Medical Experiments Exposed omslagafbeelding

Medical Experiments Exposed

Medical Experiments Exposed

Van: Creator at Obomedia
Nu gratis luisteren, zonder abonnement

Seizoensaanbiedingen | € 0,99 per maand voor 3 maanden

Daarna € 6,99 per maand – voorwaarden zijn van toepassing. Maandelijks opzegbaar.
Ever wondered about the strange cures, bizarre medical practices, and shocking experiments from history? Bizarre Medical History uncovers the most unbelievable and often disturbing chapters in the annals of medicine.

Join us for a fascinating exploration into the forgotten corners of medical history, from ancient remedies to the origins of modern surgery, revealing the incredible journeys and sometimes misguided attempts to heal. We delve into the lives of pioneering doctors, the patients who endured their treatments, and the fascinating evolution of healthcare. Discover the surprising origins of common medical terms and the groundbreaking (and sometimes terrifying) discoveries that shaped our understanding of the human body.

New episodes arrive every single day, Monday through Sunday, bright and early at 4:00 AM, offering a daily dose of medical oddities and historical insights. Each episode provides a meticulously researched narrative, perfect for your morning commute or daily routine.

This podcast is for anyone curious about the human body, the history of science, or simply enjoys a well-told story about humanity's quest for health. If you're intrigued by historical medicine, medical curiosities, and the strange path to modern healthcare, this is your ultimate destination.

Subscribe now to Bizarre Medical History and unlock the secrets of the past.© 2026 OBOMEDIA Creators Waargebeurde misdaadverhalen
afleveringen
  • Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?

    Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?
    Oct 22 2026
    Does a doctor owe a patient truthful information about pregnancy risks?

    Fear that silence can steal a decision: a Texas ruling in 1975 made it possible to sue not for causing a child's disability but for depriving parents of information about maternal rubella-could withholding a diagnosis be a legal harm? What did courts mean when they recognized "wrongful birth," and how could a lost choice ever be proved?

    In this episode, we tell the story of Dortha Jean Jacobs, the Texas Supreme Court's February 19, 1975 decision, and the doctrine that followed; we trace how a physician’s failure to disclose a rubella infection led to a novel legal claim and the unresolved questions it raised about causation and the implications for children and parents.

    Person: Dortha Jean Jacobs
    Person: Lesli Jacobs
    Date: February 19, 1975
    Event: Texas Supreme Court ruling recognizing wrongful birth
    Topic: Failure to disclose maternal rubella diagnosis

    - Dortha Jean Jacobs became ill with rubella during pregnancy and received no diagnosis or warning from her doctor.
    - Lesli Jacobs was born severely disabled as a result of congenital rubella.
    - The Texas Supreme Court held there was a patient-doctor relationship and negligent failure to disclose risk, creating a new cause of action.
    - The ruling framed the harm as the foreclosure of the parents’ choice, not as the child’s existence being a harm.
    - Plaintiffs must prove what decision they would have made if given truthful information, requiring testimony about whether they would have terminated the pregnancy.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    Toon meer Minder weergeven
    27 min
  • - the unprecedented legal act

    - the unprecedented legal act
    Oct 21 2026
    - the unprecedented legal act

    A Texas court used a single sentence to create a new legal right: on February 19, 1975 the Texas Supreme Court held that a woman could sue her doctor for wrongful birth - the first ruling of its kind in the United States. How did an ordinary prenatal visit and an undiagnosed rubella infection become the hinge for a national debate about information, choice, and legal harm?

    In this episode, we follow the case Jacobs v. Theimer and the family at its center to explain what happened, what the court decided, and why courts across America are still wrestling with the consequences: what does a physician owe a patient at the moment information matters, and how should the law measure the loss when that moment is lost?

    Person: Dortha Jean Jacobs
    Person: Dr. Theimer
    Person: Lesli Jacobs
    Date: February 19, 1975
    Case: Jacobs v. Theimer

    - The Texas Supreme Court issued its ruling on February 19, 1975.
    - The court held that a woman could bring a cause of action for wrongful birth.
    - Dortha contracted rubella during pregnancy; the infection was not diagnosed by Dr. Theimer.
    - Lesli Jacobs was born severely disabled due to prenatal rubella exposure.
    - The ruling was the first of its kind in the United States and left open how to measure the legal harm.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    Toon meer Minder weergeven
    27 min
  • When a Doctor's Silence Steals Your Right to Choose

    When a Doctor's Silence Steals Your Right to Choose
    Oct 20 2026
    When a Doctor's Silence Steals Your Right to Choose

    The idea that a physician’s silence could erase a parent’s right to decide still shocks: a Texas Supreme Court ruling in 1975 named a new cause of action after a doctor failed to tell a pregnant patient the risks of rubella and her child was born severely disabled. How did a single withheld conversation create a legal doctrine that now divides 25 states and reshapes reproductive decision-making?

    In this episode, we trace the case of Dortha Jean Jacobs and the medical and legal changes that followed, from prenatal advances like amniocentesis and genetic counseling to the Texas decision that created wrongful birth; what did courts decide about harm, causation, and the value of a child when a doctor never spoke?

    Person: Dortha Jean Jacobs
    Person: Lesli Jacobs
    Event: Texas Supreme Court ruling on February 19, 1975
    Condition: Rubella exposure during first trimester
    Legal doctrine: Wrongful birth

    - Dortha Jean Jacobs contracted rubella during pregnancy and was not informed by her physician, identified in court records as Theimer.
    - Lesli Jacobs was born severely disabled as a result of prenatal rubella exposure.
    - The Texas Supreme Court recognized wrongful birth on February 19, 1975, creating a civil cause of action for parents.
    - By the time of the episode, 25 states allow parents to sue for wrongful birth while others have enacted laws to block such suits.
    - Early wrongful birth rulings required plaintiffs to prove a child would have been born healthy, a causation standard later replaced by whether the parent would have made a different reproductive decision if informed.

    To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.

    © 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
    This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
    Toon meer Minder weergeven
    27 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Nog geen reviews beschikbaar