Could being born ever be worse than not being born?

A “wrongful life” lawsuit is a civil claim brought by a child born with a disability against a doctor. It rests on the idea that if the doctor had properly informed the parents of the risk of disability, the parents would have avoided conception or chosen not to give birth—and the child, therefore, would not have had to live this life. Courts, however, have ruled that disability cannot be defined as a “wrongful life,” and that birth itself cannot be treated as a legal harm. Many people accept this verdict because it seems unreasonable for a life’s value to be determined by conditions no one chose.

But is it really that simple? If my child were highly likely to be born with a disability, what choice would I make? Can I casually claim that every life is always worth bearing? And if a medication could cure my disability, wouldn’t I feel pulled toward what looks like a “better” life? 

As a physically disabled lawyer, the author raises philosophical questions about existence while making the case that we possess inherent dignity. What struck me most was the idea of “acceptance.” The book draws a clear line between belief and acceptance: belief arises when there is objective evidence, whereas acceptance depends not on proof but on context. We accept what fits the direction of our lives, and we do not accept what does not. In this sense, accepting disability is different from convenient moral victory. It is a voluntary choice to change the fundamental premises and context of one’s life.

The book offers comfort not only to disabled people, but also to those living with various imperfections—poverty, appearance, and more. It tells us that we are dignified and beautiful, worthy of loving and being loved, and that no one has the power to disqualify us.