
employed in any medical negligence claim.  As in negligence claims in general, 
liability based on the alleged negligence of a professional requires proof of the 
following elements: duty running from the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of duty 
by that defendant, damages suffered by the plaintiff, and a proximate cause 
relationship between the breach of duty and the damages. 
 
In Bowman v. Davis (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 41, 2 O.O.3d 133, 356 N.E.2d 496, 
we first recognized a right for parents to recover where medical negligence resulted 
 
 
7
in the birth of children.  Our holding was confined to a determination that public 
policy did not preclude parents from bringing an action in tort against medical 
providers following a negligently performed and unsuccessful sterilization procedure.  
Such an action is generally characterized as presenting a “wrongful pregnancy” 
claim. 
 
Similarly, in Johnson v. Univ. Hosp. of Cleveland (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 49, 
540 N.E.2d 1370, the plaintiff, a mother, alleged that her doctors negligently 
performed a tubal ligation, which she had undergone in order to avoid future 
pregnancies.  When she nevertheless became pregnant and delivered a healthy baby 
girl, she sought damages for pain and suffering arising out of the pregnancy and 
birth, for injury to her person caused by the increased care, responsibility, and work 
involved in raising the child, and for the expenses of raising the child. 
 
In Johnson we held that Ohio does not allow the award of damages for child-
rearing expenses in a wrongful pregnancy action brought by parents. “[I]n a 
‘wrongful pregnancy’ action, Ohio recognizes the ‘limited damages’ rule which 
limits the damages to the pregnancy itself and does not include child-rearing 
expenses.  The extent of recoverable damages is limited by Ohio’s public policy that 
the birth of a normal, healthy child cannot be an injury to her parents.”  Id. at 
paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
 
8
 
Today we are presented with an action presenting the legal issue of whether an 
individual who was not born as a normal, healthy child, but rather as a child with 
birth defects, has herself suffered legally compensable injury in that she was born 
rather than aborted.  In short, we are asked to hold that such a child may recover 
damages for the “injury” of having been born. 
 
In both Bowman and Johnson, the plaintiffs were parents seeking damages 
after failed sterilizations.  In neither case did the children who were born in spite of 
the failed sterilization procedures make claims themselves.  In Bowman we did, 
however, distinguish between wrongful pregnancy cases, brought by parents, and 
wrongful life cases, brought by children.  We noted that “[b]ecause [wrongful life] 
claims force courts to weigh the value of being versus nonbeing, courts have been 
reluctant to recognize this cause of action.”  Bowman, 48 Ohio St.2d at 45, 2 O.O.3d 
at 135, 356 N.E.2d at 499, fn. 3. 
 
In 1993 the Court of Appeals for Washington County affirmed judgment on 
the pleadings against a minor child born with spina bifida who asserted a wrongful 
life claim similar to Alicia’s.  After considering existing Ohio precedent, the court 
determined that it was “not prepared to say that life, even with severe disabilities, 
constitutes an actionable injury.”  Flanagan v. Williams (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 768, 
776, 623 N.E.2d 185, 191.  As a result, the child’s claim failed, under traditional 
negligence analysis, for failure to allege legally cognizable damages. 
 
 
9
 
More recently, in Anderson v. St. Francis-St. George Hosp., Inc. (1996), 77 
Ohio St.3d 82, 671 N.E.2d 225, we considered a medical negligence case 
characterized as a “wrongful living” case.  In Anderson, an elderly patient was 
resuscitated by a hospital nurse during a ventricular tachycardia event.  The nurse 
defibrillated the patient, despite his having previously directed his physicians not to 
perform extraordinary efforts to preserve his life, and the resultant entry of “No Code 
Blue” instructions on his chart.  After his revival, the patient suffered a stroke, 
rendering him partially paralyzed until his death nearly a year later.  We held that the 
medical professionals sued by the patient’s administrator were entitled to summary 
judgment. 
 
In Anderson we recognized that a medical professional has a legal duty to 
respect the expressed wishes of a patient to refuse unwanted medical treatment.  We 
also accepted, for purposes of our review of a summary judgment, that Anderson had 
demonstrated a genuine issue as to whether the medical defendants had breached that 
duty.  However, Anderson’s claim failed for lack of demonstrating a genuine issue as 
to the remaining negligence components: damages and causation. 
 
The crux of Anderson’s claim was the assertion that patient Wilson had 
suffered injury in that the length of his life had been prolonged against his will as a 
result of a breach of professional duty.  We held that the law does not sanction an 
award of damages based on the relative merits of “ ‘being versus nonbeing.’ ”  
 
 
10
Anderson at 85, 671 N.E.2d at 228, quoting Bowman, 48 Ohio St.2d at 45, 2 O.O.3d 
at 135, 356 N.E.2d at 499, fn. 3.  We cited with favor the opinions of other courts that 
human life cannot be a compensable harm, as the benefits of life should not be 
outweighed by the expense of supporting it; that courts are not equipped to assume 
the tasks of comparing the value of life in an impaired state and nonexistence; and 
that life, however impaired and regardless of any attendant expenses, cannot 
rationally be said to be a detriment when compared to the alternative of nonexistence. 
Id., citing Cockrum v. Baumgartner (1983), 95 Ill.2d 193, 201, 69 Ill.Dec. 168, 172, 
447 N.E.2d 385, 389; Becker v. Schwartz (1978), 46  N.Y.2d 401, 412, 413 N.Y.S.2d 
895, 900, 386 N.E.2d 807, 812; Lininger v. Eisenbaum (Colo.1988), 764 P.2d 1202, 
1212.  In short, we recognized that the status of being alive simply does not constitute 
an injury.  That holding was in full accord with our precedent in Bowman and 
Johnson. 
 
In reaching this conclusion we recognized that the American civil justice 
system imposes outer bounds of causation, even where an event certainly would not 
have happened but for another’s breach of a required standard of care.  Accordingly, 
in Johnson we quoted Prosser & Keeton, as follows: 
 
“ ‘ “Proximate cause” ’—in itself an unfortunate term—is merely the 
limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor’s responsibility for the 
consequences of the actor’s conduct. In a philosophical sense, the consequences of an 
 
 
11
act go forward to eternity, and the causes of an event go back to the dawn of human 
events, and beyond.  But any attempt to impose responsibility upon such a basis 
would result in infinite liability for all wrongful acts, and would “set society on edge 
and fill the courts with endless litigation.”  As a practical matter, legal responsibility 
must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of 
such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Some boundary must 
be set to liability for the consequences of any act, upon the basis of some social idea 
of justice or policy. 
 
“ ‘This limitation is to some extent associated with the nature and degree of the 
connection in fact between the defendant’s acts and the events of which the plaintiff 
complains.  Often to greater extent, however, the legal limitation on the scope of 
liability is associated with policy—with our more or less inadequately expressed 
ideas of what justice demands * * *.’  (Footnote omitted.)  Prosser & Keeton, Law of 
Torts (5 Ed.1984) 264, Section 41.”  Johnson, 44 Ohio St.3d at 57, 540 N.E.2d at 
1377. 
 
In view of this precedent, we consider whether Alicia Hester could prove any 
set of facts justifying her recovery of damages based on the conduct of the appellee 
doctors.  We find that she could not.  As in Anderson, Alicia’s claims fail for lack of 
asserting facts demonstrating the negligence elements of damages and causation. 
 
 
12
 
We initially observe that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have considered 
wrongful life claims similar to Alicia’s have refused to recognize them.  See, 
generally, Siemieniec v.  Lutheran Gen. Hosp. (1987), 117 Ill.2d 230, 238-253, 111 
Ill.Dec. 302, 307-314, 512 N.E.2d 691, 696-703.  See, also, Williams v. Univ. of 
Chicago Hosp. (1997), 179 Ill.2d 80, 85, 227 Ill.Dec. 793, 796, 688 N.E.2d 130, 133, 
where the Supreme Court of Illinois characterized judicial rejection of wrongful life 
claims brought by children as “nearly universal.” 
 
It is undisputed that Alicia’s spina bifida condition commenced at or near the 
time of conception, and that appellees neither caused that condition itself, nor could 
they have treated either Patricia or Alicia so as to allow Alicia to be born without 
spina bifida. Thus, the only injury causally related to the appellees’ breach of duty 
was the deprivation of the chance to make a fully informed decision whether to 
continue the pregnancy.  That decision, legally, belonged to Patricia Hester. Roe v. 
Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147.  Had she been given the 
information at issue she would have had two options: continue the pregnancy or abort 
the pregnancy. 
 
It is implicit in Alicia’s argument that appellees should be held liable to her 
mother Patricia, based on breach of the duty to convey the negative test results to 
Patricia and that Alicia herself was injured by that breach.  Because the Hesters assert 
that Patricia would have opted for abortion, adoption of the proposition that Alicia 
 
 
13
was thus injured would necessitate our acceptance of the proposition that abortion, 
therefore nonexistence, would have been better for Alicia than life accompanied by 
physical and/or mental deficiencies.  We would, in effect, be making a judicial 
determination that the trial court is able to adjudicate that it would have been better 
for Alicia had she not been born.  The issue is compounded by the fact that it is not 
Alicia herself who asserts that she would have preferred not to have been given life, 
but her father, whom the law permitted to speak for her. 
 
The proposition that it would have been better for Alicia to have not been 
given life is inconsistent with our recognition of the value of life, as reflected in the 
holding in Anderson and other precedent. It also would place the court in the position 
of comparing the value of being, albeit with handicaps, versus nonbeing. 
 
We remain committed to the proposition, as recognized in Bowman, that such 
weighing falls within the ambit of moral, philosophical, and religious considerations 
rather than judicial.  Judges and jurors are no more able to judge the value of a life 
with disabilities versus nonbeing than they are able to judge the value of life in a 
“normal” condition (however that might be defined) versus nonbeing.  We therefore 
reject the Hesters’ suggestion that Alicia suffered damage based on the fact of her 
being born rather than aborted. 
 
Similarly, Alicia’s claim fails for lack of demonstrating the negligence element 
of causation.  Had Patricia been told that her fetus might be born with spina bifida, 
 
 
14
she would, under current law, have been legally entitled to an abortion.  Abortion 
would, of course, have relieved the Hesters from the joys and benefits of parenthood, 
as well as the financial obligations associated with parenthood.  If appellees failed to 
provide Patricia with the disconcerting test results, as alleged in the complaint, 
Patricia can claim to be injured in that she was deprived of the choice to avoid those 
expenses by terminating the pregnancy.  But that issue is not presented in this appeal. 
 
Moreover, no person has control over the occurrence or nonoccurrence of his 
or her own birth.  In contrast to a pregnant woman who is unwilling or unable to 
undertake the burdens, both financial and nonfinancial, associated with the care of an 
impaired child, and therefore decides to terminate her pregnancy, the child herself 
does not have an option to decide whether or not it will be born.  He or she is no 
worse off as a result of a medical provider’s breach of duty to her mother than if the 
test results had been conveyed, yet the mother decided to continue the pregnancy.  As 
cogently summarized in Schloss v. Miriam Hosp. (Jan. 11, 1999), R.I.Super. No. 
C.A. 98-2076, unreported, 1999 WL 41875, “The child’s claim for damages, 
characterized as a wrongful life claim, has a different frame of reference from his 
parents’ claim.  Assuming that the defendants were negligent in failing to diagnose 
the genetic risk to which he was exposed, the only way in which his injury could 
have been prevented would have been a timely abortion decision by his female 
parent.  But the choice whether or not to conceive him, and to carry him as a fetus to 
 
 
15
his birth, was never his.  He would have had no claim against anyone, if his parents 
had knowingly decided to allow him to be born in spite of a genetic certainty that he 
would be afflicted with his dreadful disease.” 
 
In short, the injury allegedly suffered by Patricia (deprivation of opportunity to 
make an informed choice to terminate a pregnancy) is conceptually different from the 
injury that Alicia asserts (her birth with defects).  Liability in negligence is dependent 
upon the existence of a proximate cause relationship between breach of duty and 
injury suffered. Alicia argues, in effect, that appellees’ breach of duty caused her 
birth with defects.  But a “birth with defects” is composed of two separate 
components: birth and defects.  We accept as a reasonable inference from the 
complaint Patricia’s assertion that she would have aborted had she been provided the 
test results, and we thus further accept the premise, on this review of a motion for 
judgment on the pleadings, that appellees’ breach caused Alicia to be born.  
However, that breach did not, in any way, cause Alicia’s medical handicaps. 
 
The law of negligence does not hold a defendant liable for damages that the 
defendant did not cause.  The Hesters concede that Alicia’s spina bifida was not 
caused by anything the appellees did.  It is certainly true that Alicia would never 
incur extraordinary living expenses had Patricia undergone an abortion, as Alicia 
would never have existed as a living being.  But we find, consistent with Johnson and 
Anderson, and as described by Prosser, supra, that the fact that Alicia is handicapped 
 
 
16
is not so closely connected with the appellees’ breach of duty as to justify imposition 
of liability on these appellees. 
 
It is an unfortunate fact that Alicia was born with spina bifida.  Medical 
science could not have changed this fact.  She would either be born with that 
condition or not born at all.  The crux of her complaint as asserted by her father is 
that she was born at all. That being the case, Alicia could recover, if at all, based only 
on the fact that she is now alive, albeit with spina bifida.  The common law of Ohio, 
as in the vast majority of American jurisdictions, does not authorize such a recovery. 
 
Accordingly, we hold that a child born with physical or other handicaps does 
not state a cause of action in medical negligence based upon the failure of a doctor to 
inform the child’s mother during her pregnancy of test results indicating a possibility 
that the child would be born with defects, thereby depriving the mother of the 
opportunity to make a fully informed decision as to whether to obtain a legal 
abortion. 
 
The trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of 
appellees, and, accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
 
 
17
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  This case challenges the ability of the legal system 
to handle a series of difficult moral, ethical, and legal questions.  Our existing 
jurisprudence does not offer adequate answers.  But it is the very nature of the 
common law that it develop, and that it build bridges between resolved areas of the 
law and new areas of concern that arise out of social shifts or advances in science 
and technology. 
 
This is a complicated case, but at the same time is not complicated enough.  
The issues it raises should not be dealt with in the abstract.  The development of 
the facts here is not equal to the task of dealing with a case of this magnitude.  
Alicia’s claim deserves a trial, so that the parties can develop a factual record for 
us to examine and extrapolate from. We ought to accumulate all the resources we 
have at our disposal to resolve this issue.  We diminish the jurisprudence of this 
state to do otherwise. 
 
New legal theories should be tested, but not in a vacuum.  This is a 
responsibly pled case, and Alicia’s claim is closely tied to those of her parents, 
claims that no one seems to argue are invalid.  Alicia’s and her parents’ claims 
should be tried together.  In an area of law where closely related claims are 
allowed, we should see how a case like this might play out, and how the claims 
might fit together in order to avoid wholly inadequate or inappropriate 
 
 
18
compensation.  If the claims are tried together, a jury can sort them out and give a 
reviewing court a better ability to determine what claims should and should not be 
recognized. 
 
It is the natural progression of the law that important claims go unrecognized 
before being adopted by courts.  In the end, we might not agree with the plaintiff’s 
theory of recovery.  But the issue and proposed claim are important enough that we 
ought to allow a jury the opportunity to work its way through the matter.  Before 
Gallimore v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 
1052, Ohio’s common law did not recognize a parent’s cause of action for loss of 
consortium based upon his or her child’s injury.  That case was allowed to proceed 
to a jury, and the jury was able to sort out the compensability issues.  And we saw 
a real-life case where the concept of loss of filial consortium made perfect sense.  
The plaintiff parent truly did suffer an injury when a doctor’s negligence rendered 
her child deaf.  But before her case was allowed to play itself out in the legal 
system, she had no recognizable right to recovery.  It was an easy step for us to 
recognize the parent’s claim because trial judge allowed the case to go forward and 
the jury did a very credible job in awarding compensation for what was a 
previously unrecognized claim. 
 
This case is not about the worth of special-needs children, it is about the 
financial cost of raising a child, and what happens to the child who is unable to pay 
 
 
19
for his or her own needs once he or she reaches the age of majority.  If we allow 
parents to recover for negligent genetic counseling, it may make pragmatic sense 
that the child’s claim also be allowed.  Only if the damage award goes to the child, 
with oversight by the probate court, can we be certain that the child’s expenses are 
being paid.  The child’s injury would be the focus of any damages, and thus the 
treatment of that injury should be the focus of any award. 
 
The labeling of a cause of action as “wrongful life” cheats a plaintiff.  
Neither her parents nor the child herself claims that the life of the child is a wrong.  
Parents are not suing to avoid having to provide love and care to a child with 
special needs.  Children are not suing because they have a difficult life.  Children 
and parents sue because there is a very real financial cost that is intertwined in their 
lives because of allegedly negligent medical care. 
 
Might it not be injudicious of this court to assume that a lifetime of 
dependence is not an injury?  None of us will ever know what it is like to be Alicia 
Hester.  We cannot know what might go through her mind in her most private of 
moments, or what she might think about herself in moments of honest self-
appraisal. 
 
While we all owe our lives to the efforts of the many who preceded us, those 
of us who can lead eventually normal and independent lives can forget, on the 
surface at least, our continued debt to those people.  However, the less fortunate 
 
 
20
can be weighed down by the constant reminder of complete dependence.  Might 
there be a proper claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress for plaintiffs 
like Alicia against doctors who negligently perform prenatal testing?