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 (80849)	7/8/2004 12:30:43 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"Suppose the couple did not wish to have children and did because of failure of the BC pills because of the antibiotics. What, if anything, is the doctor liable for then? " Since it is common knowledge now that BC pills are not 100% effective, there would have to be a pretty good case of neglegence before the Doctor would be held liable. Lots of people get pregnant on BC pills. It would be hard to convince a jury that the couple took the pills religiously. If you could do that you would have to prove it was the anti-biotic that rendered them ineffective. Then, you would have to prove that it was an absolute obligation of the Doctor to inform the patient, and that he did not. I don't see how you could do that without a regulation that requires the patient to sign off on a risk statement. As I said to Holly, I would support such a regulation but the Doctor may end up needing to have fifty page documents signed off on everytime he sees a patient. Do we believe the patients would actually benefit from such a procedure... and what about the poor trees we are murdering just to get another avenue to sue somebody. If you can get the lefties (who would probably support such an encumbering law) to attach a tree harvesting bill to support it ... I would be impressed.