## Facts

- Frank Speck Jr. and two of his children suffered from neurofibromatosis, a serious hereditary disease; Frank and his wife, Dorothy, sought to prevent the birth of additional affected children.
- The Specks consulted Dr. Richard A. Finegold, who agreed (by oral agreement) to perform a vasectomy on Frank to sterilize him and allegedly represented that the procedure would make him sterile.
- Dr. Finegold performed the vasectomy and later allegedly assured the Specks that the operation had been successful and that Frank could engage in sexual relations without contraception.
- Dorothy nonetheless became pregnant. Because of the risk that the child would inherit neurofibromatosis, the Specks decided to terminate the pregnancy.
- Dr. Henry J. H. Schwartz performed the abortion and allegedly repeatedly stated that the abortion had been successful.
- The pregnancy continued, and Dorothy delivered a premature child who had neurofibromatosis.
- The Specks sued Dr. Finegold and Dr. Schwartz for negligence and breach of contract, asserting claims (1) on behalf of the infant for “wrongful life,” and (2) on behalf of the parents for damages tied to the birth of an impaired child, including medical and child-care expenses and claims for emotional disturbance and mental stress.
- The trial court sustained the physicians’ preliminary objections on the theory that Pennsylvania law did not recognize an action for the wrongful life or wrongful birth of a child. The Specks appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania law recognizes a cause of action by an impaired child for “wrongful life” based on alleged medical negligence that resulted in the child’s birth with congenital disease rather than nonexistence.
2. Whether Pennsylvania law recognizes a cause of action by parents for “wrongful birth” based on alleged negligent sterilization and/or abortion, and, if so, what categories of damages (pecuniary expenses versus emotional distress) may be recovered.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of the infant’s “wrongful life” claim.
- The court held the parents stated a limited claim for “wrongful birth” and could seek recovery of pecuniary losses, including extraordinary expenses incurred in caring for and raising an impaired child attributable to the child’s condition.
- The court rejected the parents’ claim for nonmonetary damages for emotional disturbance and mental stress incident to the birth.
- The order sustaining preliminary objections was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these limits on liability and damages.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania does not recognize “wrongful life” because the asserted injury depends on comparing impaired life to nonexistence, a comparison the court treated as incapable of judicial measurement for damages.
- Traditional negligence principles can support a parental “wrongful birth” claim when physicians undertake sterilization or abortion services and alleged departures from reasonable care foreseeably result in the birth of a child the parents sought to avoid because of serious congenital abnormality.
- Recoverable damages for wrongful birth are confined to objectively measurable pecuniary losses; the parents may recover extraordinary costs of care and raising the child attributable to the impairment, rather than general damages framed as the child’s existence as such.
- Damages for emotional and mental distress incident to the birth are not recoverable in this setting, even if the parents may proceed on the underlying negligence theory for pecuniary loss.

## Conclusion

*Speck v. Finegold* held that an impaired child cannot sue for “wrongful life,” but the parents may pursue a limited “wrongful birth” malpractice action seeking pecuniary damages—particularly extraordinary impairment-related expenses—while claims for emotional disturbance and mental stress tied to the birth are barred.


Speck v. Finegold, 268 Pa. Super. 342, 408 A.2d 496 (1979)