Foetal Anomaly: The Right to Abort and the Possibility of a Wrongful Birth Claim in Malaysia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2025.16.1.6Keywords:
Abortion, foetal anomaly, Malaysia, legal reform, utilitarianism, reproductive autonomyAbstract
A pregnancy can be terminated because of the problem of foetal anomaly. However, parents may lose the right to terminate the pregnancy if there is negligence in prenatal diagnosis. Such negligence may consequently result in the mother giving birth to a disabled child. This article examines whether women in Malaysia have the legal right over a wrongful birth claim should there be negligence by the doctors who carried out the prenatal diagnosis. This article employs the doctrinal comparative method. First, this article reviews the relevant literature on the topic of women's right to terminate a fetus with abnormalities and the legal status of the foetus. Next, the article will analyse the Utilitarian theory and the Principle of Reproductive Autonomy, which the authors claim will provide the fundamental argument for women to have the right to abort a pregnancy with foetal anomaly. A negligent prenatal diagnosis that results in the woman delivering a disabled baby undermines a woman's right to reproductive autonomy, her right to make an informed consent for a legal abortion. Following that, an acknowledgment of the woman's right to reproductive autonomy and the right to initiate a wrongful birth claim is demonstrated by highlighting and discussing several international court cases. The analysis of comparison is the final part, in which the authors present the possibility of women in Malaysia claiming a wrongful birth claim should there be negligence in the prenatal diagnosis by medical practitioners. In conclusion, the authors have made the case that women in Malaysia have the right to legally abort a pregnancy with foetal anomaly and could sue for wrongful birth if a prenatal diagnosis was made negligently. However, it might be challenging to prove the claim given the ambiguity of Malaysia's abortion legislation. This article has made an important contribution to the current literature as it has discussed the potential rights of women in Malaysia to file a lawsuit over a wrongful birth claim should there be negligence in the prenatal diagnosis by medical practitioners.
References
Abidin, I., & Al Mukhtar, R. (1974). Islam & family planning. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, 1,2. https://www.abebooks.com/Islam-family-planning-Vol-12-IPPF/311869491 53/bd
Agarwal, G., & Pareek, M. (2022). Comprehensive analysis of Bentham’s utilitarianism & concept of Sarvodaya. Journal of Positive School of Phychology, 6(2), 4633–4639.
Alkali, A. U., Mohd, A. Abdul Hak, N., & Yusoff, R. C. S. (2015). Abortion: An infringement of the foetus’ right to life in islamic law. IIUM Law Journal, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.31436/ iiumlj.v23i1.158
Anderson, D., Dumont, S., Jacobs, P., & Azzaria, L. (2007). The personal costs of caring for a child with a disability: A review of the literature. Public Health Reports, 122(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490712200102
André Mukheibir. (2022). Wrongful life claims in the netherlands − the hoge raad decides c03/206 hr jhm/rm. Obiter, 26(3), https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v26i3.14696
Archer, N. (2018). The law, trials and imprisonment for abortion in Malaysia. https://www. safeabortionwomensright.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-law-trials-and-im prisonment-for-abortion-in-Malaysia-July-2018.pdf
Arndt, v. Smith (1997) 1 S.C.R 247.
Basile, M. L., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2015). Parents’ evaluation of support in Australian hospitals following stillbirth. PeerJ, 3, e1049. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1049
Bayer, B. (2019, September 9). Ayn rand’s radical case for abortion rights. Ayn Rand: New Ideal. https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rands-radical-views-on-abortion/
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Berg, M. van den, Timmermans, D. R. M., ten Kate, L. P., van Vugt, J. M. G., & van der Wal, G. (2006). Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Education and Counseling, 63(1–2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007
Carlson, L. M., & Vora, N. L. (2017). Prenatal diagnosis. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 44(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2017.02.004
Cavaliere, G. (2020). The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators’ interests. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 23(1), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11019-019-09917-3
Chaloumsuk, N. (2013). Women’s experiences of miscarriage and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly in Thailand: A phenomenological study. University of East Anglia https://www. semanticscholar.org/paper/Women%27s-experiences-of-miscarriage-and-terminationChaloum suk/860126a99c872afe49a35c047b3bee5362f1359c Court of Appeal of Brussels. (n.d) n. 14675 - Religare database (Court of Appeal of Brussels). https://religaredatabase.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article148
Damman, O. C., Henneman, L., IJssel, D. V. van den, & Timmermans, D. R. M. (2023). Conditions for autonomous reproductive decision-making in prenatal screening: A mixed methods study. Midwifery, 119, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2023.103607
Durand, M.-A., Stiel, M., Boivin, J., & Elwyn, G. (2010). Information and decision support needs of parents considering amniocentesis: Interviews with pregnant women and health professionals. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 13(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00544.x
Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. Knopf.
Fordham, M. (2004). Blessing or burden? Recent developments in actions for wrongful conception and wrongful birth in the U.K. and Australia. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 462-483. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24869490
Fovargue, S., & Miola, J. (2010). The legal status of the fetus. Clinical Ethics, 5, 122–124.
Frati, P., Fineschi, V., Di Sanzo, M., La Russa, R., Scopetti, M., Severi, F. M., & Turillazzi, E. (2017). Preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis, wrongful birth and wrongful life: A global view of bioethical and legal controversies. Human Reproduction Update, 23(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx002
Garcia-Moreno, C., & Amin, A. (2019). Violence against women: Where are we 25 years after ICPD and where do we need to go? Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 27(1), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2019.1676533
Gilson, K-M., Davis, E., Johnson, S., Gains, J., Reddihough, D., & Williams, K. (2018). Mental health care needs and preferences for mothers of children with a disability. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(3), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12556
Hakodate, D. Ct., 2014, 2227 Hanji 104.
Howard, E. D. (2006). Family-centered care in the context of fetal abnormality. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 20(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005237-200607000-00011
Ibrahim, B. S. (2013). Abortion. https://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_150/abortion.htm
Jotkowitz, A., & Zivotofsky, A. Z. (2010). The ethics of abortions for fetuses with congenital abnormalities. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 152(2), 148–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.05.030
Kingma, E., & Finn, S. (2020). Neonatal incubator or artificial womb? Distinguishing ectogestation and ectogenesis using the metaphysics of pregnancy. Bioethics, 34(4), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12717
Luna, Z. (2016). Truly a Women of Color Organizatio: Negotiating sameness and difference in pursuit of intersectionality. Gender & Society, 30(5), 769–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432 16649929
Mansfield, C., Hopfer, S., & Marteau, T. M. (1999). Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and turner and klinefelter syndromes: A systematic literature review. European concerted action: DADA (Decision-making after the diagnosis of a fetal abnormality). Prenatal Diagnosis, 19(9), 808–812.
Markowitz, S. (1990). Abortion and feminism. Social Theory and Practice, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract19901611
Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026961
Minehan, M. J. (2022). Moral status of the fetus and the permissibility of abortion: A contractarian response to Thomson’s violinist thought experiment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(6), 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106810
Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) USKC 11.
Morgan, L. M. (2013). The potentiality principle from aristotle to abortion. Current Anthropology, 54(S7), S15–S25. https://doi.org/10.1086/670804
Mufti of Federal Territory’s Office. (2020). Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan—AL-KAFI #1511: The ruling of abortion due to health condition. https://muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/al-kafi-li-al-fatawi/3958-al-kafi-1511-the-ruling-of-abortion-due-to-health-condition
Nepal, A., Dangol, S. K., Karki, S., & Shrestha, N. (2023). Factors that determine women’s autonomy to make decisions about sexual and reproductive health and rights in Nepal: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Global Public Health, 3(1), e0000832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph. 0000832
Parkinson v. St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust (2001) EWCA Civ 530, (2002) QB 266.
Petersen, K. (1997). Medical negligence and wrongful birth actions: Australian developments. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23(5), 319–322. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.23.5.319
PP v Dr Nadason Kanagalingam (1985) 2 MLJ 122. R.R. v. Poland. App. No. 27617/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. Rep. 648 (2011). Rand v East Dorset Health Authority (No 2). (2000) Lloyd's Rep Med 377.
Robertson, J. A. (1994). Children of Choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821204
Rodriguez-Osorio, C. A., & Dominguez-Cherit, G. (2008). Medical decision making: Paternalism versus patient-centered (autonomous) care: Current Opinion in Critical Care, 14(6), 708–713. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0b013e328315a611
Rogers v. Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479.
Singer, P. (1994). Rethinking Life & Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. Text Publishing Company. https://books.google.com.my/books/about/Rethinking_Life_Death.html?id=As1JP gAACAAJredir_esc=y
Singer, P., & Buckle, S. (1992). Embryo Experimentation. Cambridge University Press.
Stefan, R. (1991). On the legal status of the proposition that life begins at conception. Stanford Law Review, 43(3), 599–635. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228913
Tooley, M. (1972). Abortion and infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(1), 37–65. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Michael%20Tooley,%20Abortion% 20and%20infanticide.pdf
United Nations Population Fund. (2023, December 9). Human rights require bodily autonomy for all – at all times. https://www.unfpa.org/press/human-rights-require-bodily-autonomy-all-%E2% 80%93-all-times
Veivers v. Connoly (1995) 2 Qd R 326.
Walsh, J., Møllmann, M., & Heimburger, A. (2009). Abortion and human rights: Examples from Latin America. IDS Bulletin, 39(3), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00459.x
WHO. (2023, February 27). Congenital disorders. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/birth-defects
Yarar, F., Akdam, M., Çarpan, İ., Topal, S., Şenol, H., & Tekin, F. (2020). Impact of having a disabled child on mothers’ anxiety, depression and quality of life levels. Pamukkale Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.758161
Zainuddin, A. (2022, October 12). Doctor Clarifies Abortion Is Legal In Malaysia. CodeBlue. https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2022/10/12/doctor-clarifies-abortion-is-legal-in-malaysia/
Zulhasnimar Hasan Basri & Anor v. Dr. Kuppu Velumani P & Ors (2007) 5 MLJ 438.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 UUM Journal of Legal Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-06Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
