Hmmmm, interesting...may I weigh in? Of course--I thank you.
Firstly, we know nothing at all about the credibility of either the doctor, the pharmacist, or the surviving party. The Doctor could be banned from practice in several States, the survivor could be a Nobel Prize winner or the head of the United Church of a large country. Credibility issues might be important in Court where there is conflicting testimony, but we do not have the luxury of speaking to credibility...so we won't.
But we do have one piece of factual information which is critical to our judgment, to wit: "Pregnancy is LIKELY to kill the woman". Now, in a non-hypothetical situation, this premise seems suspect: after all...pregnancies may be terminated as soon as they are discovered in any civilized society; But perhaps the risk intended in the hypothetical was the risk of a pregnancy which is allowed toward or to term being likely to cause death. This, of course, is familiar to all.
But back to the hypothetical that pregnancy (in and of itself) is likely to cause death, and (2) antibiotics DO cause BC pills to fail with sufficient frequency that this doctor claims she CAUTIONED the patient. You do not say whether the caution pertained to the risk of pregnancy only...or also to the near certain consequences of pregnancy--which being death. In any event, if it is true that pregnancy is LIKELY to cause death, and if it is true that taking AB's concomitantly with BC pills puts one at increased RISK of pregnancy, then the authority which accompanies such ability to prescribe in such a manner entails the responsibility to exercise an abundance of caution in consideration of the grave consequences. This would include (at the very least) the suggestion (in no uncertain terms) that the couple not engage in ANY sex during the regimen of antibiotics. They obviously engaged in sex, so (without documentation) the doctor will be hard-pressed in Court to convince anyone that he conveyed the gravity of the situation to the plaintiff. There are three witnesses against him: The dead woman who engaged in sex, the survivor who engaged in sex but who feels that his wife is dead by virtue of incompetence and malpractice--and the lack of any evidence in the record to support the doctor's claim that she "cautioned" one of them. By the way, it is obvious that the written warning from the pharmacist (if it was given) was not about the LIKELY consequence of pregnancy---which is to say--DEATH. It was a "standard" sheet of instructions which means it had nothing to do with the very rare circumstances of this case--that pregnancy would LIKELY cause death. Presumably the pharmacist "warning" related to the standard disclaimer that taking a with b may cause c. If you experience c,d, or f, or t...please consult your physician.
When a physician uses her authority to prescribe something which acts against another agent which basically prevents the likelihood of death...that physician had better have have a million disclaimers and two million witnesses, and 3 million risk/reward ratio studies as to the danger of NOT taking that something.
Does pregnancy in and of itself likely download death? It is not usual. But if we stick to the hypothetical...the doctor does not have a leg to stand on. There is no documentation...and there is the evidence of death, and also the evidence of the survivor's testimony. How competent is a doctor who does not document such a critical medical fact in the patient file? When she goes on vacation does she sit with the replacement doctor and go through the critical details of several hundred patients by memory while trusting these details to the MEMORY of the replacement doctor?!! How STUPID is that??? Never mind a leg...she is standing on a single toe. |
