Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc.
656 P.2d 483, 98 Wash. 2d 460 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Washington, parents may bring a 'wrongful birth' action to recover damages when a healthcare provider's negligence deprives them of the choice to avoid the conception or birth of a defective child. A child may also bring a 'wrongful life' action to recover the extraordinary lifetime expenses attributable to their congenital defects caused by such negligence.
Facts:
- Jean Harbeson suffered from epilepsy and took the anticonvulsant drug Dilantin to control her seizures.
- In 1971, while on Dilantin, Mrs. Harbeson gave birth to her first child, Michael, who was healthy.
- Between November 1972 and July 1973, the Harbesons consulted with three physicians at Madigan Army Medical Center about the risks of having more children while Mrs. Harbeson was taking Dilantin.
- The physicians advised the Harbesons that the only risks were a potential cleft palate and temporary hirsutism, and they did not conduct literature searches for more current information.
- Relying on this advice, Mrs. Harbeson continued to take Dilantin and subsequently gave birth to two daughters, Elizabeth in 1974 and Christine in 1975.
- Both Elizabeth and Christine were born with 'fetal hydantoin syndrome,' suffering from significant physical and developmental defects.
- The Harbesons asserted that had they been properly informed of the true risks associated with Dilantin, they would have chosen not to have more children.
Procedural Posture:
- The Harbesons filed a medical malpractice suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The case proceeded to trial in the federal district court.
- After evidence was presented, but before entering a final judgment, the District Court judge certified determinative questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Washington law recognize causes of action for 'wrongful birth' on behalf of parents, and 'wrongful life' on behalf of a child born with congenital defects, against a healthcare provider whose negligence deprived the parents of the information necessary to avoid the child's conception or birth?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
Yes. Washington law recognizes causes of action for both wrongful birth and wrongful life, subject to limitations on damages. The court held that a healthcare provider owes a duty to parents to provide them with material information regarding the risk of birth defects, thereby preserving the parents' right to make an informed decision about whether to conceive or give birth to a child. A breach of this duty gives rise to a 'wrongful birth' claim by the parents, allowing recovery for extraordinary medical and educational expenses and for their own emotional distress, offset by any emotional benefits of having the child. The court also extended a duty of care to the unconceived child, reasoning it is foreseeable that negligence towards the parents will harm their future offspring. This gives the child a 'wrongful life' claim, not for the injury of being born, but for the recovery of extraordinary medical and care expenses they will incur throughout their lifetime as a result of their condition. The court found that while general damages for an impaired life versus non-existence are incalculable and thus not recoverable, the special damages for lifelong care are measurable and can be awarded to prevent the burden from falling on the family or the state.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established two new torts in Washington, placing the state at the forefront of this area of law. By recognizing wrongful birth, the court reinforced the principles of informed consent and a physician's duty to disclose material risks related to reproduction. The decision to also recognize wrongful life, even for limited special damages, was particularly significant, as most jurisdictions at the time had rejected such claims due to the philosophical difficulty of comparing impaired life with non-existence. This ruling created a comprehensive framework for assigning liability for preconception and prenatal negligence, focusing on compensating the tangible, lifelong financial burdens resulting from a provider's failure to inform, thereby deterring malpractice and providing a remedy for both parents and the affected child.
Unlock the full brief for Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc.