Harriton V Stephens [2006] Hca 15

2007Section 1 . Introduction 1Section 2 . Facts 1Section 3 . Analysis 2A . employment of Care 2B . On the Issue of Legally Cognizable disablement 3C . Assessment of Damages 5Purposes of Tort Law 6Section 4 . mop up 7Section 1 . IntroductionThe case of Harriton v Stephens tackled the controversial wrongful aliveness feats . It sought to finally pass upon the validity of the said attain under Australian law . Such actions are controversial and complex due to the questions of law and public policy border it . The determination of the issue is of great importance , especially straight because of the recent developments such as abortion becoming a legal clinical choice if it was made to avoid inveterate disabilities due to in utero related deceases . This will seek to tin an analysis of the finding of the High act : namely , the mass s proposition that wrongful life actions can not turn because the victim could not demonstrate that he or she had suffered all harm capable of being understood or assessed by the court as well as Kirby s proposition that denying the existence of wrongful life actions erects an immunity around health business concern providers whose negligence results in a child who would not other nurture existed , being born(p) into a life of sufferingSection 2 . FactsAlexia Harriton was born profoundly , incurably and tragically disabled . The constipation was due to her ikon to the rubella virus before she was born . Olga Harriton , the mother of the appellant , called Dr . Max Stephens , a general practician , to treat her for an illness She informed him that she was concerned because she was getting rashes and febrility , two symptoms of the rubella virus . She further informed the come to that this was a problem because she believed herself to be pregnant . Under the advice of the reinstate , Mrs .

Harriton underwent blood testing to determine if she had the rubella virus and to pick up if she was indeed pregnant . Upon the release of the results , she contacted Dr Paul Stephens , the son and collaborationist of Dr . Max Stephens , to present the results of the blood testing . He reason out that she was pregnant but was not suffering from the rubella virus . However , it would seem that Mrs Harrington was misdiagnosed by Dr . Paul Stephens . As a result , Alexia was born suffering from mental deliberation , blindness , deafness and spasticity , all of which are effectuate of the exposure to the rubella virusAlexia d a wrongful life action against Dr . Stephens under the claim that had he been diligent in his calling as a doctor , he would have aright diagnosed Mrs . Harriton who would , as a result of the information about the effects of the virus to the child and the option to undergo abortion , have aborted the fetus avoiding the wrongful birth of Alexia . The case was brush off in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Court of Appeal , before it was brought to the High...If you want to get a in force(p) essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper