Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court.

Thomas Faunce*, Susannah Jefferys

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Australian High Court recently found that the common law could allow parents to claim tortious damages when medical negligence was proven to have led to the birth of an unplanned, but healthy, baby (Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1). In Harriton v Stephens (2006) 80 ALJR 791; [2006] HCA 15 and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan (2006) 80 ALJR 846; [2006] HCA 16 the High Court in a six-to-one decision (Kirby J dissenting) decided that no such claim could be made by a child when medical negligence in failing to order an in utero genetic test caused the child severe disability. In an era when almost all pregnancies will soon require patented fetal genetic tests as part of the professional standard of care, the High Court, by barring so-called "wrongful life" (better termed "wrongful suffering") claims, may have created a partial immunity from suit for their corporate manufacturers and the doctors who administer them. What lessons can be learnt from this case about how the Australian High Court is, or should be, approaching medical negligence cases and its role as guardian of the Australian common law?

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)469-477
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of law and medicine
Volume14
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - May 2007

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this