My feeling is that we should be allowed to sue on that ground. My parents would not have consented to amalgam if they knew it

1. Contained toxic mercury

2. Leaked toxic mercury into our body

I do believe it is uninformed consent. Also I believe it is medical neglect to place a material and not check biocompatibility.

However, I think in law we need to prove 1. Cause. 2. Breach 3. Injury at least for personal injury claims.

But, I think people should be allowed to sue if they are given something and not told it contains toxins. This is definitely uninformed consent. I don't think the argument about hairsprays etc negates that because on the same principle we should be able to sue the manufacturers of those products for not telling us they contain toxins.

Quote
I though of something else. Putting aside the "mercury poisoning from amalgams and diseases and conditions that result, given that it would be hard to prove that the mercury came from people's fillings which caused their maladies, what about just the issue of uninformed consent. For example, I go to the dentist tomorrow with a cavity and he gives me a "silver" filling and doesn't tell me he's putting mercury in my mouth. Can't I then turn around and sue him because he put a toxic heavy metal in my mouth without telling me and without me consenting or signing for him to do so? I thought this might be a way for people to sue. Those of us who haven't gotten any amalgams placed in the last five years, such as myself, would be exempt because the statute of limitations on medical malpractice is 5 years.

Sandra