A wrongful existence in the Netherlands

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 393-394

  Nys, H F L ^a,b   Dute, J C J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD NEGLECT; CHROMOSOME DISORDER; COURT; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INDUCED ABORTION; INFORMED CONSENT; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALPRACTICE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MIDWIFE; MORALITY; NETHERLANDS; NOTE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY;

EID: 4344717878     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.005215     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. McKay v Essex Health Authority [1982] 2 All ER 771 (CA).
2. Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460;
3. Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 461;
4. Waller v James [2002] NSWSC 462, (see www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme ct).
5. For instance: Kassama v Magat, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, February 2001.
6. See about this in: Duguet AM. Wrongful life: the recent French Cour de Cassation decisions. Eur J Health Law 2002;9:139-49.
7. Sheldon T. Court awards damages to disabled child for having been born. BMJ/ 2003;326:784.
8. Spriggs M, Savulescu J. The Perruche judgment and the "right not to be born". J Med Ethics 2002;28:63-4.
9. Savulescu J. Is there a "right not to be born"? Reproductive decision making and the right to information. J Med Ethics 2002;28:65-7.
10. TK 2002/2003 Aanhangsel van de Handelingen (Appendix to the official report of the Lower House) nr 1205.