Why do courts usually reject wrongful-life claims brought by children?

Courts generally reject "wrongful life" claims—lawsuits brought by children alleging that they would not have been born but for a medical professional's negligence—due to a combination of technical and philosophical challenges.

From a technical perspective, courts struggle with the difficulty of assessing damages, as it requires comparing the value of a life with impairments against the value of nonexistence. Philosophically, these cases force courts to make determinations regarding the value and quality of life, a role they are often reluctant to assume.

Ultimately, these arguments often serve as justifications for the judiciary's refusal to address a complex issue for which there is no broad societal consensus. While courts have been hesitant to recognize the "wrongful life" claim itself, they are increasingly willing to grant children special damages related to their specific handicaps, and they are generally more inclined to compensate parents who bring "wrongful birth" actions for the costs associated with rearing an impaired child.1