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 ]