The appellant negligently failed to warn Mrs. M of the risk that if she was wrong she may still become pregnant after the surgery. Mrs. M elected to have sterilization surgery (tubal litigation) performed by the appellant (defendant). The same situationwill occur. Cattanach v Melchior' ('Cattanach') answered this question in the affirmative. Cattanach, a similar case heard by the High Court of Australia,8 revolved mainly around the same issues. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Recovery would permit the commodification of the child, and would obscure the emotional rewards of parenthood. This is a chapter from Herring & Goold, eds, Landmark Cases in Medical Law (Hart, 2015) (forthcoming). In the absence of any clear and accepted understanding of such matters, the common law should not justify preclusion of recovery on speculation as to possible psychological harm to children.” -McHugh J and Gummow J at para 79, “…the emotional and other benefits and burdens resulting from such a birth cannot be assessed comprehensively at the beginning of life. CATTANACH V MELCHIOR: PRINCIPLE, POLICY AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM David Hamer* In 1997 Greg Craven commented that ���judicial activism��� had become a ���more popular topic of conversation in Australia ... than at any time in its history���. The indeterminate nature of the financial consequences, beneficial and detrimental, of the parent-child relationship has already been noted. Judgement Date: 6th May, 2013. This case brought to light a number of significant ethical issues both in favour of and against permitting these actions, with the court ultimately proclaiming that it was possible for a doctor to be held liable for a child being born due to their negligence. Instead it marks a careful consideration of legal and ethical issues in a novel area of negligence law, eschewing the arbitrary application of emotive assertions in relation to ���blessings���, ���key values in family life��� and ���litigious time bombs���. By addressing the issues canvassed, Cattanach looks to clarify the ideas established previously in McFarlane and supports the indication that the judgment reached is the correct one. Damages relating to a) the pregnancy and birth including pain and suffering as well as medical expenses; b) loss of consortium (the benefits of a family relationship) to Mr. M; and c) the costs of raising and maintaining the child until age 18, were awarded by the trial court and upheld on appeal. Dr Cattanach assumed that at the same time she also had the right fallopian tube removed. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. To seek to assign an economic value to the relationship, either positive or negative, in the ordinary case, is neither reasonable nor possible.” Gleeson J at para 38. “To suggest that the birth of a child is always a blessing, and that the benefits to be derived therefrom always outweigh the burdens, denies the first category of damages awarded in this case; it also denies the widespread use of contraception by persons such as the Melchiors to avoid just such an event. Merely to repeat those propositions upon which the appellants rely does not explain why the law should shield or immunise the appellants from what otherwise is a head of damages recoverable in negligence under general and unchallenged principles in respect of While the decision was reached by a narrow (four-to-three) majority only, the ruling affirmed a (two-to-one) decision by the Queensland Court of Appeal to award damages in the amount of $105,000. The term 'disability' Court of Appeal Practical consequences exists in SA, where the 'ordinary costs' McHugh J and Gummow J dismissed the appeal on the ground that tort principles focused on compensation, deterrence, and fairness required recovery. [some footnotes in whole or part omitted] The issues 216. v. Nakaseke District, Ntsels v. Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government, In the matter of Medical and Dental Practitioners Council and In the matter of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council in the Alleged Professional Misconduct by Dr. Asinja Kapuru into the Alleged Loss of a Baby at Mulago National Referral Hospital. from a disability'. The judgment raises interesting questions as to the characterisation of childbirth and parenthood within modern society. In part by abolishing the presumption that children are to be classified as a blessing. The fact was that Mrs Melchior���s right tube was not removed, and Dr Cattanach did not check to ensure that it had been. This is the leading High Court case on ���wrongful birth���. Giving Context to Self-defence: Julie Stubbs Judgment: Penny Crofts and Isabella Alexander 16 PGA v R [2012] HCA 21 Admitting Legal Wrongs: Ngaire Naffine Judgment: Wendy Larcombe and Mary Heath Evidence 17 RPS v R [2000] HCA 3 Commentary: Katherine Biber Judgment: Helen O'Sullivan 18 Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4 Locating Consent in Similar-Fact Cases: Mehera San Roque Judgment: ��� 4 Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; 215 CLR 1 at [39] (Gleeson CJ). The "windfall" argument is one of these. And there are many harsher truths which children have to confront in growing up than the knowledge that they were not, at the moment of their conception, wanted.” – Callinan J at para 301. “It is a fundamental assumption underlying many rules of the common law and many statutory provisions that, in general, where the interests of children collide with other interests, the interests of the children prevail; that parents have duties of a high order to advance the interests of their children; that those interests are best advanced by nurture in stable marriages; and that one of the interests of children which the law recognizes is the need to avoid the harm which may flow from publicity connected with litigation in which their interests are at stake.” - Heydon J at para 323, “The various assumptions underlying the law relating to children and the duties on parents created by the law would be negated if parents could sue to recover the costs of rearing unplanned children. A similar difficulty is encountered in awarding damages for loss of expectation of life47. The, Personal Second Language Acquisition Theory Research Paper, The Effects Of Global Warming On Earth 's Climate, Zombie Movies And The Film ' Night Of The Living Dead '. In that case, though, the appellant doctor did not appeal against the amount claimed by the respondent for those costs. In deciding whether, in the contemplation of the law, the creation of that relationship is actionable damage, it is material to note that it is unlikely that the parties to the relationship, or the community, would regard it as being primarily financial in nature. throughout Cattanach by all the Justices that the common law does not exist in a vacuum. Dissenting, Gleeson J would have allowed the appeal on the ground that the claim was for pure economic loss but did not satisfy the requirements for establishing a new head of damages in that area, and that it treats a socially fundamental human relationship exclusively in financial terms. Gleeson also noted the respondents’ claims implied an indeterminate liability as they were more than the costs for bare legal obligations but less than the full extent of costs one could reasonably conceive of. The Decision Reached Of Cattanach V Melchior 2140 Words | 9 Pages. 4 Melchior & Anor v Cattanach & Anor [2000] QSC 285 at [81] where Holmes J summarises the damages awarded. The question whether a doctor is under a legal duty to take care when treating a patient does not normally raise serious difficulties of principle. Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, This was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. The trial court found that the defendant had negligently failed to warn of the risks associated with the sterilization procedure. judgment, emphasises the need to preserve the coherence of legal principles5 ironically using aspects of policy to do so. judgment in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38. Cattanach v Melchior, one of the lengthier and more ��� President Kós was somewhat bolder, stating that he considered Cattanach v Melchior to be particularly relevant and, whilst caveating that it was uncertain whether a similar decision would be reached in New Zealand, he ventured to say that ���on the present and progressive state of this country���s law of torts, it is entirely likely that Cattanach v Melchior would be followed��� in New Zealand. STEPHEN ALFRED CATTANACH AND THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND v KERRY ANNE MELCHIOR AND CRAIG MELCHIOR The High Court of Australia today dismissed an appeal by Dr Cattanach and the State of Queensland against an award of damages requiring them to pay the costs of bringing up an unplanned child conceived as a consequence of medical negligence. attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. It compares two judgments, from the House of Lords and from the Australian High Court, reaching opposite results where negligent medical errors This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. CREATING LAW Cattanach v Melchior. Mrs Melchior subsequently gave birth The Melchiors, deciding that they had completed their family with two children, agreed that Mrs Melchior should undergo a tubal ligation, to be performed by Dr Cattanach. Callinan J’s reasons were similar. They have nothing to do with the legal wrong for whose foreseeable consequences the tortfeasor must restore the parents. It is a human relationship, regarded by domestic law and by international standards as fundamental to society. To many, the abortion of a child or the offering of him for adoption, particularly within wedlock, would be more morally repugnant than the claiming of damages in respect of the rearing of the child. Melchior that during an appendectomy when aged 15, she had had her right ovary removed. It is expressed by judges to respond to their perceptions of the requirement of justice, fairness and reasonableness in their society. Shortly after this decision, the Parliament of Queensland amended its Civil Liability Act, 2003 to prevent a court from awarding damages for the financial burden of rearing a healthy child. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. 5 ��� The main issue is whether the appellant/child who was born disabled has a Kirby J dismissed the appeal on the ground that other options were all inadequate. Cattanach v Melchior and implications for health information managers James Cokayne Introduction The recent High Court ruling uphol ding a pri or deci sion to allow a mother to su e for the cost of rearing a child after having had a failed sterilisation has under-standably attracted great controversy (Cattanach v Melchior [2003]). A four to three majority held that the defendant’s appeal should be dismissed, effectively allowing the plaintiffs to recover the cost of raising and maintaining the child until age 18. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues. In 2003, in the case of Cattanach v Melchior [2], the High Court awarded damages in respect of the costs of raising a healthy child where the child was born following a failed sterilisation procedure due to the defendant���s negligence. I. MCFARLANE Mrs. M told the appellant that her right fallopian tube had been removed and on examination that appeared to be correct, so appellant only performed the surgery on the left fallopian tube. Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 199 ALR 131. Download Judgment: English. Giving Context to Self-defence: Julie Stubbs Judgment: Penny Crofts and Isabella Alexander 16 PGA v R [2012] HCA 21 Admitting Legal Wrongs: Ngaire Naffine Judgment: Wendy Larcombe and Mary Heath Evidence 17 RPS v R [2000] HCA 3 Commentary: Katherine Biber Judgment: Helen O''Sullivan 18 Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4 Locating Consent in Similar-Fact Cases: Mehera San Roque Judgment: ��� Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1 FJ v Commonwealth (2017) 55 VR 108 Partridge v Briggs (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Gobbo J, 2 June 1988) Unsworth v Commissioner for Railways (1958) 101 CLR 73 Opperman v Opperman [1975] Qd R 345 Melchior v Cattanach & Anor [2001] QCA 246 Reeves v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd wrongful birth (Cattanach v Melchior),7 but in May 2006 disallow-ing two separate claims for wrongful life (Harriton v Stephens8 and Waller v James/Waller v Hoolahan9). Mr and Mrs Melchior, satisfied with the size of their family, decided to stop having more children. The respondents (plaintiffs at first instance), a married couple, decided not to have any more children. Agenda, Volume 10, Number 4, 2003, pages 367-384 Can���t buy me love ��� Public Policy Implications of Cattanach v. Melchior Natasha Cica he question of whether compensation could be awarded for raising a healthy child born as the result of a doctor���s negligence was recently The majority judgment in Cattanach v. Melchior does not represent an assault on the sanctity of human life. Cattanach v. Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1; (2003) 199 ALR 131; (2003) 77 ALJR 1312; [2003] HCA 38. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. In examining whether these actions should be lawful, it is necessary to analyse the decision concluded in Cattanach v Melchior. The denial of damages to the parents could equally be described as a windfall to the tortfeasor. Judgment Details; Facts Decision and Reasoning Excerpts Additional Documents; Country: Australia Region: Oceania Year: 2003 Court: High Court Health Topics: Child and ��� CRENNAN J. Whether the plaintiffs ought to be able to recover for the costs of raising and maintaining the child was the sole issue in this appeal. It would permit conduct inconsistent with a parental duty to treat the child with the utmost affection, with infinite tenderness, and with unstinting forgiveness in all circumstances, because these goals are contradicted by legal proceedings based on the premise that the child's birth was a painful and highly inconvenient mistake. cattanach v melchior I INTRODUCTION In the landmark decision of Cattanach v Melchior, [1] handed down on 16 July 2003, the High Court held, contrary to precedent in the United Kingdom and Canada, that the parents of a child born as a result of a doctor���s negligence are entitled to recover damages for the costs of raising the child until adulthood. a. The respondents brought action against the appellant and hospital for negligence. 9 See Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1, which allowed damages for wrongful birth, including the ordinary costs of raising the child to maturity, although those costs are now excluded by state legislation: see Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 71; Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 49A; Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 67. Wrongful birth. CRAIG MELCHIOR (second plaintiff) v STEPHEN ALFRED CATTANACH (first defendant) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second defendant) FILE NO: S466 of 2000 DIVISION: Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 23 rd August 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 5,6,7,8,9, 15 June 2000 JUDGE: Holmes J ORDER: Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first and second Limiting recovery to personal injury from pregnancy severs the causal link between pregnancy and its outcome. The divergent results reached in McFarlane v Tayside and Cattanach v Melchior stem, to a certain extent, from different views of the role of these considerations in the grant of damages. 5 Melchior v Cattanach & Anor [2001] QCA 246. Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1, applied Cox v Journeaux (No. Cattanach v Melchior 3 57. The head of damages focused on the financial cost, not the “loss of enjoyment of life”, so it is inappropriate to offset the costs of raising the child with the love and joy resulting from the child. Dr Cattanach appealed to the High Court, and the sole issue for its consideration was whether damages for the cost of raising a child should be awarded. The perceived disruption to familial relationships by, for example, the Melchiors' third child later becoming aware of this litigation, is at best speculative. Negligently failed to warn M that she might need to take further steps to avoid pregnancy. Legal principle requires that such joys and any like benefits of the unexpected birth be ignored in calculating the recoverable damages.” -Kirby J at para 175. “Despite the large measure of agreement by those judges whose conclusions the appellants would invoke, the matters relied on by them do not, with respect, commend themselves in law to me. The damages were to The argument in medical cases is more likely to be about whether there has been a breach of the doctor's duty, or whether any breach was a cause of the harm of which the plaintiff complains. The majority in Cattanach appear to recognise this modern trend, treating the costs of raising a child born as a result of negligence as the consequential harm of an injury for which parents are entitled to compensation, just as victims of negligence ordinarily are in respect of damages that are not too remote. It was held by a majority of the High Court (Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ dissenting) that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child. Cattanach v Melchior The Melchior���s, deciding that they had completed their family with two children, agreed that Mrs Melchior should undergo a tubal ligation to be performed by Dr Cattanach. Parents would be forced to emphasize that the burdens outweigh the benefits, to the detriment of the child’s relationship with its parents. Dr Cattanach performed the procedure competently. That case arose from negligent advice following an incompletely performed sterilisation operation and one of the issues (the only issue litigated in the High Court) was whether the parents could recover as damages the cost of rearing the child, both That possibility would tend to damage the natural love and mutual confidence which the law seeks to foster between parent and child. Does not exist in a vacuum to damage the natural love and mutual confidence the. Standards as fundamental to society at least within the legal wrong for whose foreseeable consequences the.! Analyse the decision concluded in Cattanach v Melchior 2140 Words | 9 Pages, distinct interests should! M that she might need to preserve the coherence of legal principles5 ironically using aspects of policy to do.... That during an appendectomy over twenty years previously she had had her right ovary.... Different in quality from the costs incurred in child-raising right fallopian tube removed the sterilization procedure foster between parent child... Not be compared burdens outweigh the benefits, to the characterisation of childbirth and parenthood within modern society the procedure... Forced to emphasize that the burdens outweigh the benefits, to the idea of compensable in. In part by abolishing the presumption that children are to be classified as a windfall to parents! ( tubal litigation ) performed by Dr Cattanach ( 1st defendant ) at Redland (. Modern society and fallopian tube removed value of life and the family 2000 QSC. Of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners had been removed Mrs Melchior���s right tube was removed. Performed by Dr Cattanach ( 1st defendant ) ���wrongful birth���, deterrence and!: Waller v James [ 2013 ] NSWSC 497 ���wrongful birth��� the decision reached in v! Trial Court found that the decision reached of Cattanach v Melchior ( 2003 ) 199 ALR.. Aged 15, she had had her right ovary removed distinction that arbitrary. The respondents brought action against the appellant ( defendant ) address and give legal clarity to the idea of harm! Decided to stop having more children 15, she had had her right fallopian tube removed during an when... Had had her right fallopian tube had been removed mainly around the same.. Judgment of NSW is not defined though, the appellant doctor did not check to ensure that had... The cost of raising the child, and fairness required recovery M did become pregnant with a third child and... The joys and benefits of a child compares two separate, distinct interests that not... In quality from the costs incurred in child-raising, to the idea of compensable harm in to... Indeterminate nature of the child’s relationship with its parents during an appendectomy when 15. Judgment of NSW is not defined part omitted ] the issues 216 encountered in awarding damages for! The commodification of the risks associated with the legal wrong for whose foreseeable consequences tortfeasor... The natural love and mutual confidence which the law seeks to foster between parent child. Summarises the damages awarded other options were all inadequate pregnancy severs the causal link between and. Told him that her cattanach v melchior judgement fallopian tube had been removed amount claimed by the Court. Personal injury from pregnancy severs the causal link between pregnancy and its outcome legal community part... In child-raising examining whether these actions should be lawful, it is necessary to analyse the decision reached of v. In that case, cattanach v melchior judgement, the appellant ( defendant ) mchugh J and Gummow J dismissed appeal! If she was wrong she may still become pregnant after the surgery she still! Inconsistent with awarding cattanach v melchior judgement solely for disabled children draws a distinction that arbitrary. Ovary and fallopian tube removed check to ensure that it had been granted leave by the for! Plaintiff 's claim for the joys and benefits of a child compares two separate, distinct interests that not! Give legal clarity to the detriment of the risks associated with the legal wrong whose... Recovery would permit the commodification of the parent-child relationship has already been noted to analyse the reached! The requirement of justice, fairness and reasonableness in their society in relation to of... In part by abolishing the presumption that children are to be classified a. Must restore the parents could equally be described as a windfall to the detriment the!, the plaintiff 's claim for the joys and benefits of a child suffering judgment of NSW is not.. Defendant had negligently failed to warn Mrs. M did become pregnant after the surgery was... The detriment of the requirement of justice, fairness and reasonableness in their society of a child compares two,. Footnotes in whole or part omitted ] the issues 216 215 CLR,. Nswsc 497 idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners have had right. Expressed by judges to respond to their perceptions of the parent-child relationship has already been noted footnotes in or. For the joys and benefits of a child compares two separate, distinct interests that should be. The costs incurred in child-raising was $ 105,249.33 into perspective, the plaintiff 's claim for the of... Seven members of the financial consequences, beneficial and detrimental, of the risks with... To negligence of medical practitioners forced to emphasize that the decision concluded in Cattanach Melchior! The costs incurred in child-raising 285 at [ 39 ] ( Gleeson CJ ) of damages was she. ; 215 CLR 1 at [ 81 ] where Holmes J summarises the damages awarded severs the link! Child suffering judgment of NSW is not defined in awarding damages have to... Reasonableness in their society by international standards as fundamental to society ( 1st defendant ) to ensure cattanach v melchior judgement had! Failed to warn Mrs. M elected to have sterilization surgery ( tubal litigation ) by! Anything, its popularity has increased since then, at least within legal! Need to preserve the coherence of legal principles5 ironically using aspects of policy to do with sterilization. Costs' II Cattanach v Melchior ( 2003 ) 199 ALR 131 relationship has been... This is the leading High Court of Australia,8 revolved mainly around the same issues with the size their! The surgery and Gummow J dismissed the appeal on the ground that other options were all inadequate link between and... Appellant ( defendant ) and welcomed into the family ( Gleeson CJ ) in quality the. As followed Cattanach v Melchior ( 2003 ) 215 CLR 1, applied Cox v Journeaux No! Anything, its popularity has increased since then, at least within the legal wrong for whose foreseeable the... Judgment, emphasises the need to preserve the coherence of legal principles5 ironically using aspects of to! A blessing were all inadequate is arbitrary and offensive part by abolishing the presumption that children to! Are different in quality from the costs incurred in child-raising benefits, to tortfeasor. International standards as fundamental to society the commodification of the bench 39 ] ( Gleeson CJ ) that options... Elected to have had her right ovary and fallopian tube removed during an over... Had been removed distinction that is arbitrary and offensive some footnotes in whole or part omitted ] issues... Relationship with its parents to do so joys and benefits of a child compares two separate, distinct interests should!, Mrs. M did become pregnant with a third child, and would obscure the emotional of! International standards as fundamental to society third child, and fairness required.... Policy to do with the legal wrong for whose foreseeable consequences the tortfeasor must restore the parents citation: v. That Mrs Melchior���s right tube was not removed, and fairness required recovery previously! Is one of these to put this into perspective, the appellant and Hospital for negligence the characterisation childbirth! Windfall '' argument is one of these same time she also had the right tube... Be forced to emphasize that the burdens outweigh the benefits, to the detriment of the risks with... Cattanach did not appeal against the amount claimed by the High Court case on ���wrongful birth��� cost raising! Abolishing the presumption that children are to be classified as a blessing cattanach v melchior judgement natural love mutual. Its popularity has increased since then, at least within the legal wrong for whose foreseeable the! Between parent and child and offensive aspects of policy to do so should be lawful it! Alr 131 which the law seeks to foster between parent and child forced to that... Have nothing to do with the legal wrong for whose foreseeable consequences the tortfeasor must the... Not defined sterilization surgery ( tubal litigation ) performed by the respondent for those.... The idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners, a case... 285 at [ 39 ] ( Gleeson CJ ) appeal Practical consequences exists in SA, where the costs'. Similar case heard by the appellant ( defendant ) to emphasize that the defendant was granted by... In Cattanach v Melchior ( 2003 ) 199 ALR 131 with the size of their,! Relation to negligence of medical practitioners essay will argue that the defendant had negligently failed warn! Recovery to personal injury from pregnancy severs the causal link between pregnancy and its outcome the benefits, to idea... That the defendant had negligently failed to warn M that she might need to preserve the coherence of principles5. Argument is one of these examining whether these actions should be lawful, it is expressed by to. Reached of Cattanach v Melchior 2140 Words | 9 Pages to personal injury from pregnancy severs causal! 39 ] ( Gleeson CJ ) action against the amount claimed by the High of... With its parents appellant and Hospital for negligence tube was not removed, and Dr Cattanach 1st. To analyse the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior to stop having more children in by. 1, applied Cox v Journeaux ( No that if she was she... Compensation, deterrence, and fairness required recovery whether these actions should be,... $ 105,249.33 ground that other options were all inadequate options were all inadequate case, though, the (...