Harriton v Stephens case materials gave the High Court the opportunity to make a morally and socially important decision that was legally justified, as it managed to do for illegitimate birth. However, the court's reluctance to recognize the legal rights of individual life is justified by a logical fallacy, depriving the case of any real meaning and leaving the plaintiff with undesirable results. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This case was brought by Alexia Harriton, who was born with “catastrophic disabilities” due to her mother's family doctor's failure to diagnose rubella during her first trimester. It was accepted that a reasonable doctor would have taken more care in analyzing the tests and explaining the catastrophic effects such a disease can have. The main issue was whether the duty of care was owed to Alexia. The court, by a majority of six to one, rejected Harriton's request, finding that there were three main issues in recognizing a duty of care: the difficulty of limiting the duty of care to severely disabled people, the coherence of the law, and the nature of the damage complained of. Ultimately, the case settled in the third round, stating that "a comparison between a life with disability and a life of non-existence, for the purpose of proving actual harm and making known to a trier of fact the nature of the harm caused, is impossible" 'Although it has been found that it is impossible for a court to determine what damages are recoverable from a disability living compensation claim due to the fact that existence is better than non-existence, there are still other actions which could give give rise to potentially compensable damages. Under foreseeability, the defendant will be liable if the damage is reasonably foreseeable and the damage is the result of negligence. The problems that come with living with a disability, including pain and medical bills, are some of the types of harm clearly foreseeable here. Since it was recognized that a reasonable doctor would have taken greater care in observing for rubella, the injury is the result of the defendant's negligence. Therefore, according to the common meaning of foreseeability, the doctor would be responsible. The “compensatory principle” attempts to put the plaintiff “in the same position he or she would have been in if the tort had not been committed.” In this case, this becomes problematic as it requires a "confrontation between existence and non-existence", because the plaintiff is effectively arguing that it would be better not to be born. Crennan J objected to the possibility of assessing damages in this case as it was an "impossible comparison". However, courts have been able to weigh damages between existence and nonexistence before. Furthermore, in the situation in which the plaintiff would find himself if not for the negligence of the doctor, i.e. non-existence, he would suffer any pain or bear the significant cost of living. From this perspective, it is possible to evaluate damages and award them based on the level of pain and suffering and the cost of medical expenses that otherwise would not exist. However, if this is accepted, the loss of earning capacity cannot be compensated and the welfare benefits that the claimant would inevitably receive must be taken into account. Disability Damages Perhaps a more plausible reasoning for the plaintiff to avoid some One of the inherent problems in making the comparison between existence and non-existence would be to make a case based on disability alone rather than life as a whole. Because it is not necessary.