title: A critique of the motivational analysis in wrongful conception cases.
abstract: Most states now recognize a tort cause of action for wrongful conception, typically resulting from a failed sterilization. States differ, however, in determining whether damages should be awarded for child-rearing expenses and what factors juries can consider in setting such damage awards. This Note argues that one commonly used factor, the parents' motivation for selecting sterilization, is irrelevant and leads to inequitable results. Since the right to use contraception is constitutionally protected, the choice to sterilize in order to avoid financial burdens associated with child-rearing should not be given preferential treatment to sterilizations motivated by concerns of genetic defects or for the mother's health.
authors.forename: I J
authors.initials: IJ
authors.lastname: Alvarez
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D002668:Child Rearing; D002676:Child, Unwanted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D035881:Compensation and Redress / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008318:Malpractice / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009042:Motivation; D010290:Parents / Q000523:psychology; D011640:Public Policy; D013219:State Government; D013245:Sterilization, Reproductive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology; D014481:United States; D015974:Wrongful Life / Q000941:ethics