LAUSR

A woman did not want to have a child or another child. There may be many possible reasons for this. She discussed the matter with her doctor, sterilisation was proposed and she consented. The operation was carried out, seemingly successfully. However, she fell pregnant, refused an abortion and bore a healthy child. She sues the doctor for breach of contract and negligence and for the cost of bringing up the unwanted child. In real terms, that cost over 18þ years could be very considerable. The claim will fail. Legal policy forbids the claim. The decision of the judges must be fair, just, reasonable and proportionate. Quantifying and calculating the compensation would be impossible – there are just so many variables. The compensation could not be fair, just, reasonable and proportionate. Awarding financial compensation to a parent for having a child would be morally offensive, repugnant and contrary to all the moral and ethical values of society, wholly inappropriate and wholly unacceptable. Parenthood is a blessing not a detriment – a mixture of joy and sorrow with inseparable advantages and disadvantages. The benefits outweigh the burdens. A parent cannot be heard to say that the child is more trouble and expense than he is worth. Such notions offend the right-thinking members of society. Parenthood is a rewarding occupation and obligation. However, there has been a breach of contract and a tort, negligence. So, a conventional sum of a few thousand pounds will be awarded for the expenses of the birth, though nothing for the upbringing of the child. Suppose the child is born in some way disabled. The child is still a joy and a delight, perhaps even more so because of the disability. Perhaps anomalously, the additional or extra care involved in the upbringing will be compensated, and this despite the availability of support through the state welfare and social security system. Suppose that the mother is herself disabled, thus needing extra support in bringing up the child. This is not a head for compensation because the mother would have been in this situation whenever faced with the upbringing of a child, whereas a disabled child appeared on the scene as a result of the negligence of the doctor.