:11:03
- and was in mortal danger.
The Medico-legal council -
:11:06
- has had two questions
put to it in this regard.
:11:10
Were there any warnings
in the 1930s and 1940s -
:11:14
- against the use of Thorotrast?
And at the time -
:11:19
- was there an alternative,
harmless chemical -
:11:24
- they could have used instead?
:11:26
The Medico-legal Council answers
both questions in the negative.
:11:29
There were no warnings
and no alternative.
:11:34
On this basis we urge the court
to dismiss these proceedings -
:11:37
- as the hospital staff did
nothing to incur any liability.
:11:43
Hi, Mum.
- lt's good you've come.
:11:46
He just won't
stop reproaching himself.
:11:48
He sits with all those old files
but he can't read them -
:11:51
- and l can't help him.
:11:53
What about his reading machine?
- lt's far too slow.
:11:57
20 ml ... right.
:12:01
So what does it say there?
:12:03
The patient received
28 ml of Thorotrast.
:12:07
28 ml ...
:12:11
Dad, why is this so important
to you? You were acquitted.
:12:15
Of course we were acquitted.
:12:18
But were there cases where
we could have acted differently?
:12:22
Every time we saved
a patient's life -
:12:25
- we sowed the seeds of a cancer.
:12:27
Since 1947 l've been waiting
for the tumours to emerge ...
:12:31
What happened in 1947?
- A new contrast medium appeared.
:12:35
Since then
nobody's been given Thorotrast.
:12:43
Aren't you the reporter
from the Ritzau news agency?
:12:47
Yes.
:12:49
Knoblau?
- Yes. Jon Knoblau.
:12:54
And you've reported
on medical issues before?
:12:57
Yes, l wrote about
the haemophilia scandal.