The legislation that attempted to overturn the Helling precedent has been on the books since 1974 but has had little effect. Why do you suppose this is so, and why has the legislature not seen fit to enforce it?

Although it has been attempted to overturn the ruling in the Helling case, I would suppose that these attempts have been unsuccessful because the ruling was in favor of a higher standard of care than what was deemed appropriate by for the ophthalmologists. One might argue that the ruling has remained in place because holding the defendants liable was, in a way, a step towards checking the medical profession's privilege to set it's own standards. I feel as though legislature has probably not seen fit to reinforce it because the original ruling remains valid in that a doctor can follow all of the standards of care, and still be liable.