Harriton v Stephens

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Alexia Harriton, a child born with severe disabilities, against Dr. Max Stephens. The dispute arose from allegations that Dr. Stephens negligently failed to diagnose Mrs. Harriton's rubella infection during her pregnancy and failed to warn her of the significant risk of serious disability to the foetus. The core of the case concerned whether a child born with disabilities, who would not have been born but for the alleged negligence, could recover damages from the medical practitioner.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the respondent doctor owed a duty of care to the unborn child to diagnose rubella and advise the mother regarding the termination of her pregnancy. The Court also had to determine whether a life with disabilities constitutes actionable damage, and if so, how such damage should be assessed, particularly in comparison to non-existence or a life without disability. Public policy considerations, such as the sanctity of human life and the potential impact of such claims on disabled individuals and familial relationships, were also central to the determination.

The High Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The reasoning focused on the fundamental principle that the law does not recognise a cause of action for "wrongful life." The Court held that while medical practitioners owe a duty of care to unborn children to prevent pre-natal injury, this duty does not extend to advising the mother in a way that would deprive the child of the opportunity of life. Furthermore, the Court found that a life with disabilities cannot be considered legally cognisable damage, as there is no logical or legal basis to compare a life with disabilities to non-existence. The principle of corrective justice and the potential for undermining familial relationships were also significant factors in the Court's decision.