Amlagam Controversy (they are wondering about amalgam too)

Discussion in 'Dental Archive' started by Joel344, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. Joel344

    Joel344 Guest

    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,



    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.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.



    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,




    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.



    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.



    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.





    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.



    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.



    barry1818
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to barry1818
    Find all posts by barry1818
    Add barry1818 to Your Buddy List
     
    Joel344, Apr 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joel344

    Clinton Guest

    Joel344 wrote:
    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.
    (loud coughing noise..) (100 plus years research?). you mean all the
    unpublished studies by the NIDCR and the puny "nun's study>"
    I
    Perhaps a better avenue would be suing on the basis of informed
    consent,
    but capsules have had warnings for years.
    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

    ..
    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

    I would say the two are comparable. Amalgam smokes off huge amounts
    of Hg like a cigarrette. It's really an amalgarrette
    The ADA only gives opinions and has no legal responsability to tell
    the truth
    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
    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?
    The ADA has already removed itself from the legal areana. The FDA,
    dental boards and individual dentists are the legal pressure points.
     
    Clinton, Apr 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Joel344

    letsconnect Guest

    Clinton wrote:
    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?
     
    letsconnect, Apr 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Joel344

    Clinton Guest

    letsconnect wrote:
    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.
     
    Clinton, Apr 17, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.