Wrongful Pregnancy, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Terminology

Ken Mason

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

The article analyses the series of cases that have evolved following the House of Lords dicta in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board and which seek to circumvent the limitations imposed by that decision on recovery for the birth of an 'uncovenanted' addition to the family. The majority of relevant actions have relied on the possible distinction of cases involving the birth of a disabled child which McFarlane admits. Claims for compensation for the upkeep of the child in such circumstances have been successful, but the author contends that the two types of action are, in fact, distinct. He concludes that the only true comparator to date is Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust and that the reasoning in this case may provide an opening for the House of Lords to reconsider its position.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)46-66
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2002


Dive into the research topics of 'Wrongful Pregnancy, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Terminology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this