patient and that “the facts of a given case will play a large part in determining the reasonableness of the physician’s response”). The “prudent-patient” standard applicable to a claim for negligent interference with procreative autonomy contemplates a fully informed patient: A physician or counselor could reasonably be expected to ascertain enough of a patient’s background, [and] her reasons for seeking pregnancy [ ] counseling ... to assess what information might be useful to the p ed, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2359, 141 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998); Munro v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal, 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 263 Cal.Rptr. 878, 882 (1990) (noting that “it is medically impossible to screen all patients for all known genetic abnormalities”); Smith v. Cote, 128 N.H. 231, 513 A.2d 341, 347 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Although the duty of disclosure in wrongful
holding how long and upon what terms a statecreated corporation may continue to exist is a matter exclusively of state power holding that first amendment provides no protection against private actions no matter how egregious holding that physician is not required to identify and disclose every chance no matter how remote of the occurrence of every possible birth defect no matter how insignificant holding that a court must take the complaints allegations as true no matter how incredulous the court may be holding that to require proof of prosecutorial bad faith would mean that no matter how egregious the prejudice to a defendant and no matter how long the preindictment delay if a defendant cannot prove improper prosecutorial motive then no due process violation has occurred and that this conclusion on its face would violate fundamental conceptions of justice as well as the communitys sense of fair play