The parents of a child born with Down's Syndrome brought a wrongful birth action on their own behalf and a wrongful life action on the behalf of their child against their physician, claiming that he had failed to advise the mother of the availability of amniocentesis, thus precluding her from having an abortion to prevent birth. The Court dismissed the actions, ruling that no such actions were recognized in Missouri in 1983, the time that the negligence of the physician was alleged to have occurred. In 1988, other US courts held as follows with respect to wrongful birth, wrongful life, and wrongful pregnancy actions: 1) no recovery allowed for costs of rearing a healthy child born as a result of failed sterilization or abortion (Marciniak vs. Lundborg, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 15 November 1988 [147 Wis.2d 556]); (Johnson vs. University Hospitals of Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 14 January 1988 [1988 Ohio App. Lexis 228]); (Harmath vs. Goler, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 22 December 1988 [1988 Ohio App. Lexis 5196]); (Butler vs. Rolling Hill Hospital, Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, 2 March 1988 [17 Phila. 134]); (Goforth vs. Porter Medical Associates, Inc., Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 31 May 1988 [755 P.2d 678]); (Wofford vs. Davis, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 18 October 1988 [764 P.2d 161]); 2) recovery of expenses allowed for pregnancy, delivery, and pain and suffering, but not for special expenses regarding deformity of child born as the result of a failed tubal ligation (Pitre vs. Opelousas General Hospital, Supreme Court of Louisiana, 12 September 1988 [530 So.2d 1151]); 3) action for wrongful birth not allowed with respect to child born with undiagnosed Down's Syndrome (Rolf vs. Youngblood, Missouri Court of Appeals, 3 May 1988 [753 S.W.2d]); 4) recovery allowed of costs of medical and hospital expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, lost wages, and punitive damages, but not costs of rearing a healthy child (C.S. vs. Nielson, Supreme Court of Utah, 6 December 1988 [767 P.2d 504]); and 5) recovery of costs of rearing child born with genetic birth defects subsequent to assurances that child would be normal and damages for the mother's emotional distress are allowed, but not extraordinary medical expenses incurred by the child after the parents' death (Gallagher vs. Duke University, US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 28 July 1988 [852 F.2d 773]).
一名患有唐氏综合征的儿童的父母代表自己提起了一项不当出生诉讼，并代表他们的孩子对医生提起了一项不当生命诉讼，声称医生没有告知母亲可以进行羊膜穿刺术，从而使她无法进行堕胎以避免孩子出生。法院驳回了这些诉讼，裁定在1983年（据称医生的过失发生的时间）密苏里州不承认此类诉讼。1988年，美国其他法院对不当出生、不当生命和不当怀孕诉讼做出了如下裁决：1）因绝育或堕胎失败而出生的健康孩子的抚养费用不予赔偿（马尔西尼亚克诉伦德伯格案，威斯康星州上诉法院，1988年11月15日[147 Wis.2d 556]）；（约翰逊诉克利夫兰大学医院案，俄亥俄州上诉法院，1988年1月14日[1988 Ohio App. Lexis 228]）；（哈马斯诉戈勒案，俄亥俄州上诉法院，1988年12月22日[1988 Ohio App. Lexis 5196]）；（巴特勒诉罗林希尔医院案，费城县普通法法院，1988年3月2日[17 Phila. 134]）；（戈福思诉波特医疗协会案，俄克拉荷马州最高法院，1988年5月31日[755 P.2d 678]）；（沃福德诉戴维斯案，俄克拉荷马州最高法院，1988年10月18日[764 P.2d 161]）；2）允许赔偿怀孕、分娩以及疼痛和痛苦的费用，但不包括因输卵管结扎失败而出生的孩子畸形的特殊费用（皮特尔诉奥佩卢萨斯综合医院案，路易斯安那州最高法院，1988年9月12日[530 So.2d 1151]）；3）对于患有未被诊断出唐氏综合征而出生孩子的不当出生诉讼不予受理（罗尔夫诉扬布拉德案，密苏里州上诉法院，1988年5月3日[753 S.W.2d]）；4）允许赔偿医疗和住院费用、身体和精神上的疼痛和痛苦、工资损失以及惩罚性损害赔偿，但不包括抚养健康孩子的费用（C.S.诉尼尔森案，犹他州最高法院，1988年12月6日[767 P.2d 504]）；5）在保证孩子会正常但孩子出生时患有基因性出生缺陷的情况下，允许赔偿抚养孩子的费用以及母亲精神痛苦的损害赔偿，但不包括父母去世后孩子产生的特殊医疗费用（加拉格尔诉杜克大学案，美国第四巡回上诉法院，1988年7月28日[852 F.2d 773]）。
