Informing the patient about alternative surgical methods of delivery

Abstract

The article discusses a judgment passed by the Düsseldorf Supreme Court on 30 January 1986. An obstetrician had resorted to vacuum extraction during multiple birth (twins) because one twin was in imminent danger of hypoxia. It was found only later that during this procedure he had caused a fracture of the parietal bone with subsequent subdural hematoma. This damage inflicted on the infant had initially remained unnoticed and resulted in hemiplegia of the left side. The infant, legally represented by his parents, filed a suit for compensation against the Board of Governors of the hospital. The Düsseldorf Supreme Court ruled on 30 January 1986 that the respondent was liable to compensation. The Court was convinced that the consent obtained from the infant's mother to proceed with vacuum extraction had been invalid at that time because the physician had failed to draw her attention beforehand to the available alternative surgical method of delivery, namely, to Caesarean section. Hence, the Court argued, the procedure followed during birth was against the law so that the Board of Governors was directly liable independent of whether the responsible obstetrician had or had not been guilty of malpractice. In addition, the liability of the Board of Governors follows from the fact that the infant had not been examined by a paediatrician immediately after birth as would have been mandatory had delivery been conducted lege artis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)