McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59

Facts

• Mr. and Mrs. McFarlane, after having four children, decided not to expand their family further and Mr. McFarlane underwent a vasectomy.
• Medical advice indicated a negative sperm count, and the couple was assured that contraception was unnecessary.
• Despite this, Mrs. McFarlane became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy daughter, Catherine.
• Mrs. McFarlane claimed damages for the pain, inconvenience, and medical expenses resulting from her pregnancy and childbirth.
• Both parents also claimed the financial costs of raising their daughter, seeking to hold the health authority liable for these ongoing expenses.

Issues

1. Whether a health authority can be held liable for the financial costs of raising a healthy child born due to a negligently performed vasectomy.
2. Whether compensation for pure economic loss is appropriate in cases of wrongful birth involving healthy children.
3. To what extent the doctor's duty of care extends to economic burdens arising from failed sterilisation procedures.

Decision

• The House of Lords allowed Mrs. McFarlane's claim for pain, suffering, inconvenience, and medical expenses related to the pregnancy and childbirth.
• The court unanimously rejected the parents' claim for the ongoing costs of raising the healthy child, finding such damages to constitute pure economic loss.
• The primary rationale for rejecting the broader claim was that imposing such liability was not fair, just, and reasonable.
• The court emphasised distributive justice, determining it was not appropriate for the legal system to transfer the costs of child-rearing to medical providers.
• Lord Millett, in the minority, suggested a conventional award for loss of autonomy, distinct from child-rearing costs, but this was not adopted by the majority.

Legal Principles

• Pure economic loss arising from the costs of raising a healthy child after negligent sterilisation is not recoverable from health authorities.
• The duty of care in medical negligence extends to compensating for physical effects of pregnancy and related medical expenses but does not cover financial responsibility for raising a child.
• Policy considerations, specifically distributive justice, play a decisive role in limiting the scope of recoverable damages.
• The acceptance and inclusion of the child into the family are viewed as parental choices, not actionable harms.
• Subsequent case law (Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust) clarified that while upbringing costs remain unrecoverable, a conventional award may address loss of autonomy, though this does not apply in McFarlane.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board conclusively established that health authorities are not liable for the costs of raising a healthy child following negligent sterilisation, restricting recoverable damages to the immediate physical and medical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, with broader policy considerations informing the boundary of liability.