The courts have ordered a Spanish doctor to pay for upkeep of a child after a failed abortion:
In a unique case, a court in Palma de Mallorca ordered the unnamed doctor to pay almost €1,000 (£800) a month in maintenance for the child until he reaches his 25th birthday. [...]
The boy was born in October 2010, six months after his mother had gone for an abortion at the city's Emece clinic. The operation had been performed when the mother was almost seven weeks pregnant. The doctor told her two weeks later that a scan proved she was no longer pregnant. [...]
A fresh scan revealed, however, that this was the same pregnancy. She was already into her sixth month and past the 22-week limit for abortions in Spain. "I sought advice and was told that it would be a crime to abort at that stage," she said.
I wonder if the doctor was accidentally negligent, or whether he committed a deliberate act and told the mother he had performed an abortion, thinking she might change her mind later. Maybe he was a misguided crusader.
I'm a little surprised that everyone here is attaching blame to the mother. If the surgeon had failed to remove a swab or surgical instrument after a patient was hit by a car and needed an operation, would anyone be saying 'maybe next time you'll use the bus, won't you?'
Miss Cellania you say 'I’d take the baby in immediately, and so would plenty of other people'. Well in that case I challenge you to begin the process of adopting a child - immediately.
I agree that she should probably give up the child if she doesn't want it. However, it might be a social thing. Where she wanted to quietly get rid of the unwanted pregnancy before anyone found out, now she has carried the child to term. Everyone she knows now knows she had a baby. The damage to her reputation has been done.
When the child was only a few weeks old, she could remain emotionally detached enough to consider the abortion, but as it got older, she became more attached to the child as a human being. That would easily make it more difficult to give up.
Nick, I wouldn't say the doctor's actions led directly to the birth of the child - a completely different action led to that. I would say the doctor's actions failed to prevent the birth of the child - still responsible for some costs, but not for maintenance of the child well into adulthood.
The mother would still have grounds for a malpractice suit, but it shouldn't affect the child.
No, no he shouldn't. It's stupid crap like this that makes Doctors weary of working on people in the first place. It's why many people have a hard time find Doctors to perform risky operations because they're afraid of being "punished" for failure. If I was the judge in that situation, I would have looked at the woman and told her, "Maybe next time you'll use protection, won't you?" and clear the man of any legal responsibility.