## Facts

- Jean Harbeson was diagnosed with epilepsy and prescribed Dilantin, an anticonvulsant, during a first pregnancy that resulted in a healthy child.
- After transferring to Washington, Jean received ongoing care at a military medical center where physicians continued Dilantin therapy.
- The federal trial court found physicians knew or should have known Dilantin posed significant teratogenic risks but did not adequately disclose those material risks, alternatives, or the option to avoid pregnancy.
- Jean later became pregnant while taking Dilantin and gave birth to two daughters with severe congenital impairments associated with fetal hydantoin syndrome.
- The parents alleged that, with adequate disclosure, they would have avoided conception or terminated the pregnancies.
- The parents asserted a claim characterized as wrongful birth; the children asserted wrongful life.
- A federal district court certified questions asking whether Washington recognizes wrongful birth and wrongful life, and what limits apply.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington recognizes a parental cause of action for wrongful birth based on negligent medical care or failure to obtain informed consent that deprives parents of the opportunity to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy resulting in the birth of a severely impaired child.
2. Whether Washington recognizes a child’s cause of action for wrongful life based on the contention that negligence resulted in birth with severe impairments rather than nonbirth.
3. If either action is recognized, what categories of damages are recoverable.

## Decision

- The court answered the certified questions by recognizing both causes of action under Washington law, subject to stated limitations.
- Wrongful birth was recognized as consistent with ordinary negligence and informed-consent principles.
- Wrongful life was recognized, but damages were limited to measurable economic losses attributable to the impairment.
- The matter was returned to the federal court for further proceedings consistent with these answers.

## Legal Principles

- A wrongful birth claim may proceed where negligent treatment or failure to disclose material risks and alternatives deprives parents of an informed reproductive choice and proximately causes the birth of a severely impaired child.
- The relevant injury in wrongful birth is the loss of informed choice and the resulting disability-related burdens, not the child’s existence as such.
- Parents may recover extraordinary expenses caused by the child’s impairments (e.g., medical, educational, and custodial costs), and emotional distress tied to the disability; ordinary child-rearing costs are not recoverable.
- A wrongful life claim may be brought by the child, but recovery is limited to extraordinary expenses attributable to the impairment; recovery is not based on valuing nonexistence over existence.
- Limiting wrongful life damages to extraordinary economic costs is intended to avoid comparing life with disabilities to nonexistence while still allowing compensation for disability-related financial burdens caused by negligence.

## Conclusion

Washington recognized wrongful birth and a limited form of wrongful life, treating both as applications of medical negligence and informed-consent doctrine and restricting damages primarily to extraordinary, disability-related expenses rather than ordinary child-rearing costs or generalized noneconomic claims premised on nonexistence.


Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983)