But they were suing over the incorrect reading of the screening test. Had the doctor read the test correctly, the Schirmers would have aborted their baby and been out only the cost of the abortion. By reading the test incorrectly, the Schirmers continued with the pregnancy, and thus had to pay for prenatal care for the remaining months, the cost of childbirth, and the cost of raising and caring for a disabled child for the rest of his life. If the judges assign fault to the doctor for reading the test results incorrectly, then compensation would be the costs that were born by the Schirmers after continuing with the pregnancy minus what an abortion would have cost. Such result would be immoral and morbid, but it would be the logical conclusion of assigning fault to the doctor in a nation in which abortion is legal.
I think the only scenario in which the Schirmers would be compensated for the cost difference between raising a diabled child and raising a normal child would be if the doctor didn't merely read the test results incorrectly, but somehow caused the baby's disability, and if the Schirmers nevertheless kept their baby. In such case, the doctor would be the cause of the Schirmers having to pay extra to raise and care for their child, but would only be liable for the extra cost, not the total cost, since the Schirmers would have had to paid for raising their baby anyhow had the doctor not screwed up. Unfortunately, courts such as the one that ruled that the doctor was liable for not warning the parents that their child was "imperfect" would probably say that the parents in this new hypothetical could have aborted their baby when they found out that the doctor had caused the disability, and by not doing so they waived their right to compensation for any amount over and above the cost of an abortion. When the law allows abortion as a "choice," it will eventually be turned into a "duty." People who say they are "pro-choice" on abortion should keep that in mind.
Or if she has her tubes tied, gets pregnant and carries the baby to term unknowingly (there are stories like that), then I can see where some would say the doctor is liable.(Again, not that I agree.)
But the argument can be made in the above case that the couple chose to have a child, and to abort only if the child was not normal. The couple was prepared to pay the cost of raising a normal child, had the test result been correct. The doctor should pay the difference.
That said, I do see your point. If, for example, the parents only had enough money to raise one child, so they therefore wanted that child to be normal, fine. Being forced to pay for raising an abnormal child precludes that possibility.
But the whole discussion is obscene. If there's a potential problem, adopt. If you choose to get pregnant, then you take what God gives you. Negligence is unacceptable, but doctors do make mistakes -- choose one wisely.
Obstetricians are being sued out of existence.