Consultation Paper on Bioethics - Law Reform Commission
Consultation Paper on Bioethics - Law Reform Commission
Consultation Paper on Bioethics - Law Reform Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
in similar circumstances. 86 Staught<strong>on</strong> LJ observed that he doubted that an<br />
English court would have awarded such a high sum, but c<strong>on</strong>firmed that some<br />
liability would exist. 87<br />
(III) Special Damages<br />
5.37 A possible soluti<strong>on</strong> to mitigate judicial reluctance to award general<br />
damages for the violati<strong>on</strong> of the right to refuse medical treatment is to allow <strong>on</strong>ly<br />
special damages for the medical expenses and extraordinary costs incidental to<br />
the plaintiff‟s c<strong>on</strong>tinued living. 88 Special damages have been awarded in<br />
wr<strong>on</strong>gful life claims. In Procanik v Cillo, 89 the New Jersey Supreme Court limited<br />
recovery to special damages in the case of a physician who negligently failed to<br />
diagnose measles during the first trimester of pregnancy. In so doing, the court<br />
avoided having to recognise life as a legally recognisable harm, which would be<br />
required in a finding for general damages for a child‟s pain and suffering. The<br />
court observed that “the interests of fairness and justice are better served<br />
through more predictably measured damages – the costs of the extraordinary<br />
medical expenses necessitated by the infant child‟s handicaps.” 90 It is argued<br />
that special damages for wr<strong>on</strong>gful living would be easier to assess than those<br />
for wr<strong>on</strong>gful life, as the former involves a very precise time frame commencing<br />
with the refused treatment, and c<strong>on</strong>cluding with the patient‟s death whereas the<br />
latter involves the lifetime of a child. 91<br />
(vii) Wr<strong>on</strong>gful interference with c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al rights<br />
(I) C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al rights are enforceable against private individuals as<br />
well as the State<br />
5.38 There is a c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al right to refuse medical treatment under Irish<br />
law. The Irish courts have held that a c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al right in <strong>on</strong>e pers<strong>on</strong> implies a<br />
corresp<strong>on</strong>ding duty in, not <strong>on</strong>ly the State, but also in other pers<strong>on</strong>s to respect<br />
86 [1992] 4 All ER 649at 665 per Butler-Sloss LJ.<br />
87 Ibid at 669 per Staught<strong>on</strong> LJ.<br />
88 D<strong>on</strong>ohue “‟Wr<strong>on</strong>gful Living‟: Recovery for a Physician‟s Infringement <strong>on</strong> an<br />
Individual‟s Right to Die” (1997-1998) 14 Journal of C<strong>on</strong>temporary Health <strong>Law</strong><br />
and Policy 391 at 413.<br />
89 478 A 2d 755 (NJ 1984).<br />
90 Ibid at 763.<br />
91 D<strong>on</strong>ohue “‟Wr<strong>on</strong>gful Living‟: Recovery for a Physician‟s Infringement <strong>on</strong> an<br />
Individual‟s Right to Die” (1997-1998) 14 Journal of C<strong>on</strong>temporary Health <strong>Law</strong><br />
and Policy 391 at 415-416.<br />
137