回複：你覺得這種官司比較難贏，是嗎？

For negligence/malpractice, you must prove wrongdoing from the doctor. From what you said, I can not draw that conclusion. Standard of care in malpractice is the minimum standard so that if the doctor/hospital has been using the same drug for the same purpose for a long time, and/or other hospitals have been doing the same thing, you have no case. The fact FDA did not approve the drug does not mean a negligence from the doctor. If you can find a statute/legislation saying this drug is banned, then you may prevail. If you sue negligence/malpractice, I would suggest that you find the record of the drug use to determine whether your case is unique or this thing happened a lot. Read the manufacturer instruction of the drug and you may find something. For example, if there is a risk of using the drug to cause death and the doctor did not inform you, you may have a case under theory of informed intent. Basically the doctor must disclose the risk to you beforehand.

For strict liability, if there is a small risk involving death, it does not matter if your case is only of a small possibility because we are talking about death here. However, as we all know, none of the drugs can be 100% safe. The fact that nobody is suing the drug company is because the utility of the drug is much higher than the risk and there is no safer alternative. Again, your focus may have to be the warning part to see if the drug is so unsafe that if you were warned you might decline of its use.

所有跟帖： 

• 非常謝謝你 -十二人馬- ♀ (615 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 14:35:57

• the nurse should monitor baby's heart rate all the -learncooking- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:00:08

• time. the nurse was wrong by letting it delayed -learncooking- ♀ (193 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:03:20

• 謝謝你的理解。 -十二人馬- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:05:04