As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Doctor to pay child support for mistake

CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
edited November 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
From the BBC
Doctor to pay for unwanted baby

A doctor who carried out a failed contraceptive operation has been ordered by a German court to pay financial support for the child.

The gynaecologist had inserted a patch into the patient's arm, but it failed to prevent pregnancy six months later.
The doctor is on the hook for $400 a month until the kid is 18, which makes for $86,000 or so in total.

I would hope, I would really, really hope, that they have good proof that the doctor really was negligent in this case, and this wasn't just some fluke chance of the device failing on its own. Either way, I'd imagine that doctors in Germany may think twice about implanting this thing from now on, and at least require the woman to sign away rights to child support.

One thing I wonder: if this is referred to as Child Support, will his malpractice insurance still pay for this?

But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Corlis on

Posts

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Corlis wrote:
    From the BBC
    Doctor to pay for unwanted baby

    A doctor who carried out a failed contraceptive operation has been ordered by a German court to pay financial support for the child.

    The gynaecologist had inserted a patch into the patient's arm, but it failed to prevent pregnancy six months later.
    The doctor is on the hook for $400 a month until the kid is 18, which makes for $86,000 or so in total.

    I would hope, I would really, really hope, that they have good proof that the doctor really was negligent in this case, and this wasn't just some fluke chance of the device failing on its own. Either way, I'd imagine that doctors in Germany may think twice about implanting this thing from now on, and at least require the woman to sign away rights to child support.

    One thing I wonder: if this is referred to as Child Support, will his malpractice insurance still pay for this?

    It's closer to $800 per month.

    Doc on
  • CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Oops, saw pounds instead of dollars. Ow. That's gonna sting.

    Corlis on
    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Corlis wrote:
    I would hope, I would really, really hope, that they have good proof that the doctor really was negligent in this case, and this wasn't just some fluke chance of the device failing on its own.
    Presumably they do.
    Corlis wrote:
    Either way, I'd imagine that doctors in Germany may think twice about implanting this thing from now on, and at least require the woman to sign away rights to child support.
    Or they could just, you know, think twice about not doing whatever this dude did or doing whatever this dude failed to do in order to warrant this judgment.
    Corlis wrote:
    One thing I wonder: if this is referred to as Child Support, will his malpractice insurance still pay for this?
    I doubt anyone here knows enough about German law and German medical insurance to answer that one. I believe that wrongful birth suits are covered by malpractice insurance in the US, but those tend to involve cases where the doctor erroneously declared a defective fetus healthy.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • jag0666jag0666 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    It sounds like it was inserted incorrectly. If that is the case, I would agree with this. Although, it's kind of crappy for the kid. He/she wouldn't be the first kid to find out they were a mistake though.

    jag0666 on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I wonder how the overall financial burden winds up being broken down among the doctor, the woman, and the biological father.

    MrMister on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The parents, who had known each other six months at the time of the conception, were no longer together, the court said.

    The father will also be compensated for the maintenance he is paying for the child.

    So the father is going to owe child support, that's good. I'm curious now, does the $800 just cover his share, or just cover some arbitrary measure of the doctor's responsibility, and more will be used to cover the father's share?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    Corlis wrote:
    One thing I wonder: if this is referred to as Child Support, will his malpractice insurance still pay for this?
    I doubt anyone here knows enough about German law and German medical insurance to answer that one. I believe that wrongful birth suits are covered by malpractice insurance in the US, but those tend to involve cases where the doctor erroneously declared a defective fetus healthy.

    The insurance covers it. The doctor does not have to pay it out of his own pocket.

    Also it is noteworthy that in this case the support the doctor has to pay (or rather his insurance) is dedicated to the mother to cover her financial loss.
    The child itself got no entitlements towards him whatsoever, because the judges reasoned 'one does not have a right of his own contraception'.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    jag0666 wrote:
    Although, it's kind of crappy for the kid. He/she wouldn't be the first kid to find out they were a mistake though.
    That's easily the least important facet of this problem. I'm sure he could have extrapolated as much from the simple timing, assuming his parents didn't lie to him about it, and it's not like this case is still going to be making headlines by the time he's old enough to really appreciate the ramifications.

    Doctors who are doing contraceptive implants are supposed to check to make sure the implant is, in fact, implanted before telling the patient that she's good to go as soon as it kicks in. It takes very little time, and prevents things like this from happening. It also kind of sounds like this might not be going to the mother, but to the father (as he's liable for child support due to this guy's negligence) or to both of them jointly, as a sort of three-way split of the child's costs.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    This bugs me a bit. Since when is ANY form of contraception 100% infallable? There's always a miniscule chance of getting pregnant, no matter what method is used.

    So how is this guy liable?

    Tach on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Tach wrote:
    This bugs me a bit. Since when is ANY form of contraception 100% infallable? There's always a miniscule chance of getting pregnant, no matter what method is used.

    So how is this guy liable?

    He implanted a birth control device. They couldn't find said device in her body after she turned up pregnant. He's liable because he didn't make sure the stupid thing was actually implanted. Were the device to have simply failed to prevent the pregnancy, he'd be completely and utterly in the clear.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    Tach wrote:
    This bugs me a bit. Since when is ANY form of contraception 100% infallable? There's always a miniscule chance of getting pregnant, no matter what method is used.

    So how is this guy liable?

    He implanted a birth control device. They couldn't find said device in her body after she turned up pregnant. He's liable because he didn't make sure the stupid thing was actually implanted. Were the device to have simply failed to prevent the pregnancy, he'd be completely and utterly in the clear.

    This makes things much clearer, thanks.

    mcc on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2006
    I suppose the woman had some sort of moral objection to abortion, or something?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I suppose the woman had some sort of moral objection to abortion, or something?

    She was beyond the time. Abortion is illegal in Germany but not prercecuted when down within the first 12 weeks.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    My dad pays 339.99 a month for 3 children. ^_^

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • ZonkytonkmanZonkytonkman Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Cantido wrote:
    My dad pays 339.99 a month for 3 children. ^_^

    god, at those prices he can't afford not to

    Zonkytonkman on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I suppose the woman had some sort of moral objection to abortion, or something?

    She was beyond the time. Abortion is illegal in Germany but not prercecuted when down within the first 12 weeks.

    Ah, I didn't know that. I'm somewhat surprised that abortion is illegal in Germany. I'd think we'd hear more prattling about the oppressive patriarchy that hates the wimmins, or something, given how often we here that about the US, where abortion is actually legal.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Because of course if there's one thing that captures the attention and passion of Americans, it's discussing the internal politics of Germany

    mcc on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I suppose the woman had some sort of moral objection to abortion, or something?

    She was beyond the time. Abortion is illegal in Germany but not prercecuted when down within the first 12 weeks.

    Which might have played a part in the decision, as implants have an extremely low rate of failure, making it much less likely for a woman to run out and get a pregnancy test the second she misses her period. Had she known she was not protected, even if she didn't use an alternate form of birth control, she could probably have obtained an abortion in time had she believed pregnancy to be a strong possibility.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I suppose the woman had some sort of moral objection to abortion, or something?

    She was beyond the time. Abortion is illegal in Germany but not prercecuted when down within the first 12 weeks.

    Ah, I didn't know that. I'm somewhat surprised that abortion is illegal in Germany. I'd think we'd hear more prattling about the oppressive patriarchy that hates the wimmins, or something, given how often we here that about the US, where abortion is actually legal.

    Nah, it is typical German politics. Make it illegal in theory to not piss off the conservatives but make it not being presecuted in practical to not piss off the liberals.

    Just like marihuana. Illegal, but you usually not get charged when caught with less than 5, I think, gramms.

    Or our semi gay marriage thing : Other name, no tax benefits but inheritance rights and the partner got the say
    in medical decision rather than the family.

    Basically it's all a semi liberal mess.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Also it is noteworthy that in this case the support the doctor has to pay (or rather his insurance) is dedicated to the mother to cover her financial loss.
    The child itself got no entitlements towards him whatsoever, because the judges reasoned 'one does not have a right of his own contraception'.

    In which case, it sounds like the BBC calling this "child support" is complete bullshit. This is just money awarded two parties who were financially damaged by the doctor's negligence.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    Also it is noteworthy that in this case the support the doctor has to pay (or rather his insurance) is dedicated to the mother to cover her financial loss.
    The child itself got no entitlements towards him whatsoever, because the judges reasoned 'one does not have a right of his own contraception'.

    In which case, it sounds like the BBC calling this "child support" is complete bullshit. This is just money awarded two parties who were financially damaged by the doctor's negligence.

    Yeah, I find it hard to be perturbed by this. If it had been called "malpractice" and had been a lump sum, nobody would've even blinked.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    bone daddy wrote:
    Also it is noteworthy that in this case the support the doctor has to pay (or rather his insurance) is dedicated to the mother to cover her financial loss.
    The child itself got no entitlements towards him whatsoever, because the judges reasoned 'one does not have a right of his own contraception'.

    In which case, it sounds like the BBC calling this "child support" is complete bullshit. This is just money awarded two parties who were financially damaged by the doctor's negligence.

    Yeah, I find it hard to be perturbed by this. If it had been called "malpractice" and had been a lump sum, nobody would've even blinked.

    But that doesn't move papers.

    moniker on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    bone daddy wrote:
    Also it is noteworthy that in this case the support the doctor has to pay (or rather his insurance) is dedicated to the mother to cover her financial loss.
    The child itself got no entitlements towards him whatsoever, because the judges reasoned 'one does not have a right of his own contraception'.

    In which case, it sounds like the BBC calling this "child support" is complete bullshit. This is just money awarded two parties who were financially damaged by the doctor's negligence.

    Yeah, I find it hard to be perturbed by this. If it had been called "malpractice" and had been a lump sum, nobody would've even blinked.

    I don't think anyone except the prolifers debate wrongful birth suits in the US. If parents who come in for tests to determine whether or not the fetus is doing fine are told that the fetus is, in fact, doing fine, and the fetus instead is developing into a lifelong drain on their finances due to medical problems that should have been readily apparent thanks to those tests they paid you for, well...that sort of thing is kind of the whole reason we have malpractice insurance.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    52220151_592ef1d17d_m.jpg
    This baby is pretty lucky his/her/it's mommy has a pretty crafty lawyer.

    TankHammer on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    I don't think anyone except the prolifers debate wrongful birth suits in the US. If parents who come in for tests to determine whether or not the fetus is doing fine are told that the fetus is, in fact, doing fine, and the fetus instead is developing into a lifelong drain on their finances due to medical problems that should have been readily apparent thanks to those tests they paid you for, well...that sort of thing is kind of the whole reason we have malpractice insurance.

    This is also, coincidentally, an argument for legalizing infanticide. Sometimes the ones you don't want get through.

    MrMister on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    That doesn't seem entirely germaine.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    That doesn't seem entirely germaine.

    No, it's somewhat tangential. It's related to the burden of wrongful birth, which would be significantly less were the family allowed to kill the baby (which doctors already do in some cases--for example, often if a Downs Baby has an intestinal blockage they'll refrain from performing what would otherwise be a routine operation to save it).

    Edit: not to derail, it was just the first thing that sprung to mind. I've had to do readings on this.

    MrMister on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    True--most countries also do "accidental" overdoses of painkillers if an infant is terminal and suffering--but the only reason I brought it up was due to the case it has established for malpractice settlements relating to the financial imposition unplanned births cause.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I think it would be better off if it was just a lump sum. making him have to pay(well his insurance) child support will just call attention to the child that he was a mistake. That really can't be good mentally for the kid.

    IShallRiseAgain on
    Alador239.png
Sign In or Register to comment.