@article{ref1,
title="[Liability for overlooked malformations. Three recent rulings concerning false ultrasound diagnosis]",
journal="Ultraschall in der Medizin",
year="2003",
author="Franzki, H.",
volume="24",
number="1",
pages="17-20",
abstract="It is a grave risk for any physician working in prenatal medicine to be liable for an undiagnosed foetal malformation which would have justified an abortion according to section 218 a Abs. 2 StGB, making him responsible for compensation for the complete cost of upkeep and nursing of a handicapped child. Three recent high court rulings concerning the liability for overlooked malformations (amelia) have again emphasised this problem and have also demonstrated how carefully the courts determine whether a legal abortion would have been justified. In two cases this was denied, one of these cases representing a monozygotic twin pregnancy. Since an abortion would have almost certainly terminated the life of the healthy fetus, the &quot;Bundesgerichtshof&quot; specified stringent requirements as to the degree of handicap of the malformed fetus and the degree of additional stress for the mother, both of which were denied. A third case was judged differently because all four limbs were severely malformed and the mother was seen to be in a very unstable psychological state with the possible danger of suicide. Therefore the gynaecologist was judged to be liable for an incorrect ultrasound diagnosis (20/5 gestational week). This court ruling contains remarkable comments regarding the burden of proof and the permission for a late abortion. Although this ruling is in line with recent jurisdiction, it has yielded a surprisingly critical response. this criticism should be levelled not towards the courts, but to the legislative body responsible for the consequences of legalising abortion on (socio-) medical grounds.<p /><p>Language: de</p>",
language="de",
issn="0172-4614",
doi="10.1055/s-2003-37417",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37417"
}