The doctor prescribed a different medication for her. And doctors, not patients, ultimately get to decide which drug they prescribe.
I don’t think her case is going anywhere. She is suing pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case.
Because the doctor prescribed a different drug.
Don’t get your hopes up. She sued pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case. Either way, it is very unlikely she will win.
Well, if the second photon is in a new, weird superposition then the first photon must also be in the same new, weird superposition. Again, I don’t that’s compatible with Copenhagen given that the first photon no longer exists.
Note by the way that 50% y+ and 50% y- is how all photons start. So if that’s also the final state then there is no reason for it to prefer any detector over the others.
Entangled electrons are entangled in all directions. If you measure one along any direction, you can completely predict the measurement of its pair in the same direction.
In other words, measuring one along X and its pair at Y is equivalent to measuring one along X and then measuring the same one again at Y (accounting for the sign shift in the pair, of course).
In the electron example, if the two electrons are entangled then the wave functions must be the shared. The new superposition for the second electron would therefore be shared with the first electron. So if you measured the second electron along z+ and got up, then if you measured the first electron again, this time along z+, it would give down.
Likewise if the twin photon is still in superposition, then the first photon is also in superposition. Which is hard to accept in the Copenhagen interpretation, given that the first photon has been absorbed. If absorption doesn’t completely collapse a wave function, then what does?
My guess is that the drug is valproate. It’s used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.
The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.
The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.
If you go to a doctor and demand a course of antibiotics for a viral infection, they have been trained to refuse. Because antibiotics do not treat viruses.
For that matter, if you actually do have a simple bacterial infection and immediately demand a last-resort antibiotic like vancomycin, doctors have been trained to refuse. Vancomycin may work on you, but using it may create bacterial resistant strains that will put others at risk. Resistance is especially a threat if you don’t complete your course of antibiotics.
So doctors will offer you a different antibiotic instead, with less risk of creating a resistant strain. Even if you promise to complete your antibiotics, “you get what you get so don’t get upset”.
People have agency, but so do doctors. Doctors are not supposed to be dispensaries who simply give patients whatever they ask for. Doctors have the right to refuse to provide a prescription that is not in keeping with the standard of care, and offer a different prescription instead. You have the right to find a different doctor, or not see a doctor at all.
Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.
There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.
Your link literally explains how to sue a doctor for malpractice after signing a liability waiver.
No waiver can claim that patients cannot sue their doctors for gross incompetence.
In most cases, this will involve collecting medical files, seeing copies of the waiver(s) signed by the patient, and proving medical malpractice or negligence by showing that:
The doctor in question deviated from an acceptable standard of care
The injuries came from that deviation
The damages came from those injuries
Which is straightforward in this case. The standard of care is not to give valproate to women of childbearing age except as a last resort, and valproate is known to have a very high risk of birth defects.
Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.
She’s not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.
Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
See also:
And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can’t obtain.
I can’t believe it’s not battery!
Liability waivers don’t protect doctors against malpractice claims.
I don’t think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it’s only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it’s standard CYA for health care providers.
In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.
I don’t know, because the medication in question hasn’t been identified.
But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won’t be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.
I just noticed this in the article:
Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test
Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.
That’s not how it would play out in a malpractice case.
Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn’t cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.
Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn’t want children.
Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn’t want children, who later went on to have a child?
Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.
Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don’t want children?
Doctor: …
Energy use increases with bpm, change in pressure (systolic - diastolic) and the stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per beat).
Note that there is also an inverse relationship between stroke volume and bpm because the faster the heart beats, the less time for blood to return to the heart for the next beat.
That said, heart “strength” is more about reserve capacity (ie ability to ramp up when necessary) than energy efficiency. It’s like comparing a Ferrari to a Corolla: at 100 mph the former can still increase its power whereas the latter is getting near its limit.
So if the Ferrari has a “car attack” and suddenly loses 50% of its max speed then it can still keep up on the highway, the Corolla maybe not. That’s more important than which one is more energy efficient.