Judge Matthias Schertz is a man of clear words.
The chief physician Babett R. and the former chief physician Klaus V. have not denied, in July 2010 by caesarean section first brought a healthy child and then killed his sick twin sister in the womb. But they did not want to know that they violated the law.
"That's simply incredible," says the judge. "They are high-profile doctors, no quackers, no field, forest and meadow doctors." That the court did not know that the intervention was no longer a permitted late abortion is out of the question. "They knew exactly what they were doing," said the judge. "With unbelievable hubris, you have overruled the law."
Suspended sentences for probation
The 32nd Large Criminal Division of the district court of Berlin has sentenced the two Berlin doctors on Tuesday for joint manslaughter in a minor case. The court sentenced Babett R., 58, to a term of imprisonment of one year and six months, Klaus V., 73, to one year and nine months. They do not have to go to jail. The sentences are suspended.
It's about the case of a 27-year-old woman who expected identical twins in 2010. It was a high-risk pregnancy. The fetuses shared a placenta. They were unequally supplied with blood. There was a so-called fetofetales transfusion syndrome. In a clinic in Hamburg, an attempt was made to separate the circulatory system of the twins. A little later it became apparent that a twin had severe brain damage.
"The sick child was never at risk for the healthy"
"The mother decided not to want to have the sick child," says Judge Schertz, "which is not so easy with a twin pregnancy." Because a so-called selective fetozide, ie the killing of a twin in the womb, would be risky even for the healthy twin. According to the law, abortion is allowed until shortly before birth when a doctor believes that the harm to the child represents an unreasonable physical and mental burden on the mother. Such an indication was present in the mother.
The woman moved from the clinic in Hamburg to a clinic in Berlin, where the defendants worked. The court was convinced that the mother had been advised to wait with the intervention. Repeatedly stressed judge Schertz: "The sick child was at no time a danger to the healthy child." A danger to the healthy fetus would have existed only through the procedure with which the other fetus should have been killed. The later such a selective fetozide occurs, the lower the risk to the healthy twin. The defendants waited until there was no more danger.
According to the judges, they waited too long.
When is a human being human?
The doctors brought the healthy girl by caesarean section. "And then what happened would not have been better," Schertz said. Babett R. and Klaus V. killed the sick twin in the open womb. They clamped the umbilical cord and injected potassium chloride. The twin died. "The defendants did so, although they knew very well that they were not aborting at this time." According to an expert, the child would have been viable.
The defendants, according to the conviction of the court, committed the jointly committed manslaughter. "The board is convinced that the defendants deliberately overruled the law," says the judge. "There was undoubtedly no abortion." The uterus was opened. The birth had begun. Criminally, this means that the moment a fetus becomes a human being.
The healthy child had already been born. A conflict situation did not exist for the doctors. "The whole thing ultimately turns out to be sorting out a sick twin," says the judge. "It would be a slap in the face of disabled people, if you could do that."
"Gone too far"
With appropriate indication, it would have been legally permissible and medically possible to kill the diseased fetus during pregnancy, at risk for the healthy fetus. "If you want to exclude any risk," says Schertz, "then only the birth of both twins remains." But to release a twin first and then kill the other in the womb is not legally permissible. "And that's just as well."
Manslaughter is actually a prison sentence not less than five years. However, the Chamber assumes that the defendants have a minor case. The act is nine years back. Both are not convicted. Her request to meet the wishes of pregnant women and to keep the risk as low as possible, is quite understandable. "The defendants have simply gone too far."
The defense had demanded acquittal
The slightly milder punishment for the senior physician justifies the court with the fact that although she led the operation, Klaus V. was her superior. Babett R. could also face the legality of the verdict of the loss of license to practice as a doctor, while Klaus V. has been retired since 2012. Regarding Babett R., the judge says, "We assume that you are a good doctor who does a good job." From a danger of repetition is not to be assumed.
The court largely follows the claim of the public prosecutor's office. The defense had demanded acquittal and argued that the question of when the incarnation begins, was not legally clear. In civil law, with the completion of birth, in criminal law with the beginning of birth, the legal capacity of man begins.
The verdict is not yet legally binding.
