Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social & Legal Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Priaulx, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Joy to the World! A (Healthy) Child Is Born! Reconceptualizing Harm in Wrongful Conception

Nicolette Priaulx

University of Kent, UK

The wrongful conception action holds both a troubled past and future. As a response to rapid technological advancement in the area of reproduction, this action has introduced complex legal and ethical issues in the courts efforts to respond to the question: Can parenthood ever constitute an injury? At the heart of this dilemma lies the manner by which both law and society conceptualize harm is this part of the normal vicissitudes of life or a harmful event? But this question is not decided within a legal vacuum and public policy factors have deeply influenced the nature and existence of case law in this field. In the context of the controversial cases of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] and Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2002], this article critically examines how harm is judicially characterized and explores the various tensions emerging from conflicting harm constructs. In arguing that the courts must seek to find a balanced approach between public policy concerns and reproductive autonomy, this article will present a fresh theoretical perspective to the conceptualization of harm based on autonomy as the central organizing principle.

Social & Legal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, 5-26 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0964663904040190
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?