You can Sue                        14 February 2019

Chapter 4    Reducing the Legal Burden of Proof

                Brent Rooney (MSc, email: youcansue@gmail.com)

              Chapter 4 address: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-4

 

    In a medical negligence law suit the plaintiff suing a doctor

must shoulder the burden of proof to convince the court that the

M.D. was indeed negligent AND that his/her negligence either

caused the adverse side-effect in question or was a major

contributor to causing the side-effect. (Do not pursue a medical

negligence law suit, unless your trusted lawyer affirms that your

odds of legal success are very good. If given such an assurance

by your trusted lawyer, make a diary entry about that assurance.)

This BoP (Burden of Proof) legal standard is a major advantage

for defendant doctors in medical negligence law suits.

 

    Women suing an abortion doctor naturally want to lower the

legal Burden of Proof, if possible, to boost their odds of a

successful verdict. Canadian judge Ellen I. Picard in her legal

textbook informs readers how a contraindicated medical treatment

may effect a medical negligence law suit.

 

    “... However, this does not mean that the doctor has a duty to

    provide (and the patient a correlative right to receive) whatever

    treatment the patient may request. If a patient requests treatment

    which the doctor considers to be inappropriate and potentially

    harmful, the doctor's overriding duty to act in the patient's best

    interests dictates that the treatment must be withheld. A doctor

    who accedes to a patient's request (or demand) and performs

    treatment which he or she knows, or ought to know, is

    contraindicated and not in the patient's best interests, may be

    held liable for any injury which the patient suffers as a result

    of treatment.....”[1, Picard]]

 

      It is reasonable to believe that in some (or possibly most) medical

negligence cases in the USA, if a court is convinced that a specific

legally challenged medical treatment was contraindicated and not

in the best interests of the patient, that court will lower the burden

of proof normally placed upon a plaintiff. Two specific IA

(Induced Abortion) side-effect risks that should, before an honest &

probing court, convince it that a woman’s abortion was

contraindicated and should not have been performed, thus

much reducing the woman plaintiff’s Burden of Proof:

    Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk

    Future Premature Delivery Risk

 

Women who are childless when their abortions are performed

    Let’s say that you are inclined to sue an abortion doctor for an

adverse side-effect that the court may be reluctant to accept as

a recognized side-effect of abortion (perhaps substance abuse

fits into this category). In addition, you were a young childless

woman when the elective abortion was performed on you. In less

than 20 minutes an elective abortion significantly increased your

lifetime breast cancer risk (see chapter 3), since every year a young

childless woman postpones her first full-term pregnancy (FFTP)

increases her lifetime breast cancer risk. An honest and diligent

court must consider it very contraindicated to boost a young

woman’s lifetime breast cancer risk via an unnecessary (i.e.

elective) medical treatment. Consider suggesting to your trusted

lawyer that he/she add a claim to your statement of claims along

the following lines: “I was put at increased breast cancer risk

by the abortion performed on me by Dr. John Doe without any

warning in advance of my abortion that by postponing a childless

woman’s first full-term delivery of a baby increases her lifetime

breast cancer risk.” How much increase in breast cancer risk

does postponing a first delivery of a baby (full-term) impart?

As shown in Chapter 3, here is the answer to that question,

provided by Harvard University medical researchers, including

the great breast cancer researcher Dr. Brian MacMahon (Harvard

University):

    Delay     Boost in Relative

  in FFTP     Breast Cancer risk

    1 year         +3.5%

    5 years     +19% [3.5% compounded 5 times]

  10 years   +41% [3.5% compounded 10 times]

  15 years   +68%

  20 years   +99% [Almost doubled breast cancer risk]

[2, Trichopoulos]

 

Another Risk that Should Render an IA Contraindicated

 

      For those women who definitely want their future reproductive

health protected, induced abortion is contraindicated; this, of

course, does not apply to women who definitely never want to have

children. Chapter 6 presents the overwhelming evidence that

induced abortion raises a woman’s future risk of a premature delivery

of a baby. ‘Preemies’ face raced risk of MACE (Mental Retardation,

Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy) disorders, blindness, deafness,

gastrointestinal injury, ADHD, kidney problems, serious infections,

etc. The more premature the delivery, the higher the risk. ‘Preemies’

can burden a family with heavy medical expenses, cause much

stress in a family, and can lead to divorce. Thus, for women who

indeed want to protect their reproductive health and convince a

court of this firmly held desire, an honest and probing court should

consider an elective abortion as very much contraindicated.

 

U.S.A.: POTENTIAL side-effects require advance warnings

    In the United States, not only must there be advance warnings

for well accepted adverse side-effects of a medical treatment,

but also side-effects that are potential risks. In his 1998 peer-

reviewed published study lawyer John Kindley alerted readers

that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court stated in its ruling, “We

believe a risk must be disclosed even if it is but a potential

risk rather than a conclusively determined risk..... It may be

that these risks had not yet been documented or accepted as

a fact in the medical profession. Nonetheless, under the

doctrine of informed consent, these risks should have been

disclosed. Medical knowledge should not be limited to what

is generally accepted by the profession…..”.[3, Kindley]

 

Most Surgical Abortions Violate the 1947 Nuremberg Code

      Before U.S. Supreme Court judges rendered their 1973

‘Roe v Wade’ decision, they were NOT informed by the ‘Sam

Wade’ side of the ‘Roe v Wade’ case that there were no published

animal studies for vacuum aspiration (aka ‘suction’) abortion.

So what? The ‘gold standard’ for ethical medical experimentation

on human beings is the 1947 Nuremberg Code (N.C.). The 10

principles of the Nuremberg Code were formulated to make much

less likely a repeat of medical atrocities perpetrated by doctors in

Nazi Germany and occupied territories (during World War II).

The third principle of the 1947 Nuremberg Code insists that:

    “The experiment should be so designed and based on the

    results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of

    the natural history of the disease or other problem under

    study that the anticipated results will justify the performance

    of the experiment.”

Of the current main abortion surgeries all of them (except Dilation

& Curettage (D & C)) were invented after the 1947 Nuremberg

Code. All these post-1947 abortion surgeries violate the 1947

Nuremberg Code, since none of them (including vacuum

aspiration, D & E, & D & X) has published animal studies in

medical journals. ‘Suction’ (aka vacuum aspiration) abortion is

the most common abortion procedure performed in advanced

countries. 100% of ‘suction’ abortions are unethical, since there

are still no published animal studies for ‘suction’ abortion, over

45 years after the January 1973 ‘Roe v Wade’ Supreme Court

ruling. In December 2008 Brent Rooney (MSc), Dr. Byron

Calhoun and Lisa Roche (J.D.) alerted the medical community

via their peer-reviewed study that there are no published animal

studies for VAA (Vacuum Aspiration Abortion).[4, Rooney] All

one need do to falsify the Rooney et al. revelation about the lack

of any published animal studies for ‘suction’ abortion is to correctly

cite just one actual published animal ‘suction’ abortion study in a

medical journal; email address for the journal to report such an

alleged animal study: editor@jpands.org (email address of the

editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons). In

over 120 months (10 years) no such citation has been provided

to the editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

 

Elective Medical Treatments

    An elective medical treatment is one that is NOT necessary

to cure a serious medical condition or reduce future risk of one.

Although elective status may have no bearing on the burden

of proof in a medical negligence law suit, elective status

(in advanced countries) requires full disclosure of adverse

risks, including very remote risks. So, a plaintiff in an

abortion medical negligence should have a copy of the

consent form she signed and examine it to see if many

adverse risks of abortion are listed on the form. Consider

adding a legal claim for each omitted risk missing from

your consent form.

…..__________________________________________.....

Chapter 4 address: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-4

References

1 Picard EI, Robertson GB, Legal Liability Of Doctors And

 

Hospitals In Canada, Carswell, Toronto, Canada, 2007, pp. 345-346

 

2 Trichopoulos D, Hsien D-C, MacMahon B, Lin T-M, Lowe RC,

et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer

1983;31:701-704 [ Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910310604/abstract ]

 

3 Kindley J. The Fit Between The Elements For An Informed

Consent Cause Of Action And The Scientific Evidence Linking

Induced Abortion With Breast Cancer Risk. Wisconsin Law Rev 1998;1998:1595-1644 [ URL:

http://www.kindleylaw.com/?page_id=10 ]

 

4 Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L. Does induced abortion account

for racial disparity in preterm births, and violate the Nuremberg

Code? J Am Phys Surg 2008;13:102-104.

[ URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf ]