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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (53276)	7/8/2004 9:57:51 AM
From: zeta1961	Respond to of 793883

<<that most juries rule for the defense in bad baby cases>> Thanks C2...neither was I aware of it... An informative article which I bookmarked.. <<All of which suggests that the movement for medical liability reform needs to tackle not only the size of verdicts but also their believability...."as do evidence rules empowering judges to exclude more scientifically doubtful testimony and *juror-selection reforms to keep citizens with medical expertise from being systematically excluded from jury service.** It's my belief that this last sentence deserves special attention...opponents will argue that people with medical expertise will be inherently biased and not qualify for jury selection...yet, imo, without people on the jury who intimately know the day to day, minute to minute situations/decisions physicians face, a jury with no medical people is handicapped in making a 'real world verdict.' And clearly is NOT a jury of their peers...Additionally, there are many health care practioners who loathe witnessing the malpractice of their peers...imho... Zeta