Vaccination News Home Page                                            subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7393/784/b

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Read responses to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Sheldon, T. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Other Ethics Medicine and the law (incl forensic medicine)

BMJ 2003;326:784 ( 12 April )

News

Court awards damages to disabled child for having been born

Tony Sheldon, Utrecht

For the first time in the Netherlands, a court has awarded damages to a severely disabled girl for the fact that she was borna so called "wrongful life" judgment.

The case of 9 year old Kelly Molenaar has led MPs to call for the Netherlands to follow France and ban damage claims for wrongful life. Doctors fear the judgment could lead to a sharp increase in defensive prenatal testing.

A court in The Hague heard how Kelly's parents had informed a midwife at the Leiden University Medical Centre that a relative of the father was disabled because of a chromosomal abnormality. But the midwife reassured them and did not carry out further prenatal diagnostic tests or refer the case to a clinical geneticist.

The abnormality was therefore not detected early enough and Kelly was born with multiple mental and physical disabilities. She cannot walk, talk, or properly recognise her parents; has deformed feet; is believed to be in constant pain; and has had several heart operations. By the age of 21/2 she had been admitted to hospital nine times due to "inconsolable crying."

The court accepted that damage to Kelly and her parents resulted from the midwife's error. A referral to a clinical geneticist would have resulted in an abortion and Kelly would not have been born. Damages against the hospital amounting to the cost of Kelly's care and upbringing until her 21st birthday were awarded to her parents.

But the court went further, ruling that Kelly herself was liable to damages. The court judged that the damage experienced by Kelly was in a legal sense a predictable consequence of the midwife's mistake. Therefore the court accepted the possibility of a claim for wrongful life. A further court sitting must now set the level of damages. The hospital's lawyers are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court to quash the judgment.

MPs are urging the ministries of health and justice to respond to the decision. Democrat 66 MP Boris Dittrich has called for Dutch law to be changed to prohibit wrongful life claims. This happened in France in 2002 after a similar caseknown as the Perruche casein which a disabled child was given damages for having been born (BMJ 2001;323:1384)[Free Full Text].

Joseph Hubben, professor of health law at the Free University of Amsterdam, said: "To recognise a disabled life as a source of financial damages gives the wrong signal to society. Disabled people should be fellow citizens not someone who should have been aborted." He also argued that the decision would increase pressure for more prenatal diagnostic testing not just from parents but also from doctors.

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

Rapid responses:

Read all Rapid responses

You have just got to put up with it.

Alan Challoner

bmj.com, 11 Apr 2003 [Full text]

French obstetricians

Gail Ashington

bmj.com, 17 Apr 2003 [Full text]

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Read responses to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Sheldon, T. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Other Ethics Medicine and the law (incl forensic medicine)

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.