Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
causation in the context of a claim based on the principles of informed consent doctrine. That concession, therefore, does not extend to the determination of plaintiffs’ wrongful birth claim. Plaintiffs contend that the PDR, which contained specific warnings that Provera could cause bilateral limb reduction, the retention of a defective ovum, and general genetic anomalies, constituted evidence of the standard of care governing the doctors’ duty of disclosure. In determining what constitutes a medically accepted risk when defining a doctor’s duty to warn, we have recognized that the PDR, standing alone, is not and should not be the touchstone of what risks a physician must reveal to his or her patient. See Morlino v. Medical Ctr. of Ocean County, 152 N.J. 563, 580, 706 A.2d 721 (1998) . Thus, the fact that the PDR contained
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care
B. holding that because pdr warnings are written for many reasons including compliance with fda requirements advertisement the provision of useful information to physicians and an attempt to limit the manufacturers liability pdr warning alone does not establish physicians duty of care
C. holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent
D. holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone
E. holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.