Wrongful death claims. Harriton v Stephens. [2002] NSWSC 461. Edwards v Blomeley. [2002] NSWSC 460. Waller v James [2002] NSWSC 462

Studdert J in all three cases went to great length to summarise the global judicial position of "wrongful life" claims. He did not, however, examine in great length how or whether "wrongful life" claims or "wrongful birth" claims are reconcilable with tort and common law principles. Although the cases identify the difficulty in assessing and quantifying damages, they do not directly address the strict legal principles which apply in the assessment of damages. The main conclusion of the three judgments was that no duty of care is owed to the plaintiff in these circumstances and, even if a duty could be established, the impossibility of quantifying damages and public policy considerations warrant the rejection of such a claim: "thus conscience does make cowards of us all." The significance of the decisions cannot be understand. The decisions deny recognition of "wrongful life" claims in circumstances where a disabled person has incurred injuries en ventre sa mere (in the mother's womb) as a result of infections contracted by a plaintiff's mother or genetic material passed on by a plaintiff's parents. Some countries have now legislated for the abolition of "wrongful life and birth" suits. In January 2002 the French legislature passed a Bill overturning the "wrongful life" decision of the Cour de Cassation in Perruche (17 November 2000). As the issue now falls for ultimate determination by the French Senate, the French pro-life movement continues to lobby for the prohibition of "wrongful birth" suits as well. Furthermore, eight States in the United States have prohibited either one or both actions and the State of Michigan prohibited both actions in 2001. It is likely that all three cases will be appealed. The appeal in Harriton will re-examine the viability of a "wrongful life" claim in Australia whereas the cases of Edwards and Waller still need to determine the "wrongful birth" claims brought by the plaintiffs' parents. It is likely that the latter two cases will not be determined until the High Court has considered the Queensland "wrongful birth" case of Melchior v Cattanach, expected to be late in 2002.     

The moral status of wrongful life claims

A wrongful life action is a claim brought by a disabled child who asserts that but for a physician's negligence he or she would not have been born, thereby being spared the suffering of life. The action is inherently controversial because the alternative to an impaired life is non-existence. Lord Griffiths has described such claims as 'utterly offensive; there should be rejoicing that the hospital's mistake bestowed the gift of life upon the child.' This paper cuts through the rhetoric that the debate has generated and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognizing wrongful life actions.     

Wrongful life actions: the legal and ethical hurdles

This article discusses the various legal and ethical issues arising out of the cause of action for wrongful life. This action involves a claim by a child that but for the negligence of the doctor, hospital or other medical institution, his or her mother would have terminated the pregnancy and he or she would not have been born. The courts have generally rejected this cause of action on the basis of legal, ethical and policy considerations. The author proposes that the legal hurdles can be overcome and that the ethical and policy considerations do not outweigh the desirability of upholding wrongful life claims.     

错误的刑事羁押与国家的赔偿责任

刑事诉讼中的错误羁押与刑事错案常常相伴而生,但二者并非同一概念。错误羁押以刑事程序法为认定依据,即使没有错案发生,羁押行为违反《刑事诉讼法》的规定亦照样构成错误羁押。与错案相联系的错误羁押或合法羁押都应当导致刑事司法机关的国家赔偿责任,而未构成错案但构成错误羁押并因此导致当事人合法权益损害的,国家也应当有条件地承担赔偿责任。国家对无错案条件下错误羁押承担赔偿责任,有利于增强刑事司法机关的程序公正意识和人权保障意识,防止和减少羁押的滥用。     

Why wrongful birth actions are right

A wrongful birth action is a claim in negligence brought by parents of a child against a doctor who has "wrongfully" caused their child to be born. These claims can be divided into two categories: those where a doctor performs a failed sterilisation procedure that leads to a healthy child being born; and those where a doctor fails to provide sufficient information to allow parents to choose to abort a handicapped child. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312 falls into the former category. The decision to allow the parents to receive damages for the costs of raising and maintaining their child has generated much public debate. Despite the endorsement of this "wrongful birth" action, there are indications that the legislature will overturn the decision. This article examines whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising wrongful birth actions.     

The concept of harm reconceived: A different look at wrongful life

In wrongful life litigation a congenitally impaired child brings suit against those, usually physicians, whose negligence caused him to be born into his suffering existence. A key conceptual question is whether we can predicate “harm” in such cases. While a few courts have permitted it, many courts deny that we can, and thus have refused these children standing to sue. In this article the author examines the wrongful life cases and literature enroute to a broader consideration of harm. This literature, and philosophical discussions of harm generally, rely on a definition which ascribes harm by comparing an individual's current condition with that in which he would otherwise have been, but for the allegedly harmful event. The author shows this definition to be conceptually and morally flawed. A superior general definition is offered which, when then applied to wrongful life cases, shows that we can easily ascribe harm in these cases and can find clear potential for tort liability.     

刑事错案形成的心理原因

刑事错案的成因包括直接原因、环境原因和心理原因,其中心理原因(主要表现为包括"遂道视野"、"证实偏差"等在内的各种心理偏差)对错案的形成有更根本的影响。绝大多数直接原因,如刑讯逼供、隐瞒有利于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的证据、忽视辩护律师的合理意见等等,都是各种心理偏差的外在表现。而绝大多数环境原因,如不合理的考核方式、司法经费不足等等,之所以会导致错案,主要是因为它们强化了这些心理偏差。根据这些心理偏差对错案形成的可能影响,可以在心理学层面总结出刑事错案的形成过程及规律,而我国近年来纠正的22起刑事错案可以为此提供验证。我国有必要完善当前的刑事司法体制,以减少这些心理偏差对办案人员的影响,进而更有效地防止错案的发生。     

What Is The Wrong Of Wrongful Disability? From Chance To Choice To Harms To Persons

The issue of wrongful disability arises when parents face the choice whether to produce a child whose life will be unavoidably flawed by a serious disease or disorder (Down syndrome, for example, or Huntington’s disease) yet clearly worth living. The authors of From Chance to Choice claim, with certain restrictions, that the choice to produce such a child is morally wrong. They then argue that an intuitive moral approach––a “person-affecting” approach that pins wrongdoing to the harming of some existing or future person––cannot account for that wrong since the choice to produce such a child cannot, under the logic of the nonidentity problem, harm that child. The authors propose that we supplement the person-affecting approach with an “impersonal” principle that takes the form of their well-known principle N. In this paper, I argue that the authors are mistaken to suppose that a plausibly articulated person-affecting approach cannot account for the wrong of wrongful disability. We can retain an intuitive, comparative, “worse for” account of harm and still identify serious harms imposed by the choice of wrongful disability. In particular, I argue that harm, both to the impaired child and to others, comes not in the form of that procreative choice’s procreative effect but rather in the form of its many distributive effects. I also argue that the rare, residual case in which a person-affecting approach would approve of the choice of wrongful disability does not function as a counterexample to that approach. As a separate matter, I address legal claims for wrongful disability, which are closely akin to claims for wrongful life. The legal claim is brought by the impaired child, not against the parents, but rather against health care providers whose negligent failure to diagnose or inform parents of an increased risk of a genetic or congenital impairment results in the birth of the impaired child. The authors’ treatment of the moral wrong that is done as impersonal in nature suggests that courts are correct to dismiss any such claim. Once we identify harm, however, the person-affecting approach can identify a clear foundation in the law for the wrongful disability claim.     

Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint on Criminalisation

Orthodox thought holds that criminalisation should be subject to a wrongness constraint: that is, that conduct may be criminalised only if it is wrongful. This article argues that this principle is false, at least as it is usually understood. On the one hand, the wrongness constraint seems to rest on solid foundations. To criminalise conduct is to facilitate its condemnation and punishment; to coerce citizens against it; and to portray it as wrongful. All of these actions are presumptively impermissible when the conduct that they target is not wrongful. On the other hand, the article argues that the wrongness constraint is nevertheless unsound. Although it is presumptively impermissible to criminalise non-wrongful conduct, this might yet be permissible, given sufficient countervailing reasons. Moreover, there are realistic cases – specifically, some cases of over-inclusive criminalisation – in which such countervailing reasons exist.     

刑事错判证明标准的名案解析

错判的发生具有普遍性和蛰伏性,错判的认知具有模糊性和对抗性,因此我们需要明确认定错判的证明标准。通过对美国、英国、德国的错判证明标准的实例解析,我们可以看到,他们在认定错判的时候都不适用刑事诉讼中认定被告人有罪的证明标准,而且认定错判的证明标准都低于认定有罪的证明标准。我们应该重新阐释中国刑事诉讼中错判的证明标准,而且应区分启动再审的证明标准、认定错判的证明标准和决定国家赔偿的证明标准。     

From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes, the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth-Century Family

The wrongful death statutes enacted in most states during the mid-nineteenth century have long represented a classic moment in the narrative of American legal history. Historians have not observed, however, that American wrongful death statutes amended the English act on which they were modeled to introduce a gender asymmetry peculiar to the United States. Led by New York, most American jurisdictions limited wrongful death actions to "the widow and next of kin" of the decedent, categories that did not include husbands of deceased wives. Thus, a wife could bring a wrongful death action for the death of her husband, but a husband could not bring a wrongful death action on his own behalf for the death of his wife.
The wrongful death statutes represent a heretofore unrecognized conjuncture of the beginnings of the modem law of torts with the nineteenth-century legal reconstruction of the family. The statutes mowed accident litigation away from an eighteenth-century model of masters suing for loss of the services of a servant, slave, wife, or child, toward the now more familiar model of suits for loss of wages and support. Moreover, the gender asymmetry of the statutes embodied and reproduced a new nineteenth-century conception of the family in which men worked as free laborers and women were confined to relatively narrow domestic roles, removed from the market and dependent for their support on the wages of their husbands. Indeed, the statutes anticipated by over half a century the American welfare state's two-track approach to support for wage-earning men and dependent women.     

The twilight zone between scientific certainty and legal sufficiency: should a jury determine the causation of schizophrenia?

In lawsuits involving complex scientific issues of causation, dispute resolution requires that a final decision be reached in each case, regardless of whether science is able to provide definitive answers to the questions of causation raised at trial. Proving causation before science has is a concept that scientists may find disconcerting and foreign to some of their basic assumptions. This paper explores the foregoing issues, discusses medical versus legal concepts of causation, outlines the legal tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (including Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Frye test of general acceptance by the relevant scientific community), and presents a toxic tort case in which expert psychiatric testimony addressed the issue of causation of schizophrenia. The paper articulates concerns about the "misleading aura of certainty" posed by scientific evidence and the burden of decision making that is cast upon the legal system in such scientific issue cases.     

Healthy law makes for healthy children: Cattanach v Melchior

When courts are forced to consider issues surrounding birth and the sanctity of life, it is inevitable that divergence of judicial, academic and public opinion will result. However, the issue of whether parents can recover the expenses of rearing a healthy child has long vexed judges and commentators of law, ethics and medicine both in Australia and globally, with considerable disunity. A cogent example is the recent High Court of Australia decision in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1, where the court split four to three and handed down no less than six individual judgments. The case involved the birth of a healthy child following an unplanned pregnancy resulting from a failed surgical sterilisation. By allowing parents to recover the reasonable expenses of rearing an unintended child until the age of 18 years, the decision has provided some limited and temporary legal clarity to the issue of wrongful pregnancy in Australia. It is seen by some as a victory for the reproductive freedom of women and the rights of the child. However, with uncertainty remaining on the issue of wrongful life claims in Australia and with legislative changes in Queensland and New South Wales that partly reverse the High Court's decision, there remains doubt about the future of such claims in Australia.     

CASE STUDY ON THE CAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTION IN CHINESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

In recent years, with the disclosure of wrongful convictions in the media, the topic has become a focus of attention in China. Those wrongful convictions led people to ask: What is going wrong in Chinese criminal justice system? Since late 1995, the author of this article led a group of researchers and embarked upon an empirical study of wrongful convictions in China. According to our study, false confessions extracted with torture are a major evidential cause, or direct cause, for wrongful convictions in China. However, there are indirect causes behind the problem of torture in the criminal proceedings. They are the nominal checks among the police, the procuratorate and the court; the bowing to public opinions in contradiction to legal principles; the unlawfully extended custody with tunnel vision; the nominalization of courtroom trials; and the reducing of punishment in a case of doubt. These causes of wrongful convictions reflect the institutional flaws, outdated mentalities, and improper practices in Chinese criminal proceedings.     

Harriton, Waller And Australian negligence law: is there a place for wrongful life?

Following the decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Harriton and Waller, the controversial action for wrongful life has been thrown back into the public spotlight. This article examines the legal and public policy dilemmas arising from a wrongful life claim in light of the Court of Appeal's reasons for its decision in the jointly heard cases of Harriton (by her tutor) v Stephens; Waller (by his tutor) v James; Waller (by his tutor) v Hoolahan (2004) 59 NSWLR 694 and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising the claim within the Australian tort system. It will be argued that each of the legal elements comprising the claim fall squarely within the traditional tort framework and that public policy considerations favouring recognition of the claim outweigh those raised against it.     

The risk of birth defects: Jacobs v. Theimer and parents' right to know.

This Article discusses the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Jacobs v. Theimer that the parents of a defective child had a cause of action for damages against a physician for alleged negligent failure to inform the mother during pregnancy that she had contracted rubella and therefore might have a defective child, thereby causing her to lose the opportunity to have an abortion. The Article raises a number of questions that post-Jacobs courts probably will confront concerning the duty of physicians and genetic counselors to keep their clients informed; describes some social and medical developments--including recent progress in medical genetics and prenatal diagnosis--which are likely to make Jacobs a significant precedent; evaluates the court's decision to allow a damage suit only for the costs of treating and caring for the child's defects; and briefly addresses the question of whether the Jacobs case comes within the sphere of suits for what has come to be known as "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life."     

Innocence Commissions: Due Process Remedies and Protection for the Innocent

Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.     

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

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?     

Wrongful birth in New Zealand

Wrongful birth cases have been a feature of the common law. In this article the author examines wrongful birth cases against the background of the New Zealand accident compensation scheme. Initially cases were accepted under the scheme, but after major changes to the legislation in 1992, wrongful birth cases were declined cover. The author argues that this should continue to be the case, and that, as a result, New Zealand courts will have to make the same policy decisions in this area as those made by other Commonwealth courts.