Gynecologist Ordered To Pay Child Support For Botched Contraceptive Implant

[matcom]

<snip>

A court ruling which ordered a gynecologist to pay child support for up to 18 years as compensation for botching a contraceptive implant was condemned by the German media as scandalous on Wednesday.

The Karlsruhe-based federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the doctor must pay his former patient, now a mother of a three-year-old boy, 600 euros ($769) a month because she became pregnant after he implanted her with a contraceptive device. "A child as a case for damages -- this perverse idea has now been confirmed by one of Germany's highest courts," conservative Die Welt daily newspaper wrote in an editorial on Wednesday.

The device is meant to protect against pregnancy for up to three years, but half a year after the operation, the implant could no longer be found in the woman's body, the court said.

While it should be welcomed that a doctor can now be held to account in the same way as a shoddy plumber, the newspaper said, how could a child whose parents had sought damages for its birth ever come to terms with the situation?

"In addition to the highly private inkling that he was not wanted by his parents, he now has official confirmation that he was born by mistake," Die Welt also said.

The award covers the first years of the child's life and also subsequent costs to the age of 18.

The parents, who had known each other six months at the time of the conception, were no longer together, the court said, ruling that the father should also be compensated for the maintenance he was paying toward the child.

The ruling could spark a flood of similar claims against gynecologists, Stern magazine wrote on its Web site.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/od_nm/child_compensation_dc_1&printer=1

[MissMillie]

1. I'm not sure I like this precedent

After all, it is widely known that there is only one form of contraception that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. I do get that the device couldn't be found and was probably not inserted correctly, but I wonder if that isn't part of the risk that makes this form of contraception less than 100% accurate.

And I don't like that the parents have, through their court action, made it pretty clear to the kid that he was not wanted.

[Pithlet]

2. I agree.

It seems like a crazy ruling to me. I can see possibly recovering some type of malpractice damages if a release wasn't signed, but tying it to the child as child support is ridiculous.

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. It's not that the kid is not wanted. It's that the kid isn't free.

I disagree with the precedent, too. No contraception is 100%. In cases of fraud, however, I think it's reasonable to get damages for the costs of the child's upbringing. (calling it child support is pushing it, however).

Fraud or negligence would be something like saying that there was an implant, while knowing that there was a fault or when you should have known. In this case, it looks like there might not have ever been an implant.

[MissMillie]

4. you and I may understand that

but I'm not sure that will be the kid's take on it in a few years.

[madinmaryland]

5. Does malpractice insurance cover this?

:shrug:

[av8rdave]

6. That probably hasn't been established

The gyn will probably have to make an insurance claim, be denied, then take the insurance company to court and establish that a botched implant is in fact an act of malpractice.

[taterguy]

7. Just buy the kid cool stuff with the settlement

Who cares if you weren't wanted; as long as you have lots of toys.