Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- National reporters
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- Editorial note
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Mapping the legal landscape
- Part II Case studies
- 4 Case 1: The corrupt politician
- 5 Case 2: Convicted law professor
- 6 Case 3: The paedophile case
- 7 Case 4: An invented life story?
- 8 Case 5: A former statesman's family life
- 9 Case 6: A satirical magazine
- 10 Case 7: A snapshot of a person
- 11 Case 8: A paparazzo's telephoto lens
- 12 Case 9: Naked.Little.Girl.Com
- 13 Case 10: The late famous tennis player
- 14 Case 11: The popular TV presenter
- 15 Case 12: Copied emails
- 16 Case 13: Brigitte's diaries
- 17 Case 14: Tape recordings of a committee meeting
- 18 Case 15: ‘Light cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer’
- 19 Case 16: Doctor's non-disclosure of a foetal disease
- 20 Case 17: WAF – A gang of incompetents?
- Part III A common core of personality protection
- Index
19 - Case 16: Doctor's non-disclosure of a foetal disease
from Part II - Case studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- National reporters
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- Editorial note
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Mapping the legal landscape
- Part II Case studies
- 4 Case 1: The corrupt politician
- 5 Case 2: Convicted law professor
- 6 Case 3: The paedophile case
- 7 Case 4: An invented life story?
- 8 Case 5: A former statesman's family life
- 9 Case 6: A satirical magazine
- 10 Case 7: A snapshot of a person
- 11 Case 8: A paparazzo's telephoto lens
- 12 Case 9: Naked.Little.Girl.Com
- 13 Case 10: The late famous tennis player
- 14 Case 11: The popular TV presenter
- 15 Case 12: Copied emails
- 16 Case 13: Brigitte's diaries
- 17 Case 14: Tape recordings of a committee meeting
- 18 Case 15: ‘Light cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer’
- 19 Case 16: Doctor's non-disclosure of a foetal disease
- 20 Case 17: WAF – A gang of incompetents?
- Part III A common core of personality protection
- Index
Summary
Case
Bridget was pregnant. She was under the treatment of a doctor who did not inform her that her foetus had a genetic anomaly, which was likely to cause brain damage. Her child was born mentally disabled. If Bridget had known about the anomaly she would have preferred to have undergone a (legal) abortion. Can Bridget sue the doctor for damages for non-economic loss, because he deprived her of the chance to decide whether or not to have the child?
Discussions
Austria
Operative rules
Damages in respect of economic loss (additional maintenance costs), as well as in respect of non-economic loss (shock) could be awarded here. However, Bridget will not be compensated for non-economic harm resulting from the mere loss of autonomy.
Descriptive formants
Under Austrian law it is unclear whether there is a personal right to family planning the infringement of which gives rise to a claim for damages in tort. As far as the rights to self-determination and free will are concerned, claims in tort for compensation are only granted where there is intentional infringement.
In the present case, however, there is a contractual relationship between Bridget and the doctor. The contract of medical treatment means that there is a duty on the doctor to inform the patient of any health risks (to either the mother or the foetus); this is, of course, true with respect to genetic anomalies and risks derived therefrom. Failure to inform, therefore, is a breach of contract.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Personality Rights in European Tort Law , pp. 511 - 542Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010