Another one of Pandora's Boxes has been opened

Lugnut

I'm Rick James #####!
smoothmarine187 said:
Shouldn't the doctors insurance cover it anyway.? Thats why they have to pay so much.


Ooh good catch. I didn't think of that. This is going to be a pretty big deal over there I suspect.

WHile it sets a precedent for holding doctors directly liable, it also impacts the BC industry, insurance industry, ... what else?
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
If you read the article it says that the device could not be found in her body. I'm assuming she had an IUD. While even with an IUD there will always be a small (read small) risk of pregnancy, if the doctor did not put it in correctly or at all than he should certainly be held accountable. Malpractice, plain and simple. Now if it were in fact in her and she got pregnant than that's just the risk you take. She thought she had some level of protection that she in fact did not.
 

smoothmarine187

Well-Known Member
pixiegirl said:
If you read the article it says that the device could not be found in her body. I'm assuming she had an IUD. While even with an IUD there will always be a small (read small) risk of pregnancy, if the doctor did not put it in correctly or at all than he should certainly be held accountable. Malpractice, plain and simple. Now if it were in fact in her and she got pregnant than that's just the risk you take. She thought she had some level of protection that she in fact did not.

The master has spoken........ :love:
 

mv_princess

mv = margaritaville
pixiegirl said:
If you read the article it says that the device could not be found in her body. I'm assuming she had an IUD. While even with an IUD there will always be a small (read small) risk of pregnancy, if the doctor did not put it in correctly or at all than he should certainly be held accountable. Malpractice, plain and simple. Now if it were in fact in her and she got pregnant than that's just the risk you take. She thought she had some level of protection that she in fact did not.
:yeahthat: and why wasn't he wearing a condom? I know they have STD's in other parts of the world.
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
smoothmarine187 said:
The master has spoken........ :love:

:love: I had my tubes tied (cut and burned) and if I ever end up pregnant and they tell me that my tubal failed because it was done incorrectly there's gonna be hell to pay. But if I were to get pregnant and everything looks like it was done right and the pregnancy was just that .01% then it's "suck it up buttercup" for me. Those are the chances we take.
 

Lugnut

I'm Rick James #####!
pixiegirl said:
If you read the article it says that the device could not be found in her body. I'm assuming she had an IUD.

IUD's are "Intra Uterine Devices" which are different from "implants" and I think have a MUCH longer expected effectivenss than 3 years.
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
mv_princess said:
:yeahthat: and why wasn't he wearing a condom? I know they have STD's in other parts of the world.

It said they'd been together for 6 months. If they were in a monogamus relationship (which we don't know because it didn't say) and she had an IUD than they probably didn't feel the need. :shrug:
 

Club'nBabySeals

Where are my pants?
An IUD isn't a "Set it and forget it" device....there's a string that hangs down through the cervix which users are instructed to check after menstruation (when they are frequently expelled by accident) and before engaging in sexual intercourse. No string, no IUD=no protection.


I didn't see where the article specified that it was an IUD, though. It may have been Norplant. Regardless, no birth control method is billed as "100%" reliable. There's the chance that the doctor may have done nothing wrong at all, and this woman was merely that statistical anomaly who ended up conceiving.
 

mv_princess

mv = margaritaville
pixiegirl said:
It said they'd been together for 6 months. If they were in a monogamus relationship (which we don't know because it didn't say) and she had an IUD than they probably didn't feel the need. :shrug:
Now I know nothing about IUD's....but if it had been put in, and "fallin out" wouldn't you have noticed? Like someone in the other thread said something about there Ring falling out, you WOULD have noticed that.
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
Lugnut said:
IUD's are "Intra Uterine Devices" which are different from "implants" and I think have a MUCH longer expected effectivenss than 3 years.

Implants? As in Norplant? I didn't think they even did that anymore??? It didn't say "implants" it called it a device I believe which led me to believe it was an IUD. Regardless of what it was it was done incorrecly if it wasn't in her.
 

Club'nBabySeals

Where are my pants?
Lugnut said:
IUD's are "Intra Uterine Devices" which are different from "implants" and I think have a MUCH longer expected effectivenss than 3 years.


The two popular brands in the U.S. last from 5-10 years.
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
mv_princess said:
Now I know nothing about IUD's....but if it had been put in, and "fallin out" wouldn't you have noticed? Like someone in the other thread said something about there Ring falling out, you WOULD have noticed that.

That was me... :giggle: And I didn't notice at all as it happened in the midst of things. :lmao:
 

Lugnut

I'm Rick James #####!
pixiegirl said:
Implants? As in Norplant? I didn't think they even did that anymore??? It didn't say "implants" it called it a device I believe which led me to believe it was an IUD. Regardless of what it was it was done incorrecly if it wasn't in her.


The article definitely leaves a lot of holes doesn't it.

BERLIN (Reuters) - 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
...she became pregnant after he implanted her with a contraceptive device.


:shrug: I dunno.
 
Top