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: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (80848)	7/8/2004 12:12:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"...Nothing in Laz's post indicates for what condition the antibiotics had been prescribed or that the woman was sick, per se. " Yes there was. There was a declaration from the Doctor that she had counseled the patient on the specific risks of the antibiotic in relation to her becoming pregnant. There was also the statement from the Pharmacist that the patient had been given documentation in this regard. "The physician may still have been unaware of this and is now lying to cover his assets, as may be the pharmacist. Yes. Anyone can lie if they so choose. Given the nature of the scenario the Dr.'s and the Pharmacist's word cary more credibility than the widower's wild and without substance speculations. The only thing the widower has is NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE. You could get the medical records in a court case but if the Dr is a liar as you and the widower are inclined to believe, why wouldn't the Dr. simply add a quick not in the patients log on the page where he prescribed the antibiotics? And, if he doesn't do that there is no law that I am aware of that requires him to have documented the details of his private consultation with a patient. If there was no potential for a huge money settlement, I don't believe it would be an issue at all. And, I don't believe a jury would either. If you want to pass laws that require patients to sign off on the risk statements, I am OK with that. But the current laws give the medical professionals the benefit of the doubt, as far as I know. I don't believe the widower, who seems like a sickee to begin with, has a case. I reserve my option to change my mind if Laz adds more details to the scenario.

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (80848)	7/8/2004 2:26:10 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Here's a loaded question for you: Knowing the pregnancy put her life in peril, why did she not terminate the pregnancy? I know that there could be many reasons for this, but I'll still toss it out there. There are many whys about this scenario. 1) Why were they having sex when they were sick? 2) Why are they having sex in a way that can impregnate the woman at all... BC pills are not 100% and there are many alternatives. Why didn't one or the other of them get snipped or tied for example. 4) In answer to your question..." why did she not terminate the pregnancy? OH BOY!!! it would help to justify the abortion agenda and that is more important than the woman's well being or the baby's. And, we shouldn't be expecting anyone to take responsibility for their own actions. Have sex everywhere, anytime, in any fashion, with any body, ... problems??? well, that's what we have social welfare for ... right? It's the governments problem, or the Drs., or the tax payer's, or the sex partner's but I certainly shouldn't be inconvenienced in any way for MY CHOICE. Maybe she has a conscience? But given that there was this type of legal option, don't you think the widower should be answering that question before filing suit? Or, at least Laz, the driver of this scenario?