Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
recognize that the services rendered to the patient are necessary for the protection of the third person. DiMarco, supra at 424-25 (footnote omitted). The DiMarco rule, which was underscored by the Superior Court’s subsequent holding in Troxel v. A.I. duPont Institute, 431 Pa.Super. 464, 636 A.2d 1179 (1994), is that a physician’s duty of care is owed not only to his or her patient, but also to identifiable third parties who will suffer if a physician negligently errs in the handling of a case of infectious disease. See also Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 557 Pa. 340, 733 A.2d 623, 628 (1999) (recognizing that the role of physicians in protecting the public from communicable diseases was central to our decision in DiMarco); Matharu v. Muir, 29 A.3d 375 (Pa.Super.2011) {en banc) . The rule I derive from DiMarco and the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law
B. recognizing that negligent conduct of police investigations does not give rise to a cause of action because the duty to protect citizens and enforce the law is one owed generally to the public
C. holding law enforcement owed duty similar to that owed by dshs under rcw 2644050
D. holding that physicians owed a duty to protect an infant against rhsensitization
E. holding that an international relief organization owed no duty to protect aid contractor from murder by thirdparty somalis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.