|Title||You Should Never Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth: One-Size-Fits-All Compensation in Wrongful Conception|
|Authors||Clayton Thompson, J.|
This article reconsiders the House of Lords decision in Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2003) and the decision to award a conventional award of £15,000 in all cases of failed sterilisation resulting in the birth of an unwanted child. In so doing, it briefly recites the history of the Wrongful Conception action and the unique facts of Rees. It then goes on the consider the implications of two fundamental aspects of the judgment. Firstly, it looks at the 'conventional award' itself and considers the reasoning behind the award and the effect that it has on our understanding of (particularly women's) reproductive autonomy. Secondly, it analyses the rather 'unique' judgment of Lord Scott and his decision to evaluate these cases using the possessory analogy of an unwanted foal; particular focus is given to the notion of parental 'choice' in these cases and whether mitigation (i.e. abortion or adoption) can ever be considered "reasonable".
|Journal||Westminster Law Review|
|Journal citation||2 (1), pp. 73-96|
|Publisher||University of Westminster|
|Web address (URL)||http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr7.php|