What is the difference between &quot;controlled substance&quot; and &quot;needing a prescription&quot;? I was prescribed a medication. The doctor said it was not a controlled substance. Why did he write a prescription? If it's not controlled couldn't I just go to the pharmacist and ask for the medication? It is not a common medication and obviously something you would only get from a pharmacist. I practically don't see getting the medication without going through a doctor. The only thing I could see is health insurance only covering it if it's prescribed. In that case, could I ask him to prescribe me Tylenol to have my insurance pay for it? Or is controlled just an extra layer of prescription?
The concept of "controlled substances" has a special meaning, and stems from the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, resulting in Chapter 13 of Title 21. Ordinary presecription drugs are the result of an older act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which is also implemented in Title 21. The basic distinction is the difference between "potential for abuse" vs other stuff, and potential for abuse was the historically first desideratum in restricting pharmaceuticals in the old days. There are 5 "schedules" (lists) regarding controlled substances, ranging from the absolutely forbidden Schedule 1 (weed, 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole which probably has a shorter street name) down to Schedule V small doses of opium. Pharmaceuticals fall into three categories: over-the-counter, prescription, and controlled. Things like ibuprofen over 200 mg is not a "controlled substance" though does require a prescription, as do anti-cholesterol drugs (since they are thought to pose "some risk"). There are also completely unregulated substances, such as green tea, olive oil, vitamin c, which so far are not subject to federal regulation (since they have not been deemed to pose a risk). OTC substances can be bought without special hoops, though they cannot be marketed without passing through hoops. Prescription and controlled require a prescription from a DEA-authorized physician. Ephedrine and pseudephedrine are a recent zombie class of pharmaceutical which do not require prescription, but are subject to purchase quotas. Controlled substances are subject to much higher levels of scrutiny, to ascertain that the prescription is legitimate and the recipient is the intended recipient; there are also stricter laws about possible justifications for prescribing regular prescription drugs vs. those on one of the 5 schedules. (And the rules are different for the 5 schedules). It is generally unknown whether doctors can prescribe non-prescription pharmaceuticals, in order to shift the cost to insurance. There is no specific statute prohibiting that, but doctors are also subject to contractual restrictions between themselves and the insurance networks they deal with, so they may have agreed to not engage in such conduct. As far as I can tell, it is not actually illegal for a doctor to write a prescription for OTC Tylenol.
Presumably you consented to have an x-ray. It is a reasonable assumption that it was not your intention to simply be given the films without interpretation by a radiologist. If that was your intention then the obligation would be on you to make that clear since it is so far from ordinary practice that no reasonable person could know that. To use your analogy it would be like you asking to have your window washed but not wanting to have the soapy water rinsed off afterwards (assuming these were separately billable services). Further, rights and obligations under contracts are transferable by default. So it is perfectly legitimate for the lab to outsource the radiography without having to ask you.
The CDC does not authorize shots or vaccine distribution. The FDA authorizes vaccine distribution, or distribution of medicines in general. A medicine is authorized for use in a certain way, which is an &quot;instruction&quot; directed at the medical professional. So-called &quot;off-label&quot; use is discussed by the FDA here. Such use if legal, it simply stretches the limits of what the FDA was allowed to approve (e.g. was found to be safe and effective for X, was not similarly tested for Y). Patients are free to take whatever medicines they want if they can find them, and if they are not on the Controlled Substances list. Hence it's legal to take DMSO, but it's not legal to peddle it as a cancer cure. The prescription regime for covid vaccinations seems to be somewhat relaxed, in that it is likely that many people get a vaccine without a (meaningful) doctor's exam, instead, you show up and get the shot. This is normal with flu shots. The upcoming 3rd shot approval is addressed to doctors, so they can then recommend third shots.
Merely encouraging people not to vaccinate via educational and political communication without purporting to provide individualized medical advice is probably not the practice of medicine and protected by the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech, rather than constituting medical malpractice. Also, many anti-vax individuals (I couldn't quote a percentage) do so out of religious conviction and are protected not just by the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, but also by the free exercise component of the freedom of religion under the First Amendment. Generally speaking, it is harder to find a legal grounds for disregarding the free exercise of religion than it is to find a legal basis to regulate otherwise free speech. For example, commercial speech is subject to more rigorous regulation than private political and educational speech, which is why there are no private businesses taking anti-vax positions in their advertising. The theory is that courts are not in a good position to make general determinations of the truth of policy positions or statements about general truths as opposed to what happened in a particular transaction or occurrence. This is in part because a ruling by the right court at the right time can preclude the correctness of its determination from being revisited indefinitely and from time to time, accepted conventional wisdom and scientific consensus at one time are revealed later on to have been wrong with more discussion and investigation. I think that this is unlikely to be the case in the vaccination area, but the whole point of the First Amendment's protection of these kinds of issues is that we can't know in advance what will continue to be widely accepted and what will turn out to be mistaken. But, if someone in a medical diagnosis and treatment profession (e.g. M.D., D.O., physician's assistant, or nurse), were to advise a patient in a capacity as a medical care provider not to vaccinate, and as a result that person's child got sick from a disease that vaccination could have prevented, there probably would be medical malpractice liability. A somewhat similar issue arises when health insurance companies or government agencies set rules on providing care. In those cases, it isn't uncommon to have a physician or other medical professional placed on a committee or in an office such as medical director, with that person making the call and exposed to liability although not in the same way as a treating medical professional. A case about a month ago found malpractice by an insurance company's medical director (the company was United Health) to be a huge liability for both the medical director and the insurance company.
What’s the problem? Most likely the situation is 100% sure that he or she wouldn’t have performed the operation without anaesthesia. Therefore anaesthesia was not something his brain needed to remember, therefore it didn’t. He gave a truthful answer. He has no memory of it. He doesn’t need a memory of it, he just needed to make sure it’s done. Do you have any reason to believe it was not done? Operating without anaesthesia would be negligent. Not remembering it is done is not. On the other hand, he would have remembered the patient screaming if he started cutting without anaesthesia.
In German Law you need to give your agreement ("Willenserklärung") to a contract or in this case terms of service. This is done by telling the other part. In some cases this can also be implied by an action (example: putting your bottle of beer onto the cashiers table is an offer to buy this bottle). As a second criteria a "Willenserklärung" needs to be the exact will of the part that declares its will (the website user in this case) §§ 133, 157 BGB or that the other side (you) could only see so (not the case here as this mainly speaks of content). If you visit a website and there are terms of services, the "Willenserklärung" is only given when the user read and agreed to the terms. If he did not, the terms of service are not applied until the user agrees to them. So I would recommend to block the website until the user agreed (overlay) as you need to proof he did when in court. Additionally there are so called AGB's in Germany. Those are contracts that are used or planed for many (more than 3) uses and set by one side (you). This may apply here, so you need to follow a lot of other rules like making sure the user had access and agreed, then there are many content restrictions and so on... I recommend consulting a German Lawyer specialized on this topic as this is very complex and includes other German laws for Media too, depending on the content of your site and terms. Also note that everything said is only based on my own knowledge and can not be used as safe legal source.
Could the new mRNA vaccines have come to market without any testing? No. The FDA still has to approve emergency limited approvals of new vaccines. At least as a practical matter, the FDA requires some testing to grant this approval, although not the full testing regime of a non-emergency application for a new vaccine or drug approval. FDA approval is the limiting principle that prevents emergency drug approval from being used recklessly despite a lack of civil liability. I know this from news reports about the COVID vaccine approval process and can't cite chapter and verse of the relevant statutes. If there are no legal consequences, what reason would pharmaceutical companies have to conduct clinical trials before going to market? Drug companies have to get FDA approval for every single product they make. If they act in bad faith to get emergency approval, the FDA will not treat them well in the future and could even revoke their authority to manufacture any drugs going forward. Also, keep in mind that vaccines are not particularly high profit margin products for drug companies.
In principle, a verbal contract is just as binding as a written contract. The catch is that it can be difficult to prove what was said. Unless you have witnesses, it would just be your word against his. As DStanley says in the comments, if you have proof that you paid half -- canceled checks or receipts or whatever -- that would be evidence that there was some sort of agreement. Whether your daughter is allowed to drive the car on a specific day depends not just on who owns the car but who has legal custody of your daughter. If a friend of hers said that it is okay with him for her to drive his car to a wild party where there will be drugs and an orgy, the fact that he has full title to the car does not mean that her parents have no right to tell her she can't go! You didn't say what the custody arrangements are, but if you have full custody or shared custody, this would give you certain rights to tell her what she is and is not allowed to do.