I respect your right to disagree, of course.

However, you guys are missing my point, and I think it is an important point.

I believe that the doctor should not be held accountable. I am willing to assume responsibility for all risks and consequences associated with what I eat. That means that I will relinquish my "right" to sue if the outcome is bad, because I don't believe that is what lawsuits are for.

If a doctor deliberately misleads me, or provides me with incorrect information through negligence, then I may have a case against him. That's not the situation here.

I would like to go ahead and do what I want, without anyone's "permission", and completely accept that this means that I have nobody to blame but myself if things go badly.

You see, I disagree with the entire system, including the part that makes the doctor liable. If I reject this idea as immoral (in this case, the public foisting responsibility for consequences on doctors), there isn't the issue you raise.

I am not saying that a doctor, or any professional, should not be held accountable for ineptitude, negligence, or abuse. Just like when a mechanic breaks something on my car, I expect him to fix it at no cost to me. He is liable. However, if I consult with a mechanic prior to buying a car and ask his professional advice as to whether its a good car, I don't believe I have the right to sue him for damages if the car turns out to be a lemon. Unless, of course, he was involved in fraud and an agent of a dishonest seller.

Does that clarify my point of view?

Jim