The DOI matches its Crossref record.
WRONGFUL LIFE, PROCREATIVE RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HARM
Abstract
A wrongful life suit is an unusual civil suit brought by a child (typically a congenitally disabled child)1 who seeks damages for burdens he suffers that result from his creation. Typically, the child charges that he has been born into an unwanted or miserable life.2 These suits offer the prospect of financial relief for some disabled or neglected children and have some theoretical advantages over alternative causes of action.3 But they have had only mixed, mostly negative, success.4 They have, however, spurred considerable philosophical interest.5 This attention, though, has been primarily focused on issues about the coherence of complaining about one’s existence or its essential conditions. These suits also raise important, but less well-probed, philosophical questions about the morality of procreation and, more generally, about the moral significance of imposed, but not consented to, conditions that deliver both significant harms and benefits.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination
Flanigan, J. (2014) · HEC Forum · doi:10.1007/s10730-013-9221-5 · Cited by 140
Meyer, L. H., & Roser, D. (2009) · Intergenerational Justice · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282951.003.0009 · Cited by 105
Schleidgen, S., Dederer, H.-G., Sgodda, S., Cravcisin, S., Lüneburg, L., Cantz, T., & Heinemann, T. (2020) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1 · Cited by 43
Principles of risk imposition and the priority of avoiding harm
Keating, G. C. (2018) · Revus · doi:10.4000/revus.4406 · Cited by 10
Against willing servitude: Autonomy in the ethics of advanced artificial intelligence
Bales, A. (2025) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqaf031 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Shiffrin, S. V.
- Venue
- Legal Theory
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 117-148
- ISSN
- 1352-3252 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8048
- OpenAlex
- W3126143484
- Cited by
- 574
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.