Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (21780)	1/16/2003 1:10:50 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 57110

Making lawyers rich doesn't make docs better. If that's the intent, then better and more independent oversight would seem to be the real solution. agreed. one does not even relate to the other. allowing irrational "awards" simply hurts the individual in the end. The ability of a lawyer to make a jury cry does not increase the transgression of a doctor - if there was one. Why play a lawyer in the movies, if in real life can be more rewarding (monetarily speaking). Then again, most juries are morons, so there is not much merit in their acting anyway. The point ? Once again, "awards" which is the real motivator for lawyers, has NOTHING to do whether the doctor is: a) bad doctor b) an idiot c) a reckless bastard. does the system need to improve how they monitor doctors? absolutely ! does the system need the lawyers to be the ones who "monitor" (or whatever you want to call it), which in reality, reap the rewards for punishing the doctors based on idiotic awards ? ABSOLUTELY NOT