Opinion ID: 1412151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: arguments in favor of a wrongful life action

Text: Three states  California, New Jersey, and Washington  have recognized a wrongful life action by judicial opinion. [4] In Turpin v. Sortini, 31 Cal.3d 220, 182 Cal.Rptr. 337, 643 P.2d 954 (1982), the child plaintiff alleged physician was negligent in failing to diagnose a hereditary ailment that had afflicted her older sister, depriving her of the fundamental right of a child to be born as a whole, functional human being without total deafness. Id. at 960. The California Supreme Court questioned the validity of a key rationale used by many other courts to reject a wrongful life action. Although it is easy to understand and to endorse these decisions desire to affirm the worth and sanctity of less-than-perfect life, we question whether these considerations alone provide a sound basis for rejecting the childs tort action. To begin with, it is hard to see how an award of damages to a severely handicapped or suffering child would disavow the value of life or in any way suggest that the child is not entitled to the full measure of legal and nonlegal rights and privileges accorded to all members of society. Moreover, while our society and our legal system unquestionably place the highest value on all human life, we do not think that it is accurate to suggest that this states public policy establishes  as a matter of law  that under all circumstances impaired life is preferable to nonlife. . . . In this case, in which the plaintiffs only affliction is deafness, it seems quite unlikely that a jury would ever conclude that life with such a condition is worse than not being born at all. Other wrongful life cases, however, have involved children with much more serious, debilitating and painful conditions, and the academic literature refers to still other, extremely severe hereditary diseases. Considering the short life span of many of these children and their frequently very limited ability to perceive or enjoy the benefits of life, we cannot assert with confidence that in every situation there would be a societal consensus that life is preferable to never having been born at all. Id. at 961-63. The Turpin court held the child plaintiff could not recover general damages, in part endorsing the reasoning of courts which have concluded it is impossible to award damages because what the plaintiff has `lost' is not life without pain and suffering, but rather the unknowable status of never having been born. Id. at 964. However, the court further held the child plaintiff could recover extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the defective condition. Id. at 965. See also Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 98 Wash.2d 460, 656 P.2d 483, 494-97 (1983) (en banc) (agreeing with Turpin and holding child may maintain a wrongful life action to recover extraordinary expenses to be incurred during child's lifetime as result of child's congenital defect); Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755 (1984) (child may maintain wrongful life action to recover extraordinary medical expenses related to his defective condition, where parents were unable to bring a wrongful birth action, which previously had been recognized in that state, because their claim was barred by the statute of limitations).