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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (193598)	7/8/2004 11:29:28 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573242

>Again, divide this by 100 surgeries, and each patient with bad back would have to pay extra $3,000 to 5,000 trial lawyer tax. That's only if every 100 surgeries, a doctor needs to pay out that much money. I'm unconvinced that's the case. While I'd agree that when a doctor does his job, but the surgery fails by chance, that that doctor should not be punished. But, if the surgery fails because the doctor is negligent or incompetent, then the doctor should be punished. A good jury and judge can see the difference, hopefully. >Tell me how this is helping anyone - other then sleaseballs like Edwards? One, by keeping doctors honest and competent, and two, by providing lawyers with enough incentive to fight on behalf of patients rather than insurance companies. Remember, insurance companies have high-paid lawyers, as well. -Z

To: Joe NYC who wrote (193598)	7/8/2004 1:31:49 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573242

First of all, your premise is wrong. People can sue, regardless, but they will only win if their is negligence, not if, in the normal course of things, an operation is not successful. By freaking out and going off the deep end, and calling all trial lawyers scumbads, you don't help your cause. And there is merit to the argument for reform. John