Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITALINMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

["Vincent King" <slavak@attbi.com>]

I don't disagree with this and other similar sentiments.



Let me ask a devil's advocate question:  what happens when ten or fifteen

years down the road, one out of every dozen of the  family members comes

back with a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the hospital for causing

the cancer THEY have now developed.  Naturally, the hospital will say "We

informed you of the risks" and the family member will say "You didn't tell

me EVERYTHING!" and "You violated rules that were supposed to protect me"

(of course, by then, their own insistance that they be allowed to stay near

their loved one will be long forgotten) and they will most likely will win

the lawsuit or settlement.



How is this addressed?



Vincent King

Grand Junction, CO





----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>

To: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>; "Peter Sandgren"

<peter.sandgren@PO.STATE.CT.US>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:26 PM

Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY

HOSPITALINMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC





> It seems to me that the comfort, warmth, and satisfaction of being near a

> dying loved one without the encumbrance of  shielding   might be well

worth

> an added 3-15 rem. In any case, why shouldn't  the dose recipient be

allowed

> to make an informed choice in the matter without NRC interference?

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/