Wrongful birth litigation and prenatal screening

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 179, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1027-1030

  Pioro, Mark ^a   Mykitiuk, Roxanne ^a   Nisker, Jeff ^b,c  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; CANADA; DOWN SYNDROME; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; NEGLIGENCE; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRENATAL SCREENING;

EID: 55849100746     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080454     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. US Institute of Medicine, Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1990.
2. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. Clinical practice guidelines: between science and art. CMAJ 1993;148:385-9.
3. Campbell A, Cranley Glass K. The legal status of clinical and ethics policies, codes, and guidelines in medical practice and research. McGill Law J 2001;46:473-89.
4. Caulfield T. Liability in the genetic era: wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2001;23:143-7.
5. Rinella L. The use of medical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation - should practice guidelines define the standard of care? University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review 1995;6:337-55.
6. DeJong v. Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital (1996), 31 OR (3d) 594 (Gen Div).
7. Summers AM, Langlois S, Wyatt P, et al. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29:146-79.
8. Chodirker BN, Cadrin C, Davies GAL, et al. Canadian guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: genetic indicators for prenatal diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2001;23:525-31.
9. Orlandi F, Damiani G, Hallahan TW, et al. First-trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy: biochemistry and nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:381-6.
10. Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, et al. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). J Med Screen 2003;10:56-104.
11. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First- and Second-Trimester Evaluation of Risk (FASTER) Research Consortium. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2001-11.
12. Aitken DA, Wallace EM, Crossley JA, et al. Dimeric inhibin A as a marker for Down's syndrome in early pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1231-6.
13. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrne D, et al. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 1992;304:867-9.
14. UK National Screening Committee policy position. The Committee; 2006 Available: www.nsc.nhs.uk/pdfs/policy_position_chart_july06%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed 2008 Aug 29).
15. The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Prenatal screening tests for trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and neural tube defects. East Melbourne (Australia): The College; 2007. Available: www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/statements/C-obs4.pdf (accessed 2008 Aug 29).
16. ACOG practice bulletin no. 77: Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:217-27.
17. Zhang v. Kan (2003) BCSC 5.
18. Krangle (guardian of) v. Brisco (1997), 154 DLR. (4th) 707 (BCSC).
19. Jones v. Rostvig (2003), BCSC 1222.
20. Ossorio PN. Prenatal genetic testing and the courts. In: Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 308-33.
21. Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2004. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/PolicyPDF/PD04-06.pdf (accessed 2008 Aug 29).
22. Medicine. In: Canadian encyclopedic digest. Toronto (ON): Carswell; 2008. Paragraph §109.
23. Rogers WVH. Winfield and Jolowicz on tort. 14th ed. London (UK): Sweet and Maxwell; 1994.
24. Weinrib EJ. Tort law: cases and materials. 2nd ed. Toronto (ON): Emond Montgomery; 2003.
25. M'Alister (or Donoghue) v. Stevenson, [1932] AC 562 (HL).
26. Ter Neuzen v. Korn (1995), 127 DLR (4th) 577 (SCC).
27. Merenstein D. Winners and losers. JAMA 2004;291:15-6.
28. Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 SCR 880.
29. Sharpe N. Reinventing the wheel? Informed consent and genetic testing for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington disease. Queen's Law J 1997;22:389-452.
30. Ciarlariello v. Schacter, [1993] 2 SCR 119.
31. Byciuk v. Hollingsworth (2004), ABQB 370.
32. Medicine. In: Canadian Encyclopedic Digest. Toronto (ON): Carswell; 2008. paragraph §123.
33. Arndt v. Smith, [1997] 2 SCR 539.
34. Akazaki L. "Wrongful birth": an ironic name for a cause of action in the law of medical malpractice. The Advocate's Quarterly 1999;22:102-8. Available: http://www.gilbertsondavis.com/publications/ wrongful%20birth.htm (accessed 2008 Sept 4).
35. Dimopoulos P, Bagaric M. Why wrongful birth actions are right. J Law Med 2003;11:230-8.
36. Kealey v. Berezowski (1996), 30 OR (3d) 37 (Gen Div).
37. Jennings B. Technology and the genetic imaginary: prenatal testing and the construction of disability. In: Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 124-456.
38. Katz Rothman B. The tentative pregnancy: prenatal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. New York (NY): Viking; 1986.
39. Nisker JA. Orchids: Not necessarily a gospel. In: Murray J, editor. Mappa mundi: mapping culture/mapping the world. Windsor (ON): University of Windsor Press; 2001. p. 61-109.
40. Mykitiuk R. Public bodies, private parts: genetics in a post-Keynesian era. In: Cossman B, Fudge J, editors. Privatization, law, and the challenge to feminism. Toronto (ON): University of Toronto Press; 2002. p. 311-54.
41. Hensel WF. The disabling impact of wrongful birth and wrongful life actions. Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev 2005;40:141-96. Available: www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol40_1/hensel.pdf (accessed 2008 Sept 4).
42. Botkin JR. Prenatal diagnosis and the selection of children. Fla State Univ Law Rev 2003;30:265-94.
43. Parens E, Asch A, editors. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 3-43.
44. Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R, editors. Introduction. Quality of life and human difference: Genetic testing, health care, and disability. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 1-26.
45. Amundson R. Disability, ideology, and quality of life: a bias in biomedical ethics. In: Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R, editors. Quality of life and human difference: Genetic testing, health care, and disability. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 101-24.
46. Saxton M. Disability rights and selective abortion. In: Solinger R, editor. Abortion wars: A half century of struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1998. p. 374-94.
47. Asch A, Wasserman D. Where is the sin in synecdoche? Prenatal testing and the parent-child relationship. In: Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R, editors. Quality of life and human difference: Genetic testing, health care, and disability. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 172-216.
48. Sheth DM. Better off unborn? An analysis of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tenn Law Rev 2006;73:641-68.
49. Wexler DB. International network on therapeutic jurisprudence. Tucson (AZ): The University of Arizona. James E. Rogers College of Law; 2007. Available: www.law.arizona.edu/depts/upr-intj/ (accessed 2008 Aug 29).
50. Steinbock B. Disability, prenatal testing, and selective abortion. In: Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 108-23.
51. Nelson JL. The meaning of the act: reflections on the expressive force of reproductive decision making and policies. In: Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2000. p. 196-213.
52. Shapira A. "Wrongful life" lawsuits for faulty genetic counseling: the impaired newborn as a plaintiff. Tel Aviv Studies in Law 1997;13:97-114.
53. Stretton D. The birth torts: damages for wrongful birth and wrongful life. Deakin Law Review 2005;10:319-64.Available: www.austlii.edu.au/au/ journals/DeakinLRev/2005/16.html#Heading6 (accessed 2008 Aug 29).