The PDR is a reliable source. If we are relying on the PDR for dosage information, then we have no liability for re-reporting what they say.
If a person self-medicates, then they are already taking on the liability for what they are doing. Any case-law for a person suing the PDR over incorrect information?
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project, and the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
The PDR is an encyclopedia of drugs and our project as an "teritary source" if you will (although I hate that term teritiary), should report everything that any other reliable encyclopedia has to say about whatever topic. It seems encyclopedia to me, to report what another encyclopedia states.
Will Johnson
************** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http...; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
2009/5/24 WJhonson@aol.com:
The PDR is a reliable source. If we are relying on the PDR for dosage information, then we have no liability for re-reporting what they say.
What if we mis-report it? Errors could be due to misinterpreting the source, typos, vandalism, etc.
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project, and the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
Could they sue other people that have edited the article without fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable.
The PDR is an encyclopedia of drugs and our project as an "teritary source" if you will (although I hate that term teritiary), should report everything that any other reliable encyclopedia has to say about whatever topic. It seems encyclopedia to me, to report what another encyclopedia states.
There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR and a general one like Wikipedia.