Wunschsectio.

The article "Desired C-section" is about a legal dispute in which the plaintiff sues the defendants for alleged treatment and disclosure errors during childbirth. The plaintiff claims that he had requested a cesarean section, which is disputed by the defendants. It is determined that the settlement between the parties is valid and that the plaintiff's declaration of annulment is ineffective. It is also noted that errors regarding motives or calculations in a settlement are irrelevant. The article also contains information about the course of the birth and the medical measures taken. The plaintiff was born with Apgar scores of 6/6/8 and was transferred to the neonatology department due to respiratory adaptation disorder. Movement restrictions of the right arm and diaphragmatic paralysis were detected. The plaintiff was fed through a tube and had to be treated in the pediatric intensive care unit for almost four weeks. The plaintiff claims that the treating doctors should have performed a cesarean section as his mother was recommended to do so due to his sister's previous difficult birth. The court dismissed the lawsuit as no treatment error was proven. In the present case, it concerns a medical treatment during childbirth that resulted in complications. An expert determined that the treatment was appropriate and no errors were made. In particular, the administration of the medication Cytotec for labor induction was considered professional. Furthermore, no connection could be established between the use of Cytotec and the occurring complications. The court also decided that the disclosure regarding labor induction was sufficient. The appeal does not raise any legal objections to the findings of the district court and also does not contain any specific objections to the court's evaluation of evidence. The court does not doubt the correctness and completeness of the findings of the district court. It assumed the mother's consent to the intake of the medication Cytotec based on the disclosure form and the mother's statements. Even if the disclosure about the effects of the medication should not have been sufficient, this would not result in liability of the defendants. Liability due to a lack of disclosure about a primary cesarean section as an alternative treatment also does not arise. Finally, the court rightly denied liability due to disregarding an expressed desire for an elective cesarean section and failing to disclose its risks. In the present case, it concerns a lawsuit regarding an alleged vaccine injury after a COVID-19 vaccination. The plaintiff completed training as a nurse for the sick and elderly and was vaccinated against COVID-19 with the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine by the defendants. The plaintiff had previously received an information leaflet and filled out the medical history form. After the vaccinations, a vaccine reaction was observed in the plaintiff. The court decided that administering COVID-19 vaccines is a sovereign activity and therefore the state is solely liable. Self-liability of the sovereign actor is not possible. [Extracted from the article]