Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (80853)	7/8/2004 3:48:51 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

Neither of which was documented, so it comes down to "Your word against mine" with a chunk of cash as the incentive for lying. You mean the Dr's word against the widower's, right? The widower was not there and has no first hand information that proves the Dr didn't do as he testified or that the pharmacist didn't do as he testified... only that he did not personally get information on the risks. He was not the patient and was not entitled to recieve information. Without some material or eye witness testimony, he has little to present as evidence accept his skepticism. I see no reason that Dr's couldn't down load risk information in the office and have the patient sign off on it. Every modern Dr should have this capability. A Dr could forget or overlook one of the risks while consulting with the patient... and they probably do all the time. However, your widower case lacks convictive evidence. "So maybe this counseling may be more important than you seem to think." I think its very important. But to make your case we need some health services reform first.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next