TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Doctor ordered to pay for unwanted baby
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Doctor ordered to pay for unwanted baby - Page 3

post #61 of 87
i think we need to change the words we are using

this child was not UNWANTED, he was UNPLANNED (as so many of us are)

there is no reason for the child to feel as if his mother did not want him simply because she sued the doctor who was apparently negligent, and that docs negligence led to her having a child when she was not prepared to have one

not going to get into the abortion debate, but the other choice mentioned is "surrendering the child for adoption".
you know what one thing ALL adopted kids have in common? they want to know why their mother/father didn't want them. they may be told a thousand times that his birth parents wanted a better life for him, etc etc etc- but it doesn't matter- deep down they feel rejected.

and no one seems to realize that the adoptive family comes with NO guarentees! they can suffer economic hardship, loss, and all the other things that no one plans on or for- as well as abuse of all kinds.
everyone does the best they can, with the resources available to them at the time, and with the knowledge they have of their own strengths and limitations (abuse and other crimes excepted of course)

while i think it would have made more sense to sue the doc for malpractice, then for child support, i dont understand the legal system in other countries, so this may have been the best option left open for her.


she did the best she could, with the resources available to her at the time, and with the knowledge of her own strengths and limitations.

i think its clear that she felt able to raise the child, but not able to support it fully.

how does this make her any thing other than human???


oh and as for the other choice mentoined, if she did not want to get pregnant she should not have had sex...that one just defies logic.
why did she use some form of birth control? so she could enjoy an intimate relationship without having a child before she was ready

does it really matter if she was married or not? to some ppl, maybe

but supposing she was married, is this couple supposed to **only** have sex when they are ready and able to support and raise a child?

should ppl who marry never intending to ever have children, be condemned to a sexless marraige?


this one just blows my mind.
"she shouldn't be having sex- everyone knows that birth control isn't 100% protection"

um ok why are we bothering to use birth control at all- why not just insist on total abstinence for all who are not ready or willing to have children???


all in favor, say AYE!!!!
post #62 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catnapt View Post
this one just blows my mind.
"she shouldn't be having sex- everyone knows that birth control isn't 100% protection"

um ok why are we bothering to use birth control at all- why not just insist on total abstinence for all who are not ready or willing to have children???
While I'm not saying abstinence only, I do believe that any person who is having sex (with or without birth control) must accept that there is a degree of RISK resulting in pregnancy. This applies to both the male and female part of the equation.

The doctor may have been negligent and should pay some compensation. BUT the main burden of risk lies directly on the couple having sex.

It is this acknowledged risk that is the cornerstone of the idea that the man should be responsible for any child he fathered. You play, you pay.
post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
While I'm not saying abstinence only, I do believe that any person who is having sex (with or without birth control) must accept that there is a degree of RISK resulting in pregnancy. This applies to both the male and female part of the equation.

The doctor may have been negligent and should pay some compensation. BUT the main burden of risk lies directly on the couple having sex.

It is this acknowledged risk that is the cornerstone of the idea that the man should be responsible for any child he fathered. You play, you pay.
i agree, and as i said, a malpractice suit makes more sense to me. i think this case is getting attention because it *is* unusual- and there may be other things involved that we dont' know about (how many times has this doc made the same mistake, etc)

i am pleased to hear that the father is going to be paying support (all too often the fathers fail to take responsibility for their children- and even with financial support many mothers carry the full burden of raising the child and providing everything that money can not buy, while also trying to fill the role of the other parent)



dont get me started on that though- you want to talk about something truly disgusting, talk about all the children being raised without fathers- we act as if they are disposable, just sperm donors
it doesn't seem to occur to ppl that the reason it takes a man and a woman to concieive a child is because the child needs BOTH as parents.....
but thats a subject that raises my blood pressure waaaay too high.

that the mother wants financial support is not unreasonable, given that she has the full burden of providing everything else the child needs and would get in a two parent family.

this is obviously a situation where an unplanned pregnancy resulted from a failure of birth control, regardless of why it failed,
the mother, the person who carries the child, is stuck, if you will, with either raising the child or not-
aborting the child or not-


but not once have we wondered what decisions the father had to make!

he just has to pay child support. gee, poor guy.
think of all the things that the mother does, while also working to support this child

and tell me, why is SHE the one who shoulders the lions share of the burden for raising this child

why are we not asking, why didnt' the father say "its ok, i know you(the mother) are not in a position to raise a child right now, well, i surely wasnt forced to have sex with you, so i assumed the same risk you did- and now that there is a child, i want to do right by him"

sorry this is a very touchy subject for me

it amazes me how we dont even think to consider that the man took the same risk and yet he is rarely, if ever, required to do more than provide monetary support

and even that, we have many many men skipping out on or belly aching about

oh my head hurts!!
post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by celestialrags View Post
I can't even believe the load of crap that has spewed out of some of these posts
How can any one decide this is a horrible person that is ruining her childs life by keeping him and getting some support to riase him? I would think his life would be a little more then ruined by being given up for adoption or DEAD.
I am completely amazed (and ashamed) every time I read the responses here!
Who here can say having a little more then $700 a month is more then it will cost to even raise him? Sorry, but that really isn't a lot, she will have to pay more then that to raise him, she really isn't making out. It's not like she can retire off it and never have to work. I can't even imagine that some one would even have the right to say that she would have terminated the pregnancy if she wasn't "paid off!" If I recall, the child is now 3 years old, I think it is a little late for an abortion if she hadn't won the case.
I hope she gets the support she will need in her own country, since so many just on a cat site alone, has the preconceived notion that she has ruined a childs life by decideing to keep him and make the DR. take responsibility for his mistake. I am shocked by some of the people on this site, I have lost a great deal of respect and question the morales people have! I guess I just expected more of people and didn't think the people here would pass such judgement on some thing they know so little about any thing other then the medias spin on it.
I am just dumbfounded by this whole thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by celestialrags View Post
I can't multiquote, I guess, I wanted to put other quotes in here too, but I didn't figure it out.

What did she DO to him? I haven't quite figured out any of your points. She didn't terminate him, or give him away, all she did was make it so she could raise him with a little help. I don't get where any of you are comming from?
Let's just say for your point sake, she did do it for the "free hand out" So what, how is that any "sicker " then any other "hand out" it's not like she did it to have a better house or better clothes, she did it to RAISE the child! It is NO worse then some one getting a coffee from oh lets say, mcdonalds, and getting burned and sueing, of coarse it is hot! People sue every day. What makes me sick is how any one can even say she had a choice here, if some one thinks she should have terminated him rather then sue the DR. so she could raise him, is a better clasification of a monster if you ask me.
How can any one even think she had a choice? Terminating a pregnancy is way worce then sueing a DR for his neglagance. In a few years, ask the child wich choice would have been worse, his mother raising him with a "free handout" or being aborted, I know which I would have rather my mother did.
I really don't feel it is a "free handout" any way, she certainly won't beable to raise him off his support alone nothing free about it, she had to pay already, by going to this "trusted professional"
But, I am glad to know that many people think that having an abortion is a better choice then a "free hand out" and sueing some one, and SHE is called a monster
Quote:
this is obviously a situation where an unplanned pregnancy resulted from a failure of birth control, regardless of why it failed,
the mother, the person who carries the child, is stuck, if you will, with either raising the child or not-
aborting the child or not-


but not once have we wondered what decisions the father had to make!

he just has to pay child support. gee, poor guy.
think of all the things that the mother does, while also working to support this child

and tell me, why is SHE the one who shoulders the lions share of the burden for raising this child

why are we not asking, why didnt' the father say "its ok, i know you(the mother) are not in a position to raise a child right now, well, i surely wasnt forced to have sex with you, so i assumed the same risk you did- and now that there is a child, i want to do right by him"

sorry this is a very touchy subject for me

it amazes me how we dont even think to consider that the man took the same risk and yet he is rarely, if ever, required to do more than provide monetary support

and even that, we have many many men skipping out on or belly aching about

oh my head hurts!!

All I can say is thanking you both for voicing this opinion, which I've had since I read this thread!
post #65 of 87
To multiquote, click the '"+' buttons (second from the right) on the posts you want to quote, and then the "Post Reply" button.

I, too, am astonished at some of the harsh judgments I've read here. This is a young woman who unexpectedly became pregnant primarily because of a doctor's shoddy work, just when she was offered a secure civil service job that is extremely difficult to come by right now, as very few teachers are being hired by public schools. Unemployment is running 10% or more, depending on which part of Germany you're talking about. In some areas it's 20 - 25%. Daycare for infants/babies is virtually non-existent. Turning down the job in order to bear and care for the child means that she very likely will not be able to work in the profession she studied for; it's extremely unlikely that she'll make it on to the "short list" again, as her knowledge/skills will be considered "outdated" in a very short time.
Neither the woman's real/full name, nor the doctor's, can be published here in Germany, so there's really no reason to even assume the child will know about the court's decision, unless the mother chooses to reveal it.
The current coalition government is trying to actively encourage people to have children, as Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and a rapidly aging population, so I would be very surprised if that didn't influence the court's decision.
post #66 of 87
I feel my opinion has been unfairly represented as saying she would have been better off having an abortion. I NEVER said that. I said it was a choice she had if she didn't want a baby. I didn't say `she should have had an abortion'. She made the choice to keep it - fantastic. Once the choice is made, the responsibility is hers. To say that she sued to help raise the baby, well, maybe she did - and maybe that was just a very handy excuse to come up with to get some free money. Yes, you're right, people do sue everyday - hot coffees at McDonalds, slipping over at Wal-Mart. And those people shouldn't sue either! For goodness' sake - my point is the needless amount of litigation that goes on in the world, which is having a negative affect on businesses everywhere. In my business, you should see how much extra stuff goes on, to make sure we cover every single minute detail of everything, so that some greedy person doesn't decide to sue over something that is just an ordinary risk of life. THAT is what my gripe is - not that she had the baby, not that she even wanted compensation for a mistake - I don't disagree with that - but that we are living in a world where it is becoming increasingly acceptable to sue for anything and everything, and that someone can use raising a child as an excuse to sue someone, well, it just disgusts me. I am trying to see the bigger picture here, not just case by case.

In my city there has been an obstetrician who has been sued, and my goodness did he deserve it. What a horrible man he was - negligent, neglectful, his malpractice resulted in DEATHS of babies. That man deserved to be sued for everything he had. Agreed. But in this case, I don't agree, I'm sorry. IF she didn't want a baby, there were options available. If it turned out she DID want the baby - as it appears - look after it yourself like millions of other struggling mothers who got pregnant accidentally and don't stick their hand out for money, just because there's a convenient excuse around to do so. I have more respect for my neighbour who is raising her children alone, than for this woman who felt she was somehow more entitled to a hand-out than my neighbour is. You want to keep a child, you provide for it. Good for her for having the baby - I NEVER said she shouldnt' have - what I said is that she shouldn't have had it and then sued to get money to raise it, when the original choice lay with her. I know that choice was taken away when her contraceptive failed to work, but get compensation - and importantly, ensure that this doesn't happen to others by the same doctor, IF it was his fault, and then live your own life, looking after yourself and your child, the way millions of other people do.
Quote:
The current coalition government is trying to actively encourage people to have children, as Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and a rapidly aging population, so I would be very surprised if that didn't influence the court's decision.
If that is true, then that, again, is particularly unfair on the doctor - because low birth rates should have nothing to do with anything in this particular case. And I shudder to think of how many other child/birth-related lawsuits will ensue because of this particular attitude in the legal system. What if this actually wasn't the doctor's fault? Should he still pay for a mistake that had nothing to do with him?

Anyway, this has become a thread where I find it is impossible to say what I really mean without either writing a 4,000 word essay, or being able to speak face-to-face. It's difficult to come across as who you really are by just writing, sometimes. I know I sound harsh, and unfeeling, and unkind, and I'm not actually any of those things. I just don't believe in suing people for unsound reasons. I believe in society as a whole, and our future as a whole, and I believe this kind of thing sets us back, as a society. That's why I'm angry, and probably sound unfair.
post #67 of 87
Sarah, I think you're giving this case more coverage than the German media are, and are basing your opinion on what little has been reported, and sensationalized, in international media. A panel of judges decided, and the Obstetricians' and Gynecologists' Association has confirmed, that this doctor was guilty of malpractice. How that can be twisted into pure greed on the plaintiff's part, I don't know. Are you really of the opinion that no malpractice suits should be brought, provided nobody dies?
post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Sarah, I think you're giving this case more coverage than the German media are, and are basing your opinion on what little has been reported, and sensationalized, in international media. A panel of judges decided, and the Obstetricians' and Gynecologists' Association has confirmed, that this doctor was guilty of malpractice. How that can be twisted into pure greed on the plaintiff's part, I don't know. Are you really of the opinion that no malpractice suits should be brought, provided nobody dies?
Of course not, and I have stated so in my posts. And yes, I probably have got hotter under the collar than need be in this case - I get very defensive and angry about the amount of litigation and the amount of lawsuits, especially against doctors, because I am immersed in it on a daily basis, and I've seen the kind of angst it can cause. So yes, I feel that in hindsight I have most likely been judgemental and unreasonable, based upon the bigger picture of litigation rather than just looking at this one particular case. I've probably made myself out to be not a particularly nice person, which is a bummer, because I actually feel that I am generally sensitive and empathetic towards the plight of people such as this woman. It's actually the reason I got into medicine in the first place. In my job, though, we deal with a LOT of medicolegal work, and I have a lot of experience in it. It clouds my judgement somewhat.

So, I guess I should apologise if I've offended anyone. I'm actually not a fundamentalist hard-nosed finger-pointer! And for someone who constantly spouts not to be sucked in by media spinning on important issues, it appears that I have been . I still don't agree with needless litigation, but perhaps in this case I haven't had all the facts.
post #69 of 87
Nothing more than my two cents.
If the product used was a norplant. Which is done in the doctors office...you would have to be a blooming idiot to implant it incorrectly. (Let's just say i have a 30 year medical background) Also you can feel them, and see them under the skin. Since nothing was written in the paper about the details its kind of hard to figure out what went wrong. This doctor must must have had no experience inserting them to have missed the fact that it wasnt there. They are also difficult to remove once implanted because the skin around them encapsulates.
The problem with this type of contraceptive is excessive bleeding during periods with about a 99% fail rate for pregnancy. Right around the use of the pill.
This young woman wanted a 100% results which as far as i know is celibacy. Since she was unable to do this...I am with the others wondering why neither her or her boyfriend feel they have a responsibility for their own actions?
Again, it was an odd way for the courts to go with this one...but as I said...just my two cents...
post #70 of 87
For those condemning the people who posted their opinions here, and as one who concurred with most of the opinions being condemned, I want to clarify what *I* read in this thread and my position.

I don't think that people are saying that the kid is better off dead or never born. This thread is about a lawsuit and the compensation from the lawsuit being 18 years of penalties/payouts for the doctor in question who botched the implant. The replies were about the woman seemingly pursuing this type of penalty from the doctor. Thus, the response from myself and others was that she had choices when she found that she was pregnant. She could keep the child and raise it herself, taking on the responsibilities of parenthood. She could terminate the pregnancy, as that is still legal in Germany as far as I know. She could carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she didn't feel she could take on the responsibilities, financial or emotional or otherwise, of being a good parent to this unplanned child. She CHOSE to keep the child and raise it BY HERSELF. Since she made that choice, how is it fair to penalize the doctor for 18 years for one botched procedure? He didn't force her to make that choice for herself and the child.

In my mind, it comes back to personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of one's actions. I take birth control pills because I really don't want to have children. However, I do realize that there is still the chance that I could become pregnant, however slim. If that happened, I would consider my own choices and take the responsibility for whatever I chose to do. I wouldn't sue for child support from my doctor or the manufacturer, because there are other options available. I'm not saying that the options are better or worse, just that they are options.

Can I also just say that I personally know children of adoption. My best friend in college was adopted. My co-worker is raising her adopted daughter as a single mother - of her own choice. One of my cousins is adopted. Another of my (blood related) cousins and her husband have adopted a child and are on the waiting list for a second adopted child. I can say without hesitation that ALL of these children are as loved and wanted and appreciated as they could possibly be. ALL of these people are in better places in their lives, whether still an infant or a full grown adult, than they would have been had they not been given up for adoption. Of course I know that not all children end up in good homes, but don't condemn that as a choice for everyone because there are many good homes, and very happy families with adopted children. And the children are happy too.

One last point...if the doctor is paying $700/month for 18 years, that only adds up to a sum of $151,200. That is much less than any settlement I've ever seen for malpractice, or at least one that made the news. If it had been given in a lump sum we never would have heard of this court case. Heck, if I were the mother, I would be quite upset with the judgement because in 10 years $700 isn't going to buy much but I could certainly invest the lump sum in a manner to at least keep up with the rate of inflation.
post #71 of 87
I love ya Heidi - you've put into words what I've tried really hard to and failed, obviously!

I would like to add a personal experience to my posts as well. Many years ago, I was in a hotel waiting for a lift. Opposite the lift was a mirror on the wall, with a shelf underneath it. While I was waiting, I leaned on the shelf. It came off the wall, I fell and broke my wrist. Since that time I have had two operations, one on my wrist, and one on my shoulder. I have had thousands of dollars in physiotherapy, and have a permanent and irreversible weakness in both wrist and shoulder.

Now, I could have sued the hotel. But I didn't. Who's to say that I shouldn't have been leaning on the shelf in the first place? That an inherent weakness in my wrist and shoulder was simply exacerbated by my fall? Yes, perhaps it was all the fault of the shelf being loose, but in actual fact, the shelf wasn't loose. It would have been easy for me to say that it was, and pursue a lawsuit. BUT, despite what it has cost me in physical pain, emotional stress and financial loss, I still stand by my decision not to sue. The far-reaching implications of doing that cannot be known and may have been just another factor in the lack of trust that is so inherent in society these days.

To put it another way, stuff happens. That's life. Be a grown-up. Deal with it. Of course there are varying degrees and some places are downright dangerous, people get hurt, and they have every right to pursue legal action. But mostly, it comes down to CHOICE. And I think that is was I and others in this thread have been arguing all along. It's about the choices we make. I may have been wrong about this particular case - after all, if a board of his peers found the doctor guilty, then clearly, there was perhaps a case there. I still don't think that in the same situation I would have sued, but one can never say for sure what one will do when faced with a new and hypothetical situation. Perhaps I would have sued, I don't know.

I also know adopted children. Two of my best friends are adopted - both to families that have `natural' children as well. One of these girls went home to the Philippines, found her family, and that was that. She came home and hasn't really given it much thought since. The other isn't even remotely interested in her natural mother/parents. She loves her life and her parents and has no issues with her adoption.

Again, I believe the point of many posts here is about choice, the choices we make and the choices we have to live with afterwards. There are mistakes in life, there are things in life that go wrong. If everyone sued every time something went wrong, life would be a lot less of a lovely thing to enjoy, with all it's ups and downs.
post #72 of 87
I can understand being upset with the lawsuit, or malpractise issue, and such. But, to say this woman is a monster because of it, and shouldn't even be aloud to concieve because she sued the DR. is out of line.
No one here knows the whole story or any thing about this lady other then she sued the DR. for child support, wheather you disagree or not, that doesn't make her this evil oppertunist that shouldn't beable to concieve, I'm sorry, I just think it is one of the harshest judgements I have seen made for so little info even being known. While most can agree, we wouldn't have done it that way, she did, and I don't think it makes her this monster using her child as a pawn. I don't think she "gained" all that much, she is only humane, after all.

I wonder if because he was sued for child support, and not malpractise, his bussiness will not have the issues of an acual malpracise suit, mabey by doing it that way, he isn't accually being sued for malpractise, and his bussiness won't suffer as much? Mabey this was a decission he agreed to, rather then be sued for malpractise? Or pay a large lump sum, he found it easier to pay a monthly support, then a huge settlement? Who knows, he may have known he was in the wrong and instead of going through the malpractise suit (which he could loose every thing) the monthy support was better for him.
Also I wonder if mabey the courts questioned whether she was truely going to keep the baby, after she got awarded this huge settlement, and spent the money on other then the baby, they thought she would give it up, so to be sure she didn't spend half a million on her self, and then give the baby up, they did the monthly support thing, then if ever she does give it up, the support stops. (or if it dies, god forbid, but, if it does at age 8, then the money stops, if she had been awarded enough money for 18 years he would have paid for the child for 18 years and it only lived for 8 years, and she would get 10 years of his money when the child is no longer there,so there could be many reasons like this, the article didn't give any personal info, just she won the case. But, either way, I don't feel she is this oppertunist that only stands to gain out of the situation and have people say she shouldn't have the right to concieve. I have seen a lot worse things be done by a person.

I also want to edit to add, Sarah, I do not feel that your posts made you an unetical unsensitive person. I have read many of your posts and think you are a kind and caring person.I am surprised at how you have judged this person so harshly, mabey the lawsuit wasn't the best way to handle it, but that doesn't make her a monster. I can't judge her with so little info, any more then I can judge you over all, for one heated post, there is too much about you I don't know to base every thing on what you have said in this thread, nor can I say any thing about this woman from one media story, which is trying to make her look like a bad guy, it is unfair and harsh, and I can't judge her any more then you. I think in this matter you let too much personal influence make an unfair judgement.
But, if I had the choice to sue the DR. for support and keep the baby or abort it, and not take the "free hand-out, I guess you can call me a monster too, there would be no choice I would never terminate it, whether I won the case and had support or not, there is no choice as far as i'm concerned, I would keep it no matter what. We will never know what she would have done if she lost, but as a person that always tries to find the good in people I can only assume she would have kept him any ways, she had him, and has kept him as long as she did before she won the case, so my hopes is she would have any way, she is only human. but we will never know, will we?
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by celestialrags View Post
But, if I had the choice to sue the DR. for support and keep the baby or abort it, and not take the "free hand-out, I guess you can call me a monster too, there would be no choice I would never terminate it, whether I won the case and had support or not, there is no choice as far as i'm concerned, I would keep it no matter what. We will never know what she would have done if she lost, but as a person that always tries to find the good in people I can only assume she would have kept him any ways, she had him, and has kept him as long as she did before she won the case, so my hopes is she would have any way, she is only human. but we will never know, will we?
I would also have sued. I think that from what we know, that this case had grounds to do so and I think that celestialrags brought up some excellent questions, which I hadn't even considered, which would change everything.
Just because there are some really bad (and often weird/unreasonable) cases of suing doesn't mean that all should be attacked. To me, it seems like people are just venting their fustrations from those bad cases at this one.
post #74 of 87
I still think its silly to sue for child support for someone who didnt father the child. Malpractice perhaps. but i would want to see more before i formed an opinion on even that.

I think this topic has gotten very hot. so i will just leave me two cents at that.
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
One last point...if the doctor is paying $700/month for 18 years, that only adds up to a sum of $151,200. That is much less than any settlement I've ever seen for malpractice, or at least one that made the news. If it had been given in a lump sum we never would have heard of this court case. Heck, if I were the mother, I would be quite upset with the judgement because in 10 years $700 isn't going to buy much but I could certainly invest the lump sum in a manner to at least keep up with the rate of inflation.
Thank you for doing the math, Heidi. I was simply too tired to last night.
I'm surprised that this thread has become so heated, because so little concrete information about the case has been reported, especially in English. I live in Germany, so I obviously have access to more media reports about it, and I still don't know whether the mother sued for child support or malpractice. As I stated in an earlier post, there have been precedents where child support had to be paid (a botched sterilization and abortion, and one old case where a woman's labor was suppressed over a weekend, resulting in brain damage to the child), so I wonder if the mother's lawyer chose the child-support strategy, or whether the judges (usually 3) did.
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by celestialrags View Post
I also want to edit to add, Sarah, I do not feel that your posts made you an unetical unsensitive person. I have read many of your posts and think you are a kind and caring person.I am surprised at how you have judged this person so harshly, mabey the lawsuit wasn't the best way to handle it, but that doesn't make her a monster. I can't judge her with so little info, any more then I can judge you over all, for one heated post, there is too much about you I don't know to base every thing on what you have said in this thread, nor can I say any thing about this woman from one media story, which is trying to make her look like a bad guy, it is unfair and harsh, and I can't judge her any more then you. I think in this matter you let too much personal influence make an unfair judgement.
Thanks for that - and I do think you're absolutely right. I've kind of surprised myself, too, because I'm usually the one who wants everyone to understand the point of view of all parties, and then I just got really angry and let myself get all judgemental. I never said she was a monster, or even intended to say that - I said she was an opportunist. But in a lot of cases, that's the same thing, so I guess I can see how it was taken that way.
post #77 of 87
I'm confused about the whole thing,I just read the whole thread and besides wether she is right or wrong re:how she gets compo.
I'm wondering how the woman after having the thing inserted and obviously having sex for six months didn't notice that the thing didn't feel right??Surely her boyfriend must have felt something not right??
And where did the thing disappear to ??No way could she have not known that thing wasn't in her anymore??She must know what happened to it.
I suspect she knew about it all along and said nothing.
If I were the judge I would have asked those questions.
post #78 of 87
Thread Starter 
Interesting avenue that this thread has taken. When I first posted it, I was looking at the courts and their decision. And as I read these responses, I found that I wasn't even looking at it from a malpractice stand-point.

Here in the US, contraception is under attack on several fronts. There are pharmacists who refuse to fill contraception prescriptions. President Bush is appointing someone to oversee the federal Office of Population Affairs who believes that contraception is demeaning to women and increases abortions. This is an organization that helps poor women. Meanwhile, one study found that half U.S. abortions are repeats for women and most were over 30 and were using contraception at the time (so we aren't helping them to better use the contraception that is available).

When I read this article, I saw the potential of this being used in US courts to the point where doctors will no longer prescribe the more effective contraceptives because the risk of being sued if the contraception failed.
post #79 of 87
Many years ago, I got pregnant, with an IUD in place and then miscarried (I didn't even know that I was pregnant). I simply had the IUD removed, had a D&C and one month later, got my tubes tied - I certainly didn't sue Planned Parenthood (I got the IUD there) OR the IUD manufacturer. This was not the first birth control method, that had failed for me and I did the only sensible thing - sterilization.
post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by furryferals View Post
I'm confused about the whole thing,I just read the whole thread and besides wether she is right or wrong re:how she gets compo.
I'm wondering how the woman after having the thing inserted and obviously having sex for six months didn't notice that the thing didn't feel right??Surely her boyfriend must have felt something not right??
And where did the thing disappear to ??No way could she have not known that thing wasn't in her anymore??She must know what happened to it.
I suspect she knew about it all along and said nothing.
If I were the judge I would have asked those questions.
One newspaper showed the implant in question - it looks like three very tiny straws which are implanted under the skin of your forearm, but I don't know if 1 or all 3 are usually implanted. I'll have to ask at school, because I know several of my students have mentioned using this type of birth control.
post #81 of 87
Sounds like Norplant.
post #82 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e View Post
Sounds like Norplant.
No name was given, not that it really matters - the names for one and the same product often differ from country to country.
post #83 of 87
I hunted up some links (in German of course) and it looks VERY messy.

According to this one:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justi...448439,00.html
it sounds like they went after him for "breach of contract". The young woman had intended to become a teacher in Switzerland and could not because of the unplanned pregnancy. The biological father also had a case because he had not "planned" to pay child support. Because both of their lives were influenced not only in the near term but for the long term, it became a support issue, whereby the doctor was ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the bare minimum required to survive financially.

According to this one:
http://www.aerztezeitung.de/docs/200...=/geldundrecht
the court would decide the same way if it had been a case of malpractice when sterilizing and it has been this way for 25 years.

BTW the implant was "Implanon". It was implanted into her upper arm and when she went in for the pregnancy test the doctor was unable to find it nor were they able to measure any of the required dosage in her bloodstream.
post #84 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
One newspaper showed the implant in question - it looks like three very tiny straws which are implanted under the skin of your forearm, but I don't know if 1 or all 3 are usually implanted. I'll have to ask at school, because I know several of my students have mentioned using this type of birth control.
Oh! Thanks...I thought,well never mind
Thanks for clearing that up for me
post #85 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
BTW the implant was "Implanon". It was implanted into her upper arm and when she went in for the pregnancy test the doctor was unable to find it nor were they able to measure any of the required dosage in her bloodstream.
That's the same one I have, which is why I think she should have some responsibility in this. You can't see it but you can feel it, if I couldn't feel mine I would certainly go to the Dr. to find out why.
post #86 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by missymotus View Post
That's the same one I have, which is why I think she should have some responsibility in this. You can't see it but you can feel it, if I couldn't feel mine I would certainly go to the Dr. to find out why.
I don't recall if the article said, but that could also depend on whether or not this was the first time she had recieved the birth control. If it was the first time, then she may not have known that not being able to feel it wasn't right. If she had gotten it before then she should have known something wasn't right.
post #87 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I hunted up some links (in German of course) and it looks VERY messy.

According to this one:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justi...448439,00.html
it sounds like they went after him for "breach of contract". The young woman had intended to become a teacher in Switzerland and could not because of the unplanned pregnancy. The biological father also had a case because he had not "planned" to pay child support. Because both of their lives were influenced not only in the near term but for the long term, it became a support issue, whereby the doctor was ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the bare minimum required to survive financially.

According to this one:
http://www.aerztezeitung.de/docs/200...=/geldundrecht

the court would decide the same way if it had been a case of malpractice when sterilizing and it has been this way for 25 years.

BTW the implant was "Implanon". It was implanted into her upper arm and when she went in for the pregnancy test the doctor was unable to find it nor were they able to measure any of the required dosage in her bloodstream.
I missed the "Spiegel" article, as I alternate between "Spiegel" and "Focus". Interesting. The media in Germany and abroad have labeled her a "teacher", which would presuppose a college education. Spiegel identifies her as an "Erzieherin", which is the equivalent of a nursery school /preschool employee. The qualifications for that are a 10th grade education (Realschule) and a traineeship, so if that's true, I'd assume less of a general education/worldliness on her part. That makes the court's decision a little bit more understandable, IMO.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Doctor ordered to pay for unwanted baby