{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02071563088512241, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011299435028248588, 'mean_word_length': 5.216374269005848, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Questions of liability in unsuccessful voluntary sterilization (author's transl)].

Since the June 29, 1976, decision of the Federal High Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, voluntary sterilization is permitted under certain, limited, circumstances. After the physician has thoroughly instructed the patient, the patient must give written consent in agreement with S 226 of the penal code. The physician cannot then later be charged with commiting bodily injury according to S 224 of the penal code. Recently, the German courts have tended more and more to consider the unplanned birth of a child following unsuccessful sterilization as a damage case for which the attending physician is held responsible under civil law. For most physicians, this means that the financial compensation set by the court is not, or at least not fully, covered by their medical indemnity insurance. A corresponding increase in the medical indemnity coverage or a release from all damage claims overagainst the attending physician signed by the patient is urgently indicated.