{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01761252446183953, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.089285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[ Legal aspects of advice provided by an institutional pharmacovigilance specialist to health-care professionals. Consequences in the field of teratology ].

An institutional pharmacovigilance specialist gives advice only when consulted by a prescribing physician about a pregnant woman. The situation may involve a pregnant woman for whom a prescription may be considered or a pregnant woman for whom a prescription has been given. The aim is to evaluate the risk for the fetus, both before and after the fact. In view of recent decisions by the Cour de Cassation (*) which imposed penalties for preventing a woman exposed to a teratogenic risk from resorting to an abortion by providing her with inapropriate information, we are suggesting here the hypothesis that an institutional pharmacovigilance specialist acting as a consultant could be implicated. However, this hypothesis is purely academic. If action were taken to render a pharmacovigilance specialist liable, it is in fact the State that would have to answer.