OTTAWA, January 25, 2001 ( – The Canadian Supreme Court ruled yesterday in what is believed to be the first time a case involving ‘wrongful birth’ has hit the high court. The nine justices ruled unanimously that the adult care of a child born with Down syndrome need not be covered by a doctor who failed to encourage the woman to undergo pre-natal testing which may have identified the disorder.

Pam and Murray Krangle of Maple Ridge British Columbia were demanding that Dr. Stanley Morrill continue to cover the costs of the special care needs for their 10 year old child Mervyn into adulthood. Mrs. Krangle says she would have aborted her son had she been made aware of his condition before birth. However, the case did not deal with the ‘wrongful birth’ issue head on since the court was asked only to rule on whether payments from the doctor’s insurance company should continue indefinitely or whether Mervyn should be placed on welfare support. The justices decided he should be placed on welfare support.

The original 1997 B.C. Supreme Court decision against the doctor for being responsible for the ‘wrongful birth’ went unchallenged. However in a subsequent ruling on the case the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Morrill should pay increased damages to cover the child into adulthood. This decision was appealed and quashed in the Supreme Courts decision yesterday.

‘Wrongful birth’ cases have led to astronomically high insurance fees for doctors who deliver babies – driving many professionals from the practice. The success of the suits, which penalize doctors for ostensibly failing to encourage genetic testing, or amniocentesis, is very disturbing both in terms of its implications for pro-life doctors and in terms of what it says about our society’s recognition of the responsibility of parents. Many pro-life doctors refuse to refer patients for search and destroy amniocentesis and other such tests, so they face a higher risk of prosecution by dissatisfied parents. In late June 1999, a Michigan appeals court panel warned the logic of wrongful-birth suits “could quickly slide into applied eugenics and the elimination of supposedly unfit human lives.”

Chief Justice McLachlin pointed out clearly in the ruling that “The only issue before this Court is the amount of that loss—specifically, whether the Krangles are entitled to damages for the cost of caring for Mervyn after he reaches adulthood.”

For a background on wrongful birth suits see the Interim:

See the Supreme Court ruling on the case:

See the coverage in the Toronto Star:


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.