This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Laurence Manber, PhD
Bronx, NY

Helen G. Muhlbauer, MD
Altro Health and Rehabilitation Services New York, NY

JAMA. 1989;261(10):1441.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor. —

We are writing to take issue with Mr Jacobson and Dr Rosenquist's¹ SPECIAL COMMUNICATION in the September 16 issue of JAMA entitled "The Introduction of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents in Radiology."

The authors proposed restricting low-osmolar contrast agents to high-risk patients to contain medical costs. They made three key assertions: (1) that a physician's failure to use the newest technology is not malpractice; (2) that the failure to inform the patient of this new technology is not a breach of the duty to inform; (3) that even if liability is found, the projected tort damages are still lower than the avoided cost.

This reasoning is flawed. It is not always possible to identify the high-risk patient. In addition, as conceded by the authors, Judge Hand's formula² balancing risk vs benefit for tort liability is a general guide, not a basis for precise calculation.

The plaintiff's bar . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?