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 (80857)	7/8/2004 5:40:32 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The courts have tended to agreement with Nurse Ratched. - Holly" The only way to document that you informed the patient of the risks is to have her sign off on a document that informed her. You can enter it into your records but that is rather self serving and does not serve to advance the merits of the case. Sign off is not commonly done. So, a reasonable court will defer to the standards of practice for the profession... Dr should inform and pharmacist should also provide documentation. No proof that this was not done and corroborating evidence from credible professional experts that it was done. The burden of proof is on you madam prosecutor... where is it? Joe schmoe, who was not the patient, didn't get copies? That's your evidence?