delivered the opinion of the court:
The question presented in this appeal is whether a parent may recover for loss of the society and companionship of a child who is nonfatally injured. Under Illinois law, such a claim may be brought in a wrongful-death action. Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill. 2d 505 (1984). However, in Dralle v. Ruder, 124 Ill. 2d 61 (1988), we declined to extend the filial society cause of action to those situations where the child is nonfatally injured. For the reasons set forth below, we adhere to our decision in Dralle and refrain from enlarging the scope of liability to encompass claims where the child is nonfatally injured.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Mel Vitro and Sabrina Short Vitro, acting individually and as parents and guardians of their minor daughter, Dorothy, filed a medical malpractice action in the circuit court of Du Page County against defendants Alice S. Mihelcic, M.D., and Naperville Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ltd. (Naperville Associates). The complaint alleged that Mihelcic, while in the course and scope of her employment with Naperville Associates, negligently managed Sabrina’s labor and the delivery of Dorothy, thereby causing Dorothy severe brain damage. The complaint further alleged that, as a result of her neurological injuries, Dorothy will suffer cognitive deficits and physical disabilities for the rest of her life. Count I of the three-count complaint sought *80damages for Dorothy’s injuries, and the second count, which was brought pursuant to the Rights of Married Persons Act (750 ILCS 65/15 (West 2000)), sought compensation for medical and caretaking expenses incurred by the parents. In count III, the only count at issue in this appeal, plaintiffs alleged a loss of filial consortium with their daughter as a result of her injuries, and sought damages for this disruption of the family relationship.
Defendants moved to dismiss count III pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2000)) on the ground that Illinois does not recognize such a claim. Defendants pointed to Dralle and argued that, under this decision, parents may not claim loss of consortium damages for nonfatal injuries to a child. In response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs acknowledged that Dralle bars parental loss of consortium claims where the child’s injuries are nonfatal. However, plaintiffs argued that the Dralle decision was poorly reasoned and should be reconsidered.
The circuit court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss count III and found, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)), that there was no just cause to delay enforcement or appeal of the dismissal. On appeal, plaintiffs urged the appellate court “to criticize the rule pronounced in Dralle because the analysis is flawed and inconsistent with existing Illinois law.” The appellate court declined the request, noting that “pursuant to controlling authority, plaintiff parents may not bring a claim against defendants for loss of consortium for the nonfatal injuries to their child Dorothy.” In a summary order, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of count III of the complaint. No. 2—01—0148 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We allowed plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315.
*81ANALYSIS
A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2000)) attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint by alleging defects on the face of the complaint. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 2d 274, 279 (2000); Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank, 186 Ill. 2d 472, 491 (1999). In ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom. American National Bank, 192 Ill. 2d at 279; Weatherman, 186 Ill. 2d at 491. The critical inquiry is whether the allegations of the complaint, when construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc., 201 Ill. 2d 81, 86 (2002); Weatherman, 186 Ill. 2d at 491. We review an order granting a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss de novo. Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223, 228 (2003); Stroger v. Regional Transportation Authority, 201 in. 2d 508, 516 (2002).
In the case at bar, as noted, count III of plaintiffs’ complaint seeks damages for loss of filial consortium resulting from their daughter’s nonfatal injuries. The same claim was rejected in Dralle. Accordingly, both the circuit and the appellate courts held that count III of plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that Dralle was incorrectly decided, and they urge us to overrule that decision. Plaintiffs’ contention that Dralle should be overruled implicates stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis “expresses the policy of the courts to stand by precedents and not to disturb settled points.” Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 308-09 (1936), overruled on other grounds by Tuthill v. Rendelman, 387 Ill. 321 (1944). This doctrine “is the means by which courts ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled *82and intelligible fashion.” Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502, 510 (1994). Stare decisis enables both the people and the bar of this state “to rely upon [this court’s] decisions with assurance that they will not be lightly overruled.” Moehle v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 93 Ill. 2d 299, 304 (1982).
To be sure, stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Chicago Bar Ass’n, 161 Ill. 2d at 510; Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 842, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720, 746, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 2617 (1991) (Souter, J., concurring). However, we have consistently held that any departure from stare decisis must be specially justified (Chicago Bar Ass’n, 161 Ill. 2d at 510) and that prior decisions should not be overruled absent “good cause” (Moehle, 93 Ill. 2d at 304; Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co., 6 Ill. 2d 152, 166-67 (1955)) or “compelling reasons” (Moehle, 93 Ill. 2d at 304; People v. Robinson, 187 Ill. 2d 461, 463-64 (1999)). This court also has recognized that “it will not depart from precedent ‘merely because the court is of the opinion that it might decide otherwise were the question a new one.’ ” Robinson, 187 Ill. 2d at 463-64, quoting Maki v. Frelk, 40 Ill. 2d 193, 196-97 (1968). In sum, “when a rule of law has once been settled, contravening no statute or constitutional principle, such rule ought to be followed unless it can be shown that serious detriment is thereby likely to arise prejudicial to public interests.” Maki, 40 Ill. 2d at 196; see also Heidenreich v. Bremner, 260 Ill. 439, 450-51 (1913).
In Dralle, as in the case at bar, the question was whether the parents of a child born with maladies that included brain damage could recover for loss of their child’s society and companionship. According to the complaint in Dralle, the child’s injuries were caused, in part, by the mother’s use during pregnancy of the prescription drug Bendectin. The four-count complaint also alleged negligence on the part of the obstetricians. *83In count IV of the Dralle complaint, the parents sought compensation from the drug’s manufacturer for loss of filial society resulting from their child’s injuries. The trial court dismissed count IV for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal order, concluding that Illinois recognized a parent’s claim for loss of companionship and society resulting from nonfatal injuries to a child. Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 63. The defendant drug manufacturer appealed, and this court reversed, holding that a parent may not recover for loss of society and companionship of a nonfatally injured child. Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 71.
In Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill. 2d 505 (1984), decided prior to Dralle, this court held that, in a wrongful-death action, parents are entitled to a presumption of pecuniary injury in the loss of a deceased child’s society and companionship.1 Bullard, 102 Ill. 2d at 517. In Dralle, the parents argued that it would be a logical extension of Bullard to allow recovery for loss of filial society arising from a child’s nonfatal injuries. The court in Dralle rejected this argument, explaining that there is an important distinction between the two types of claims. Where a child is nonfatally injured, the court noted, the child retains his or her own cause of action against the tortfeasor. “Thus, there is no danger that the injury caused by the tortfeasor will go uncompensated, or that similar conduct in the future will be undeterred.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 69. By contrast, “an action under the Wrongful Death Act affords the sole remedy for the *84surviving family members.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 69. In Dralle’s view, it therefore makes sense to allow recovery for loss of filial society in actions under the Wrongful Death Act, but not where the victim survives and retains his or her own cause of action.2 The court also pointed to a second relevant distinction between Bullard and the nonfatal-injury case. In Bullard, the decision to allow claims for loss of filial society was based on an already-existing statutory foundation: the wrongful death statute. Where the loss of society results from nonfatal injuries to the child, there is no such statutory foundation. The court in Dralle also rejected the argument that our decision in Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406 (1960), supported the recognition of a filial society claim where injuries are nonfatal. Dini held that, just as a husband may claim loss of spousal consortium arising from nonfatal injuries to his wife, so also a wife may make the same claim where her husband is nonfatally injured. Consortium, in this context, “includes, in addition to material services, elements of companionship, felicity and sexual intercourse, all welded into a conceptualistic unity.” Dini, 20 Ill. 2d at 427. In Dralle it was argued that, since this court had already recognized claims for loss of spousal consortium arising from nonfatal injuries, it was but a small step to recognize claims for loss of filial society where the child’s injuries were nonfatal. The court in Dralle rejected this argument, explaining that “[t]he companionship and society for which recovery is sought [in a filial society claim] is not identical with the spousal claim recognized in Dini." Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 72. Dralle asserted that *85spousal consortium includes elements that “are absent from the parent-child relationship.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 72. For this reason, the court “decline[d] to find in the action for spousal consortium a basis for recognizing recovery of loss of filial society.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 72.
The court in Dralle noted several “policy considerations” that argue against recognition of the new filial society claim, including “the appropriate scope of tort liability” and the difficulty in assessing damages. Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 69-70. According to Dralle, “[t]o recognize claims for loss of society resulting from nonfatal injuries to a child would threaten a considerable enlargement of liability. [Citations.] Grandparents, siblings, and friends suffering similar losses of society and companionship would also seek to bring claims, if recovery were to go unchecked.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 70. The Dralle court was also concerned with the difficulty in assessing damages. Noting the intangible nature of the loss, Dralle asserted that “a trier of fact would find it difficult to distinguish between the child’s claim, involving pain and suffering, and the legally distinct but factually similar claim by the parents for loss of the child’s society and companionship.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 70. This difficulty, the court concluded, would invite duplicate recoveries.
In a special concurrence,3 Justice Clark criticized the majority’s reasoning. While the majority concluded that Bullard and Dini did not support the recognition of a cause of action for loss of filial society resulting from nonfatal injuries, Justice Clark came to a different conclusion. In Justice Clark’s view, these and other decisions of this court, “together with cases on point from *86other jurisdictions [citations], *** strongly suggest that we should allow recovery to a parent who, through nonfatal injury, suffers the loss of his child’s society.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 75-76 (Clark, J., specially concurring). Justice Clark found unpersuasive the policy considerations that the majority cited as arguments against recognizing the new cause of action.
In the case at bar, plaintiffs cite to Justice Clark’s special concurrence in arguing that, contrary to the majority’s view in Dralle, previous decisions such as Bullard and Dini support the recognition of a parental claim for loss of filial society resulting from nonfatal injuries. According to plaintiffs, recognition of this new filial society claim would be a logical extension of our previous holdings. Any failure to allow such claims, plaintiffs argue, would be inconsistent with this court’s previous decisions.
Plaintiffs also take issue with Dralle’s “policy considerations,” asserting that they are largely illusory. In answer to Dralle’s concerns about enlarging liability, plaintiffs point to Justice Clark’s assertion in his special concurrence that recognition of the new filial society claim “will not open the floodgates of litigation.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 80 (Clark, J., specially concurring). As Justice Clark explained:
“Loss of society is an injury to familial relationships which has never been applied to relations among friends, or even to noncustodial relatives. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, the child’s injuries will neither be so serious nor so permanent as to support a claim for loss of society.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 80 (Clark, J., specially concurring).
With regard to the alleged difficulty in assessing damages, plaintiffs assert, as did Justice Clark, that the same difficulty arises in claims for loss of spousal consortium, which are recognized in Illinois. Plaintiffs note that Illinois juries assess damages in spousal consortium claims *87arising from nonfatal injuries (see Dini, 20 Ill. 2d at 430), and they argue that there is no reason why a jury could not do the same in parental claims for loss of filial consortium caused by nonfatal injuries.
We agree with plaintiffs that some of what is asserted in Dralle in support of the majority’s holding does not withstand scrutiny. For example, we do not believe that allowing parents to recover for loss of filial society where injuries are nonfatal would necessarily invite duplicate recoveries. It is true, as Dralle notes, that in such situations the child retains his own cause of action against the tortfeasor. However, the child’s cause of action for his injuries and the parents’ cause of action for loss of society and companionship seek compensation for different harms. The same is true in a spousal consortium context where the injuries are nonfatal. Moreover, any possibility of double recovery could be minimized “by carefully instructing the jury to distinguish between the injuries of the parent and the injuries of the child.” See Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 80 (Clark, J., specially concurring).
We also question Dralle’s reliance on the alleged difficulty faced by a jury in assessing damages. Dralle points to the intangible nature of the loss; however, intangible losses are encountered in any consortium claim. If Illinois juries are capable of assessing damages in claims for loss of spousal consortium where the injuries are nonfatal, we see no reason why they would face insurmountable difficulties in assessing damages in a similar claim for loss of filial consortium.
Finally, regarding Dralle’s concern that liability would be enlarged because grandparents, siblings, and friends would also seek to recover for similar losses of the child’s society, we note that this concern could easily be addressed. If we were to recognize a cause of action for loss of filial society resulting from nonfatal injuries, we could simply base it on the uniqueness of the parent-child relationship and limit the holding accordingly.
*88Even though portions of Dralle's rationale are flawed, we nevertheless agree with an important basis for its holding. In Dralle, one of the arguments offered by the parents in support of the new filial society claim was that, because this court had already recognized such a claim in the wrongful-death context (Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill. 2d 505 (1984)), it would be a logical extension to allow it where the child’s injuries were nonfatal. In rejecting this argument, Dralle explained, inter alia, that the decision in Bullard to allow claims for loss of filial society in a wrongful-death action was predicated on Bullard's interpretation of Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act. Under this act, damages were allowed for “pecuniary injuries” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 2), and Bullard construed this term to include loss of filial society. Thus, “the statutory foundation was already in place” (emphasis added) (Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 69) for recognition of a claim for loss of filial society in a wrongful-death action. No such statutory foundation existed for allowing a filial society cause of action where the injuries were nonfatal. The court thus evinced a preference for a statutory rather than a nonstatutory, or judicially created, basis for the new claim. Implicit in the court’s reasoning is the conclusion that it is the legislature which should decide whether this new cause of action should be created. We agree with this conclusion.
This court recently expressed a similar view in Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (2003). In Wakulich, which declined to recognize social host liability for the provision of alcohol to minors, we explained that the legislature was the more appropriate body to address such liability.
“ ‘The General Assembly, by its very nature, has a superior ability to gather and synthesize data pertinent to the issue. It is free to solicit information and advice from the many public and private organizations that may be impacted. Moreover, it is the only entity with the power to *89weigh and properly balance the many competing societal, economic, and policy considerations involved. ***
This court, on the other hand, is ill-equipped to fashion a law on this subject that would best serve the people of Illinois. We can consider only one case at a time and are constrained by the facts before us.’ ” Wakulich, 203 Ill. 2d at 232, quoting Charles v. Seigfried, 165 Ill. 2d 482, 493-94 (1995).
With regard to the issue of filial consortium, courts in other jurisdictions have left this determination to the legislature. In Colorado, where claims for loss of filial consortium are authorized under the state’s wrongful-death statute, the supreme court declined to extend the filial consortium claim beyond the wrongful-death context, choosing instead to defer to the legislative branch. Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1999). According to the court in Elgin, it is the legislature that is “best suited to reach decisions about the intangibles of consortium loss and the appropriate standards and limitations that should be applicable thereto.” Elgin, 994 P.2d at 420. The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Missouri, where filial consortium claims also are recognized under the state’s wrongful-death statute. Powell v. American Motors Corp., 834 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992). The court in Powell concluded that “if Missouri is to recognize a cause of action for loss of consortium by the children or the parents of an injured party, the decision to do so should be made by the legislature and not by this Court.” (Emphasis added.) Powell, 834 S.W.2d at 185. See also Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center, 850 P.2d 1179 (Utah 1992) (declining to extend claims for loss of society and affection beyond the wrongful-death context; deferring instead to the legislature as the appropriate body to determine if such claims should be recognized); contra, e.g., Shockley v. Prier, 66 Wis. 2d 394, 225 N.W.2d 495 (Wis. 1975).
The Elgin, Powell, and Boucher courts teach that the *90choice of whether to recognize a new filial society claim is a policy decision that is better left to the legislature. Such a decision inevitably involves navigating between “the competing interests of compensating all those who have been harmed by a tort-feasor and setting rational and workable limits to liability.” Boucher, 850 P.2d at 1181. With regard to these limits, it is generally acknowledged that while it might be desirable to compensate all those who are harmed by another’s wrong, the law must recognize the realities of this world and set reasonable boundaries upon liability. Cockrum v. Baumgartner, 95 Ill. 2d 193, 203 (1983), citing Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609, 619, 249 N.E.2d 419, 424, 301 N.Y.S.2d 554, 561 (1969). Such boundary-setting often is more appropriately left to the legislative branch. Elgin, 994 P.2d at 419; Powell, 834 S.W.2d at 188-89.
As noted, Dralle based its holding in part on the view that it is the legislature that is better suited to decide whether to recognize a cause of action for loss of a nonfatally injured child’s society. We believe that, notwithstanding the flaws in other portions of Dralle’s rationale, this legislative deference is in itself a valid basis for reaffirming Dralle. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 64, 83 L. Ed. 2d 461, 468, 105 S. Ct. 471, 476 (1984).
We note that plaintiffs direct our attention to no post-Dralle decisions by this court or our appellate court that have criticized or called into doubt the holding in Dralle. Indeed, it appears that the opposite is true. See Doe v. McKay, 183 Ill. 2d 272 (1998), decided 10 years after Dralle, in which this court relied on Dralle’s reasoning in rejecting a claim for loss of filial society where the interference with the family relationship was direct, rather than indirect. Doe’s reliance on Dralle negates any claim that Dralle has become unworkable. See Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 737, 111 S. Ct. at 2609. On the contrary, it would appear that the rule in Dralle is now firmly settled. See Maki, 40 Ill. 2d at 196.
*91In the case at bar, the dissent points to our decision in Seef v. Sutkus, 145 Ill. 2d 336 (1991), which recognized a parental claim for loss of society of a stillborn child. The dissent asks: “How can we justify sanctioning a damage claim in the death of a stillborn child [citation], whom the parents will never even know, while barring a damage claim in the nonfatal injury of a newborn child, whom the parents will come to know, live with, and suffer with for her or his entire life?” 209 Ill. 2d at 95 (Fitzgerald, J., dissenting, joined by Kilbride and Rarick, JJ.). The answer is that, unlike the case at bar, Seef involved the Wrongful Death Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 70, par. 1 et seq.). In Seef, we noted that the Act considers an unborn fetus to be a child, and damages therefore may be recovered for loss of the society of a nearly full-term child who dies at birth. As was the case in Bullard, the decision in Seef rests on a “statutory foundation.” Dralle, 124 Ill. 2d at 212. Thus, it is the legislature, not this court, that sanctioned a claim where the infant is stillborn, but did not provide a cause of action in the case of a nonfatally injured newborn.
In sum, plaintiffs in the case at bar have failed to demonstrate good cause (Heimgaertner, 6 Ill. 2d at 166-67) or compelling reasons (Robinson, 187 Ill. 2d at 463-64) for departing from stare decisis. Plaintiffs direct our attention to no post-Dralle decisions by this court or our appellate court that have criticized or called into doubt the holding in Dralle. Nor has it been shown that upholding Dralle would bring about “serious detriment *** prejudicial to public interests.” Maki, 40 Ill. 2d at 196; Heidenreich, 260 Ill. at 450-51.
Moreover, we determined that there is a valid basis for the decision in Dralle that is independent of any defects in other portions of Dralle’s reasoning. See Powell, 469 U.S. at 64, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 468, 105 S. Ct. at 476. This valid basis, as we have indicated, is Dralle’s implicit *92deference to the legislature as the more appropriate body to decide whether the new filial society claim should be recognized. In view of this sound rationale, as well as plaintiffs’ failure to meet the burden required to depart from stare decisis, we decline to overrule Dralle.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we adhere to our decision in Dralle and decline to enlarge the scope of liability to encompass claims for loss of filial society resulting from nonfatal injuries to a child. We affirm the judgment of the appellate court below, which affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of count III of plaintiffs’ complaint.
Affirmed.