FlowVoid

Your link literally explains how to sue a doctor for malpractice after signing a liability waiver.

No waiver can claim that patients cannot sue their doctors for gross incompetence.

In most cases, this will involve collecting medical files, seeing copies of the waiver(s) signed by the patient, and proving medical malpractice or negligence by showing that:

The doctor in question deviated from an acceptable standard of care

The injuries came from that deviation

The damages came from those injuries

Which is straightforward in this case. The standard of care is not to give valproate to women of childbearing age except as a last resort, and valproate is known to have a very high risk of birth defects.

No, I don't get that. If a drug might result in birth defects, it should only be used as a last resort. And that's not just me or some random NY docs saying it, it's the WHO and European Medicines Agency

Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.

She's not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.

Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:

valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity

See also:

In 2018, the European Medicines Agency introduced new restrictions on the use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential to avoid exposure during pregnancy

And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can't obtain.

I can't believe it's not battery!

Liability waivers don't protect doctors against malpractice claims.

I don't think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it's only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.

Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it's standard CYA for health care providers.

In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.

I don't know, because the medication in question hasn't been identified.

But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won't be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.

I just noticed this in the article:

Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test

Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.

That's not how it would play out in a malpractice case.

Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn't cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.

Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn't want children.

Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn't want children, who later went on to have a child?

Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.

Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don't want children?

Doctor: ...

That's unlikely to make a difference in court. Doctors are responsible for recommending the least risky treatment options. They aren't supposed to leave everything up to the patient.