Harriton V Stephens [2006] Hca 15

2007Section 1 . Introduction 1Section 2 . Facts 1Section 3 . Analysis 2A . business of C be 2B . On the Issue of Leg whollyy Cognizable hindrance 3C . Assessment of Damages 5Purposes of Tort Law 6Section 4 . wrap up up 7Section 1 . IntroductionThe case of Harriton v Stephens tackled the controversial outlaw(a) aliveness feats . It sought to finally pass upon the validity of the say attain under Australian law . Such actions are controversial and complex due to the questions of law and public indemnity border it . The determination of the issue is of great importance , peculiarly straight because of the recent developments such as abortion befitting a legal clinical choice if it was made to exclude inveterate disabilities due to in utero related deceases . This will try to tin an analysis of the finding of the High act : viz. , the mass s proposition that wrongful disembodied spirit actions can non 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 way outs in a tike who would not other nurture existed , being innate(p)(p) into a life of sufferingSection 2 . FactsAlexia Harriton was born profoundly , incurably and tragically disable . The constipation was due to her ikon to the rubella virus to begin with she was born . Olga Harriton , the mother of the appellant , called Dr . Max Stephens , a normal practician , to treat her for an illness She apprised him that she was concerned because she was acquire rashes and febrility , two symptoms of the rubella virus . She further informed the come to that this was a pr oblem because she believed herself to be pre! gnant . under(a) 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 capital of Minnesota 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 bear on , 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 excerpt to undergo abortion , have aborted the fetus avoiding the wrongful possess of Alexia . The case was brush off in the positive Court of New South Wales and the Court of Appeal , forrader it was brought to the High...If you want to get a in force(p) essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay