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: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (80869)	7/8/2004 7:00:05 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

"to protect the medical professional against the patient Not true, it protects both. As in the current scenario. The widower has no case. If there were a legal sign off requirement he would have a case by proving that sign off had not occurred. You have been arguing that the Dr should have to prove he provided information. Isn't that the assumption of a legal requirement based on common standards of practice? How does he prove it without meeting Rached's criteria? Is that a legal standard or not? If it is then use it in court ... no sign off equals mal-practice. I think you would lose, because you still haven't convinced me it is a professional standard. "As for the patients who are retarded or of limited intellect, if it can be shown that they are incapable of comprehension, anything they sign would be invalid. In extreme cases, a court-appointed guardian would be assigned. - Holly" Well, most are capable of comprehension (IQ 45 - 85). But they may have other issues like low self confidence. So, they do what ever they are told. It is a complicated issue.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next