1. 18. Handler, Justice , in his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that the child should also be able to get damages since he shares the familial injuries and suffers harm beyond that of the parents. The child's additional harm is based upon a notion of diminished life—a form of suffering caused by the diminished capacity of the parents to deal with him, coupled with his existing physical ailment and its inherent limitations. He praised the majority opinion for coming half way toward this goal: The familial nature of the tort is acknowledged. We have given voice to the common understanding that the physician's professional duty and responsibility, in treating a patient in matters involving procreation, pregnancy and childbirth, extend to that person not simply as an individual but as a member of a family whose entire welfare is bound up in the patient's health and well-being. Id. at 846.
2. 24. Clark v. United States, 402 F.2d 950, 953 (4th Cir. 1968) (blocked ureter, issue of intravenous pyelogram or cystoscopic examination as standard diagnostic procedure) quoting Smith v. Yohe. 194 A.2d 167, 173 (Pa. 1963).
3. 11. Id. at 488.
4. 15. Id. at 839.