The device is meant to protect against pregnancy for up to three years, but half a year after the operation, the implant could no longer be found in the woman's body, the court said.
Was she pregnant at that time? Was it proved that the doctor was negligent? How do we know that the woman didn't remove the implant herself?
I know that in the US doctors have been sued in similar situations (failed birth control), those cases are usually dismissed.
Women get pregant while taking birth control properly. The doctor didn't father the child. Maybe, maybe, she should have gotten a settlement for malpractice (it's not really clear if the doctor did anything wrong).
No birth control is 100% proof (maybe vasectomy but I think I heard a story that infirmed that) so there you go, shit, pardon me, children happen. It's almost like suing a doctor because the patient died (no malpractice proved) heck people die... people get born -- that's a fact of life. The father at least gets the right to see the kid, what right does the doctor have, can he take the kid on the weekend? (I mean without him there would be no kid)
If I am not mistaken, with ANY procedure to get birth control the doctor informs the patient that there are risks, and when the procedure is done the patient has agreed with those terms. INCLUDING the risks. However, the device disappearing is a whole other matter.
There is one form of birth control that is full proof and that is when they remove the female reproductive organs, usually after or because of cancer to the reproductive organs. In that case a doc doesn't have to say: "There is a 0.0001 chance of you having a baby" because simply put: when everything down there is gone, that entire opportunity is out the window.
To continue on the first paragraph: what the article does not speak of is the fact that there may be gross malpractice. If the doctor did not follow procedure on inserting the device, then he may have been proven guilty of negligence, in which case it is fair for the court to rule this way.
The fact that other cases will now be filed will not give a guarantee for those other people. Most likely most cases will be waved out of court as a case of "you agreed to the risks", but they will be decided on an individual basis. I really doubt this ruling will set a precedent.