IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i3p457-478..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Unequal Treatment of Maternal and Paternal Liability Under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 Justified?

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine E Bowden

Abstract

Under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (CDCLA) a child born disabled as a result of an occurrence prior to its birth can bring a claim against the individual responsible for that occurrence. Significantly, mothers are exempt from liability (except in relation to negligent driving) but fathers are not. Since the CDCLA came into force in 1976, there have been significant shifts in the landscape in which it operates: a more gender-neutral model of parenting; transmission of an infection to a sexual partner can be a criminal offence; and growing evidence regarding the impact of prenatal events. In addition, there is a trend for presenting prenatal harm as a problem of individual behaviour. This article presents a timely consideration of the potential for parental liability under the CDCLA and asks whether restricting the exemption of parental liability to mothers but not fathers can be justified. It is argued that the reasons for unequal parental liability in relation to gestational harm are not sufficient to justify restricting the broad exemption to mothers but not fathers and a change in the law is required to bring the CDCLA up to date with advances in the criminal law, society, and medical science.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine E Bowden, 2022. "Is the Unequal Treatment of Maternal and Paternal Liability Under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 Justified?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 457-478.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:457-478.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac012
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:457-478.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.