The Rights and Wrongs of Wrongful Life: Exploring Legal, Health, and Emotional Argumentation in Judicial Decisions and Lay Opinions

Abstract

This study was a content analysis of the judicial opinions in publicly available rulings on wrongful life and lay opinions of the public as expressed through publicly posted internet commentary, commonly known as “weblogs.” By focusing on both judicial and public opinions, this study explored not only what arguments have been made, but also delved into the potential consequences of these arguments for the future of wrongful life. In many ways, the judiciary and the public exhibited similar patterns of matching their argument topics to the types of arguments they present. However, the types of arguments these two entities utilize are quite different. Judges relied predominantly on legal arguments, whereas the public voiced emotional arguments when debating the same controversial topic. This may pose certain challenges to the perceived legitimacy of court rulings that do not account for the emotional tenor of community sentiment regarding wrongful life.