Wrongful birth actions aim to compensate litigants who are negligently deprived by health professionals of their right to reproductive choice. Access to safe and legal abortion is integral to the action and wrongful birth claims in the United Kingdom have been facilitated by the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). The recent Australian case CES v Superclinics (1995) 38 NSWLR 47 shows how judicial confusion about the legality of abortion can result in judges condoning medical negligence. The Superclinics case also suggests that doctors are not required to provide pregnant women with the same standard of care as other patients. These developments show that law can become incoherent and health professionals can act negligently with impunity when reproductive choice does not have a secure legal foundation.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- The pearl of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement? Reflections on the Kermit Gosnell controversy
- Quality in health care: a role for the law?
- Conventional revolution: the ethical implications of the natural progress of neonatal intensive care to artificial wombs
- Prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis: contemporary practices in light of the past
- Sex, abortion and Obama
- The US Public Health Service “treating tobacco use and dependence clinical practice guidelines” as a legal standard of care
- Abortion round the world
- Estimating the incidence of abortion: using the Abortion Incidence Complications Methodology in Ghana, 2017
- The policing of abortion services in England
- The future of clinical negligence litigation?