>The right I am suggesting is unusual in one sense: it is only capable

of being infringed by conduct occurring prior to

>the right coming into existence, but as Neil demonstrated, we don't

worry about that.

>R

I have no qualms with the conclusion that injuries resulting from

actions occurring before a claimant's birth may be actionable.  However,

I don't think it's so easy to say that such a claim arises from the

breach of a duty owed to the claimant without also accepting that we can

owe duties to - and rights can be held by - as yet unborn children

(indeed even "unconceived" children if the baby food example is followed

through).  Even if we were to say that the harm is only suffered upon

birth, the conduct of the defendant to which such a duty would apply

precedes this.  If there are no rights pre-birth, there can be no

corresponding duties.

Charlie.

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm