THE RIGHTS OF THE EMBRYO AND THE FOETUS UNDER DUTCHLAW does not amount to normal medical treatment ), but if the doctor has objections as a matter of principle, then he/she should referthe patient to another doctor The Cabinet has adopted a standpoint concerning the termination of ate pregnancies. I This concerns unbom babies who do not, or hardly have, a vibl independent existence and during the course of the pregnancy it is considered that postnatal life-prolonging actions would be medically pointless. The tem ination of late pregnancies is allowed in certain situations, subject to the condition that the requirements of due care are adhered to in the taking and the implementation of the decision 52 For example doctors will be compelled to report cases and their treatment will be examined by a commission Wrongful birth and wrongful life On January 9, 2002, the French Parliament adopted a bill curtailing the right to compensation in cases of wrongful life 53. The bill was the direct consequence of a num ber of spectacular awards handed down by the French Cour de cassation. In the Netherlands, actions for wrongful birth and wrongful life have not generated the same commotion, yet have managed to occupy the minds of lawyers and specialists ofethics for some time Itall started in the early 1990s, when lower courts began allowing compensation for failed sterilisations 4. This had been prepared by legal doctrine, which advocated the allowance of such compensation, although sometimes not unequivocally. Thus, one author suggested that compensation should not be allowed if the only motive for sterilisation had been a couple's fear of congenital diseases and the subsequently bom baby proved to be perfectly healthy. This restriction has been rejected almost uniformly because of its infringement upon the privacy of those asking for ch Supreme Raad, which in a landmark decision allowed compensation55. The Hoge Raad expressed the opinion that the award of compensation for expenses to raise the child bom normal and healthy -was not in conflict with the human dignity of the child ith its right to life Letter from the Mnster of Health, Welfare and Sport and from the Mister of Justice of er 1999. Parl. Docs. 1I 26717 no These requirements arederived from case law whereby the interpretations of careful treatment such as this have developed withn the medical profess ion and are considered to be of great importance, Parl Docs. II 26717, no. 1, P. 6. Zie nader over dit onderwerp Te Braak Le monde 10 January 2002 Liabil ity was denied by rb. Arnhem 26 February 1976, Nederlandse Jursprudente(ND)1977, 281, Rb. Leeuwarden I March 1984, NJ 1986, 334 and Rb S-Gravenhage 2 1 September 1994, NJ 1995, 296, but accepted by rb Maastricht 22 November 1979, NJ 1980, 655, Hof's-Hertbgenbosch 17 May 1983, NJ 1984, 240, Rb. Amhem 13 December 1989, NJ 1990, 362, 4 June 1992, NJ 1992, 614, Rb. Utrecht 27 April 1994, NJ 1995, 295, Rb. Amhem 26 October 1997, 141, Hof s-Hertogenbosch 18 March 1996, NJ 1997, 644 Hoge Raad 21 February 1997, Nederlandse Jurispnudentie 1999, 145(Note by CJ.HTHE RIGHTS OF THE EMBRYO AND THE FOETUS UNDER DUTCH LAW 11 does not amount to normal medical treatment), but if the doctor has objections as a matter of principle, then he/she should refer the patient to another doctor. The Cabinet has adopted a standpoint concerning the termination of late pregnancies.51 This concerns unborn babies who do not, or hardly have, a viable independent existence and during the course of the pregnancy it is considered that postnatal life-prolonging actions would be medically pointless. The termination of late pregnancies is allowed in certain situations, subject to the condition that the requirements of due care are adhered to in the taking and the implementation of the decision.52 For example doctors will be compelled to report cases and their treatment will be examined by a commission. 10 Wrongful birth and wrongful life On January 9, 2002, the French Parliament adopted a bill curtailing the right to compensation in cases of wrongful life53. The bill was the direct consequence of a number of spectacular awards handed down by the French Cour de cassation. In the Netherlands, actions for wrongful birth and wrongful life have not generated the same commotion, yet have managed to occupy the minds of lawyers and specialists of ethics for some time. It all started in the early 1990s, when lower courts began allowing compensation for failed sterilisations54. This had been prepared by legal doctrine, which advocated the allowance of such compensation, although sometimes not unequivocally. Thus, one author suggested that compensation should not be allowed if the only motive for sterilsation had been a couple's fear of congenital diseases and the subsequently born baby proved to be perfectly healthy. This restriction has been rejected almost uniformly because of its infringement upon the privacy of those asking for sterilsation. The question was finally brought before the Dutch Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad, which in a landmark decision allowed compensation55 . The Hoge Raad expressed the opinion that the award of compensation for expenses to raise the child - born normal and healthy - was not in conflict with the human dignity of the child, or with its right to life: 51. Letter from the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport and from the Minister of Justice of 6 September 1999, Parl. Docs. II 26 717, no. 1. 52. These requirements are derived from case law whereby the interpretations of careful treatment such as this have developed within the medical profession and are considered to be of great importance, Parl. Docs. II 26 717, no. 1, p. 6. Zie nader over dit onderwerp Te Braake, 2000. 53. Le Monde 10 January 2002. 54. Liability was denied by Rb. Arnhem 26 February 1976, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (NJ) 1977, 281, Rb. Leeuwarden 1 March 1984, NJ 1986, 334 and Rb 's-Gravenhage 21 September 1994, NJ 1995, 296, but accepted by Rb. Maastricht 22 November 1979, NJ 1980, 655, Hof 's-Hertogenbosch 17 May 1983, NJ 1984, 240, Rb. Arnhem 13 December 1989, NJ 1990, 362, 4 June 1992, NJ 1992, 614, Rb. Utrecht 27 April 1994, NJ 1995, 295, Rb. Arnhem 26 October 1997, 141, Hof 's-Hertogenbosch 18 March 1996, NJ 1997, 644. 55. Hoge Raad 21 February 1997, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1999, 145 (Note by C.J.H. Brunner)