## Facts

- The claim arose when a child was born with severe disabilities, allegedly as a result of the mother contracting rubella during pregnancy.
- The parents contended that the health authority negligently failed to diagnose the infection or advise termination, leading to the child’s birth with disabilities.
- The child, through her parents, sought damages from the health authority for the pain, suffering, and financial burden associated with her condition.
- The case focused on whether a child could bring a claim for “wrongful life” based on the argument that non-existence would have been preferable to existence with disabilities.

## Issues

1. Whether English law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful life, allowing a disabled child to claim damages on the basis that they would have been better off not being born.
2. Whether the tort of negligence could extend to the circumstances of a child’s mere existence as a compensable harm, rather than injury suffered during birth.
3. Whether the court could or should assess damages by comparing existence with disabilities to non-existence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the claim for wrongful life, holding that such claims are not permissible under English law.
- The court emphasized the fundamental principle that life, irrespective of disability, is valuable and cannot be legally regarded as a harm.
- The court determined that it is impossible to assess damages by comparing existence to non-existence.
- Policy considerations were cited, including the societal implications of devaluing disabled lives and the practical consequences for healthcare providers.
- The court relied on existing precedent rejecting similar claims, affirming there is no right under English law to be born without disabilities.

## Legal Principles

- English tort law does not recognize claims for wrongful life—existence, even with disabilities, is not considered actionable harm.
- The sanctity of life is of utmost importance; courts will not declare non-existence preferable to existence, regardless of impairment.
- Damages for wrongful life claims are unquantifiable as they would require courts to compare existence with non-existence.
- Allowing such claims would raise substantial ethical, practical, and policy concerns relating to disability and medical practice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in McKay v Essex Area Health Authority [1982] QB 1166 established that wrongful life claims by disabled children are not actionable in English law, reaffirming the principle that life itself is inherently valuable and beyond the reach of compensable harm in tort.
