On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:55:25 -0400, "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Right. Leave us alone. Go sue the dead dentists, live dentists and manufacturers.
....ADA does not control the installers? uh... hmmm. oh yeah..."all we did was provide information/promote use of the allegedly harmful material to the installers who paid us." heh.
Quoted message said:
"The American Dental Association, which for so long has promoted the use of mercury amalgams, has recently divested itself of any culpability with regard to mercury. In a case before the Superior Court of the State of California, lawyers for The ADA and others stated: 'The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA' s only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.' "
Dr. Williamson goes on to make an observation: "Now, an obvious question arises: if mercury were safe, as the dental profession has insisted for years, why would the American Dental Association feel obligated to claim nobody can hold it responsible for the harm it has caused? Their statement is just a way of saying, 'the stuff's dangerous, but don't blame us if it hurts you.'"
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:55:25 -0400, "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Right. Leave us alone. Go sue the dead dentists, live dentists and manufacturers.
...ADA does not control the installers? uh... hmmm. oh yeah..."all we did was provide information/promote use of the allegedly harmful material to the installers who paid us." heh.
Now ya tell me ... .i thought we had to follow orders .......
JOEL
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"The American Dental Association, which for so long has promoted the use of mercury amalgams, has recently divested itself of any culpability with regard to mercury. In a case before the Superior Court of the State of California, lawyers for The ADA and others stated: 'The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA' s only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.' "
Dr. Williamson goes on to make an observation: "Now, an obvious question arises: if mercury were safe, as the dental profession has insisted for years, why would the American Dental Association feel obligated to claim nobody can hold it responsible for the harm it has caused? Their statement is just a way of saying, 'the stuff's dangerous, but don't blame us if it hurts you.'"
