You've already said to the patient 60-40, and now they're seeing 30-70. because of the um the fact that it's no longer looking at something that you can judge but now you're looking at somebody's interpretation of what you've done and i do know that going from looking at what the patient wants to even putting them in long-term temporaries to see if it feels and works well before you go to the final steps are all things that are good to have in place but there's just this one set of folks that you and them looking at the same thing and you would not believe it based on the discussion that they're having with you so I guess nothing is a hundred percent proof and I guess what I hear you saying is that do your due diligence put everything in writing make sure that the informed consent covers as much as it can and I guess what we are really saying is when it comes back, if it should come back to splitting hairs, your informed consent and your notes, copious notes, should be able to back you up.

That's right.

So, yeah, you're completely correct on how the law is likely to work in that respect.

taking those contemporaneous notes, noting what was told to the patient and the detail and extent that it was discussed so that the patient is able to appreciate the risks.

And that's what it all really comes down to in relation to this concept thing.

What's the risk that the thing won't look the way I expect? Or what's the risk of a negative consequence? Because even with the best of technique, sometimes things go wrong.

And what I want you to think about though, just to give you a little bit of comfort, is that if these matters were ever litigated before a court, the court will itself try to apply as objective a standard as possible.

But I yield to your expertise.