 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / April 2006Amlagam Controversy (they are wondering about amalgam too)
Amalgam controversy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is amalgam safe or not, is a question that is in the public's eye. With that in mind, I hope that all that read this can post a response. Please pretend that you are on a jury, and the trial is about th safety when a dentist uses amalgam. The only scenario that you can use will be the following arguments. a. The dentist argues that amalgam is safe and the ADA backs thi position with the literature. b. The plaintiff argues that amalgam is not safe, and cites a lawsui against dentists for using amalgam that the dentists settled. They pai money to the plaintiff in this suit, they acknowledged that amalgam ca pose risks, they were required to post signs in the office stating th potential for risks, they acknowledged that amalgam should not be use for patients younger than 6, and this settlement was cited in federa legislation to limit amalgam. Do you vote for: a. dentist, and acquit b. plaintiff and award damages. How much did each argument sway you as to your decision. Thanks, Barry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #2 02-03-2006, 02:58 PM billkatz Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 591 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burden of proof comes to mind, over and over. The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. billkatz View Public Profile Send a private message to billkatz Find all posts by billkatz Add billkatz to Your Buddy List #3 02-03-2006, 06:55 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 amalgam issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by billkatz Burden of proof comes to mind, over and over. The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. Of course the burden of proof is on the defendent. But that gets bac to the questions which I didn't seem to get an answer. How would you decide given the parameters explained. Thanks, barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #4 02-03-2006, 07:29 PM billkatz Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 591 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No doubt, the plaintiff's attorney will argue that the "defendant knew that amalgam was dangerous because of the signs posted and th "admissions" made in the original plea agreement. Is there a civi action there because of this? Well... the poor guy left his pants dow when he put up those signs and made those admissions. We live i litigious times and some mouthpiece will surely sue a dentist fo sneezing in the operatory, if given the chance. Who knows what he ha to do to get that old lawsuit off his back? Sometimes people (an corporations) get desperate and make decisions they'll later regret From your description, it sounds like the defendant didn't take thos actions of his or her free will. It sounds like this person was force to take these actions in order to settle a nightmare. Is there a criminal action because of this? I doubt it. To m knowledge, there is no law or statute anywhere in the US that say amalgam is harmful. Is the fact that he was forced to put up thos signs because of a settlement an ambiguous one? I believe so because as the facts are presented, I believe the dentist was forced o coerced. Does this one dentist's posting of the signs and some ple agreements supersede the 100 plus years of research on this subject? don't think so... Questions still linger. Is there a Federal Law that stipulates that yo cannot use amalgam on a child of six years or less and did the dentis use amalgam on a child of six years or less? No matter the age; did th dentist place the amalgam *after* the signs were put up? If so, there may be a problem. This is a complex question and not knowing all the facts, pleadings, etc, I'd side with the dentist. Quote: Originally Posted by barry1818 Is amalgam safe or not, is a question that is in the public's eye. b. The plaintiff argues that amalgam is not safe, and cites a lawsuit against dentists for using amalgam that the dentists settled. They paid money to the plaintiff in this suit, they acknowledged that amalgam can pose risks, they were required to post signs in the office stating the potential for risks, they acknowledged that amalgam should not be used for patients younger than 6, and this settlement was cited in federal legislation to limit amalgam. Barry1817@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by billkatz : 02-03-2006 at 07:55 PM. billkatz View Public Profile Send a private message to billkatz Find all posts by billkatz Add billkatz to Your Buddy List #5 02-03-2006, 07:56 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by billkatz No doubt, the plaintiff's attorney will argue that the "defendant knew" that amalgam was dangerous because of the signs posted and the "admissions" made in the original plea agreement. Is there a civil action there because of this? Well... the poor guy left his pants down when he put up those signs and made those admissions. We live in litigious times and some mouthpiece will surely sue a dentist for sneezing in the operatory, if given the chance. Who knows what he had to do to get that old lawsuit off his back? Sometimes people (and corporations) get desperate and make decisions they'll later regret. From your description, it sounds like the defendant didn't take those actions of his or her free will. It sounds like this person was forced to take these actions in order to settle a nightmare. Is there a criminal action because of this? I doubt it. To my knowledge, there is no law or statute anywhere in the US that says amalgam is harmful. Is the fact that he was forced to put up those signs because of a settlement an ambiguous one? I believe so because, as the facts are presented, I believe the dentist was forced or coerced. Does this one dentist's posting of the signs and some plea agreements supersede the 100 plus years of research on this subject? I don't think so... A question still lingers. Is there a Federal Law that stipulates that you cannot use amalgam on a child of six years or less and did the dentist use amalgam on a child of six years or less? This is a complex question and not knowing all the facts, pleadings, etc, I'd side with the dentist. There is no suit current with this. But there was a class action suit, and in the settlement of the suit, it was acknowledged that the amalgam has a potential for harm, that the signage had to be posted, and in the settlement was the specific statement that the use of amalgam is contrdicted in all patients under the age of six. You are right on with the concept that people sue, but this question is being asked and might be likened to tobacco. there is evidence of harm, but the government won't remove it. In this case there are attempts to link mercury with harm, and settlements have been made. And again you are right, because when somebody settles a suit it can have repercussions that are far reaching. Barry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #6 02-03-2006, 08:08 PM billkatz Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 591 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sad but true. The possibility that dentists may have to consider an informed consent prior to placing a filling in the future isn't beyond absurdity. Albeit, I wouldn't consider a parallel between the tobacco industry and the dental industry by any stretch of the imagination. billkatz View Public Profile Send a private message to billkatz Find all posts by billkatz Add billkatz to Your Buddy List #7 02-03-2006, 08:11 PM Joel344 Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,218 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPLY There ya go ..... a lawsuit much less a decision may be "non-binding." This means it is not precedential. NO VERDICT for the plaintiff. Joel Quote: Originally Posted by barry1818 Is amalgam safe or not, is a question that is in the public's eye. With that in mind, I hope that all that read this can post a response. Please pretend that you are on a jury, and the trial is about the safety when a dentist uses amalgam. The only scenario that you can use will be the following arguments. a. The dentist argues that amalgam is safe and the ADA backs this position with the literature. b. The plaintiff argues that amalgam is not safe, and cites a lawsuit against dentists for using amalgam that the dentists settled. They paid money to the plaintiff in this suit, they acknowledged that amalgam can pose risks, they were required to post signs in the office stating the potential for risks, they acknowledged that amalgam should not be used for patients younger than 6, and this settlement was cited in federal legislation to limit amalgam. Do you vote for: a. dentist, and acquit b. plaintiff and award damages. How much did each argument sway you as to your decision. Thanks, Barry1817@aol.com Joel344 View Public Profile Send a private message to Joel344 Send email to Joel344 Find all posts by Joel344 Add Joel344 to Your Buddy List #8 03-01-2006, 05:05 PM DarthPollo Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Monterrey, Mexico Posts: 33 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i think is safe.... it has proove all over the years it last longer and seals better than composite, i think the big companies in order to sale more esthetic's and the demmand of patients put a lot of effort in put a bad name in amalgam DarthPollo View Public Profile Send a private message to DarthPollo Find all posts by DarthPollo Add DarthPollo to Your Buddy List #9 03-10-2006, 01:46 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 amalgam controversy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is interesting that an two different organizations have two polar opposites on factual issues. The ADA states one side in the amlagam issue and toxicteeth.com states something completely contradicting the ADA. Somehow one would think that there must be a truth out there that is not dependent on which side speaks louder, or which side has the better lawyer. Makes for interesting discussions that include topics other than just dentistry but ethics, morals, and is truth relative or fixed. BArry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #10 03-13-2006, 01:31 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 amalgam--controversy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maine is currently with a bill in their legislature that would ban amalgam, effective in 2008, if the bill passes. This goes to the problem that I have been mentioned. ADA states that amalgam is safe, toxicteeth.org states the opposite. Both can't be correct, but when the ADA becomes reactive, rather than proactive, the battle is being fought and lost in the law, as states, and countries start to ban a material, that the ADA states is 100% safe. At some point the momentum will take this matter out of the hands of the ADA and into the legal arena, and with that there will be the law of unintended consequences that will occur. Barry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #11 03-13-2006, 06:13 PM kvteeth Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by barry1818 Maine is currently with a bill in their legislature that would ban amalgam, effective in 2008, if the bill passes. This goes to the problem that I have been mentioned. ADA states that amalgam is safe, toxicteeth.org states the opposite. Both can't be correct, but when the ADA becomes reactive, rather than proactive, the battle is being fought and lost in the law, as states, and countries start to ban a material, that the ADA states is 100% safe. At some point the momentum will take this matter out of the hands of the ADA and into the legal arena, and with that there will be the law of unintended consequences that will occur. Barry1817@aol.com Yes. So it goes. Apathy knows no influence. kvteeth View Public Profile Send a private message to kvteeth Find all posts by kvteeth Add kvteeth to Your Buddy List #12 04-05-2006, 01:39 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 amalgam safety -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is being reported that the FDA will hold two days of hearings on the issue of the safety of amalgam restorations. Scheduled dates for the hearing are September 6 and 7. Barry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List #13 04-12-2006, 01:00 PM barry1818 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Redondo Beach, its south of LAX Posts: 148 Amalgam safety -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FDA is planning open hearings on the issue of amalgam safety in September. Should be most interesting. I did get an invite to speak and not know if I can make it to do so, but who knows. Barry1817@aol.com barry1818 View Public Profile Send a private message to barry1818 Find all posts by barry1818 Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List  SignatureJoel344 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12 > How would you decide given the parameters explained. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > actions of his or her free will. It sounds like this person was forced > to take these actions in order to settle a nightmare. Even so I think the "standard of care" is an important legal concept. The real question is, if a prudent dentist would do in CA what this dentist did, even giving the warnings. It appears to be true that a profession can both simultaneously agree that a product or procedure is harmful, but still use that as the standard of care. > Is there a criminal action because of this? I doubt it. To my > knowledge, there is no law or statute anywhere in the US that says [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coerced. Does this one dentist's posting of the signs and some plea > agreements supersede the 100 plus years of research on this subject? (loud coughing noise..) (100 plus years research?). you mean all the unpublished studies by the NIDCR and the puny "nun's study>" I > don't think so... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dentist place the amalgam *after* the signs were put up? If so, there > may be a problem. Perhaps a better avenue would be suing on the basis of informed consent, but capsules have had warnings for years. > This is a complex question and not knowing all the facts, pleadings, > etc, I'd side with the dentist. Probably (guessing) the judge would instruct the Jury what elements would be needed to show the dentist violated the standard of care so you as a juror would have little control of this. Then you as a juror would have to decide that the amalgam caused harm. Neither a nor b would have a strong influence on me as a juror, since I would have to look at the specific case and all the current research . > There is no suit current with this. But there was a class action suit, > and in the settlement of the suit, it was acknowledged that the amalgam [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > being asked and might be likened to tobacco. there is evidence of harm, > but the government won't remove it. Remember that a tobacco company is a corporation, so they are not protected (as I understand it) by standard of care. Medical professionals and Dentists have that extra legal shield which really is only determined by what other dentists and doctors do, regardless of what warning signs say or what manufacturers warnings come with amalgam > Sad but true. The possibility that dentists may have to consider an > informed consent prior to placing a filling in the future isn't beyond > absurdity. > > Albeit, I wouldn't consider a parallel between the tobacco industry and > the dental industry by any stretch of the imagination. I would say the two are comparable. Amalgam smokes off huge amounts of Hg like a cigarrette. It's really an amalgarrette > It is interesting that an two different organizations have two polar > opposites on factual issues. > > The ADA states one side in the amlagam issue and toxicteeth.com states > something completely contradicting the ADA. The ADA only gives opinions and has no legal responsability to tell the truth > Somehow one would think that there must be a truth out there that is > not dependent on which side speaks louder, or which side has the better > lawyer. Another fact is that there is a wide variation in Hg release. So in fact amalgam is "safe" or a low dose toxicity for most, while unsafe for a few. Doing epidemology for low dose toxicity is of course very challenging > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and countries start to ban a material, that the ADA states is 100% > safe. If you look closely you'll probably see that the ADA is saying there is no "proof" of harm for most people. That's a lot different then saying that amalgam doesn't harm some people or that it is proved safe and its an opinion. Then they'll say "less than 50 cases of allergy" in the "scientific literatrue" that is because adverse reactions are reported to the FDA not scientifc journals and authors or science articles don't concern themselves with "proving" amalgam caused toxicity only reporting high levels of Hg in the blood of some people with amalgam...trickey Eh? > At some point the momentum will take this matter out of the hands of > the ADA and into the legal arena, and with that there will be the law > of unintended consequences that will occur. The ADA has already removed itself from the legal areana. The FDA, dental boards and individual dentists are the legal pressure points. > Even so I think the "standard of care" is an important legal concept. > The real question is, if a prudent dentist would do in CA what > this dentist did, even giving the warnings. It appears to be true that > a profession can both simultaneously agree that a product or procedure > is harmful, but still use that as the standard of care. Local anesthetics can potentially be harmful, but they're still used as the standard of care... and what about bad reactions to resin materials (which apparently can be as debilitating as bad reactions to amalgam?). So basically, you're suggesting having people sign even more consent forms? > > Even so I think the "standard of care" is an important legal concept. > > The real question is, if a prudent dentist would do in CA what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So basically, you're suggesting having people sign even more consent > forms? What I mean is that , as was initially asked, a juror would have to consider the standard of care. As you implied, the fact that the dentist was forced to post warning signs would not necessarily affect that legal concept, because many things which are used that can cause adverse reactions are considered standard of care. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't sign consent forms, but that this is how the legal systems works. I don't see anything wrong with consent forms however, which cost pennies. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.