“错误出生”索赔和养育残疾儿童的悖论。

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2018-11-01
Sofia Yakren
{"title":"“错误出生”索赔和养育残疾儿童的悖论。","authors":"Sofia Yakren","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Wrongful birth\" is a controversial medical malpractice claim raised by the mother of a child born with a disability against a medical professional whose failure to provide adequate prenatal information denied her the chance to abort. Plaintiff-mothers are required to testify that, but for the defendant's negligence, they would have terminated their pregnancy. Accordingly, alongside pro-life activists, disability rights advocates have opposed \"wrongful birth\" claims for stigmatizing and discriminating against people with disabilities by framing their very existence as a harm. Despite plaintiff-mothers' need for caretaking resources, scholars have recommended solutions ranging from the wholesale elimination of the wrongful birth claim to the curtailment of damages. To the extent scholars and the media have acknowledged mothers in the wrongful birth discourse at all, often it has been to blame and shame them for allegedly rejecting their children. They have paid little attention to the ways wrongful birth jurisprudence forces mothers to disavow their children in court, and thereby to forfeit the \"good mother\" ideal, in exchange for the possibility of securing necessary resources for their children. Commentators who question plaintiff-mothers' maternal devotion exacerbate the psychological toll the law already imposes. This Article shifts the blame from mothers to the legal system. While wrongful birth proceedings portray mothers' feelings about their children as categorically negative, real life accounts and social science findings reveal the true paradoxical experiences of all mothers, including plaintiff-mothers raising children with disabilities. To acknowledge this complex reality and mitigate the emotional strain of bringing a wrongful birth claim, this Article proposes several legal reforms: (1) broadening the analysis of emotional distress to reflect and legitimize mothers' paradoxical feelings about their children; (2) reframing the harm to mothers as loss of reproductive choice rather than as the birth of a flawed child and, accordingly, expanding available economic damages to include plaintiff-mothers' unexpected childcare responsibilities; and (3) educating plaintiffs' attorneys to empathize with the emotional aspects of mothers' litigation experiences and to counsel mothers accordingly. Today's approach to \"wrongful birth\" claims, which both stigmatizes disability and strains caretakers, demands urgent reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Wrongful Birth\\\" Claims and the Paradox of Parenting a Child with a Disability.\",\"authors\":\"Sofia Yakren\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>\\\"Wrongful birth\\\" is a controversial medical malpractice claim raised by the mother of a child born with a disability against a medical professional whose failure to provide adequate prenatal information denied her the chance to abort. Plaintiff-mothers are required to testify that, but for the defendant's negligence, they would have terminated their pregnancy. Accordingly, alongside pro-life activists, disability rights advocates have opposed \\\"wrongful birth\\\" claims for stigmatizing and discriminating against people with disabilities by framing their very existence as a harm. Despite plaintiff-mothers' need for caretaking resources, scholars have recommended solutions ranging from the wholesale elimination of the wrongful birth claim to the curtailment of damages. To the extent scholars and the media have acknowledged mothers in the wrongful birth discourse at all, often it has been to blame and shame them for allegedly rejecting their children. They have paid little attention to the ways wrongful birth jurisprudence forces mothers to disavow their children in court, and thereby to forfeit the \\\"good mother\\\" ideal, in exchange for the possibility of securing necessary resources for their children. Commentators who question plaintiff-mothers' maternal devotion exacerbate the psychological toll the law already imposes. This Article shifts the blame from mothers to the legal system. While wrongful birth proceedings portray mothers' feelings about their children as categorically negative, real life accounts and social science findings reveal the true paradoxical experiences of all mothers, including plaintiff-mothers raising children with disabilities. To acknowledge this complex reality and mitigate the emotional strain of bringing a wrongful birth claim, this Article proposes several legal reforms: (1) broadening the analysis of emotional distress to reflect and legitimize mothers' paradoxical feelings about their children; (2) reframing the harm to mothers as loss of reproductive choice rather than as the birth of a flawed child and, accordingly, expanding available economic damages to include plaintiff-mothers' unexpected childcare responsibilities; and (3) educating plaintiffs' attorneys to empathize with the emotional aspects of mothers' litigation experiences and to counsel mothers accordingly. Today's approach to \\\"wrongful birth\\\" claims, which both stigmatizes disability and strains caretakers, demands urgent reform.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

"错误分娩"是一项有争议的医疗事故索赔,一名出生时患有残疾的儿童的母亲对一名医疗专业人员提出索赔,该医务人员未能提供充分的产前信息,使她失去了堕胎的机会。原告母亲被要求作证,如果不是被告的疏忽,她们早就终止妊娠了。因此,与反堕胎活动人士一起,残疾人权利倡导者反对“错误出生”的主张,认为这是对残疾人的侮辱和歧视,将残疾人的存在视为一种伤害。尽管原告母亲需要照顾资源,学者们还是推荐了解决方案,从全面消除错误的出生索赔到减少损害赔偿。在某种程度上,学者和媒体承认了错误分娩话语中的母亲,通常是指责和羞辱她们据称拒绝了自己的孩子。他们很少注意到错误的生育法学迫使母亲在法庭上否认自己的孩子,从而放弃“好母亲”的理想,以换取为孩子争取必要资源的可能性。质疑原告母亲的母性奉献的评论者加剧了法律已经施加的心理伤害。这篇文章将责任从母亲转移到法律制度。虽然错误的生育诉讼将母亲对孩子的感情描绘成绝对负面的,但现实生活中的描述和社会科学的发现揭示了所有母亲的真实矛盾经历,包括抚养残疾孩子的原告母亲。为了认识到这一复杂的现实,减轻提出错误出生索赔的情绪压力,本文提出了几项法律改革:(1)扩大对情绪困扰的分析,以反映母亲对孩子的矛盾感受并使其合法化;(2)将对母亲的伤害重新定义为生育选择的丧失,而不是生育有缺陷的孩子,并相应地扩大可获得的经济损害赔偿,以包括原告母亲意外的育儿责任;(3)教育原告律师体恤母亲诉讼经历中的情感因素,并为母亲提供相应的咨询。目前处理“错误出生”索赔的方法既给残疾人士带来污名,又给看护人带来压力,迫切需要改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"Wrongful Birth" Claims and the Paradox of Parenting a Child with a Disability.

"Wrongful birth" is a controversial medical malpractice claim raised by the mother of a child born with a disability against a medical professional whose failure to provide adequate prenatal information denied her the chance to abort. Plaintiff-mothers are required to testify that, but for the defendant's negligence, they would have terminated their pregnancy. Accordingly, alongside pro-life activists, disability rights advocates have opposed "wrongful birth" claims for stigmatizing and discriminating against people with disabilities by framing their very existence as a harm. Despite plaintiff-mothers' need for caretaking resources, scholars have recommended solutions ranging from the wholesale elimination of the wrongful birth claim to the curtailment of damages. To the extent scholars and the media have acknowledged mothers in the wrongful birth discourse at all, often it has been to blame and shame them for allegedly rejecting their children. They have paid little attention to the ways wrongful birth jurisprudence forces mothers to disavow their children in court, and thereby to forfeit the "good mother" ideal, in exchange for the possibility of securing necessary resources for their children. Commentators who question plaintiff-mothers' maternal devotion exacerbate the psychological toll the law already imposes. This Article shifts the blame from mothers to the legal system. While wrongful birth proceedings portray mothers' feelings about their children as categorically negative, real life accounts and social science findings reveal the true paradoxical experiences of all mothers, including plaintiff-mothers raising children with disabilities. To acknowledge this complex reality and mitigate the emotional strain of bringing a wrongful birth claim, this Article proposes several legal reforms: (1) broadening the analysis of emotional distress to reflect and legitimize mothers' paradoxical feelings about their children; (2) reframing the harm to mothers as loss of reproductive choice rather than as the birth of a flawed child and, accordingly, expanding available economic damages to include plaintiff-mothers' unexpected childcare responsibilities; and (3) educating plaintiffs' attorneys to empathize with the emotional aspects of mothers' litigation experiences and to counsel mothers accordingly. Today's approach to "wrongful birth" claims, which both stigmatizes disability and strains caretakers, demands urgent reform.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1