Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (80844)	7/7/2004 9:09:09 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"Should the doctor be held liable for his failure?" no

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (80844)	7/7/2004 9:44:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"The widower claims his wife never mentioned or showed such a sheet to him and he never saw it. It was not found among her effects after her death." 1) Everyone knows or should know that BC is not 100%. Which person do we think was irresponsible, the Dr. who has a standard of practice which supports his claims, or a woman who has sex while she is sick?...yuck. Or, if her husband insisted, what kind of character does he have? 2) She would die if she became pregnant and they are risking it, with BC pills. Stupid... there are lots of ways to have sex without shoving sperm into her at the risk of her life. 3)It is not the Doctor's word against some one else's. The only person present was the Doctor. He says the woman was informed of the risks. Doctors say lots of things that are not documented in their notes. If there are risks associated with the BC it should be documented and delivered with the drug which the pharmacist assures us it was. 4) Anyone who takes BC or any drug without full knowledge of the risks is responsible for their own ignorant behavior. 5) The pharmacist said he provided documentation. Again no one is refuting his claim. The widower says he can't find the document. So what, most people read them and pitch them, if they read them at all. What would be the purpose of hanging onto the thing once you have read it? We should not expect to find it among her effects. So, we have two qualified experts testifying that the issue was covered in a responsible manner. And, we have a widower who liked having sex with a sick woman, impregnated his wife knowing that BC is not 100%, and that pregnancy could kill her. His complaint is that he didn't know enough and someone else should pay him for that? (assuming that's what we are talking about.) 6) If the whole case is around what the widower didn't know ... then retardation should be prosecutable. Finally... my condolences for your loss...

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (80844)	7/10/2004 2:45:51 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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.