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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ian124 who wrote (21920)	10/19/2004 1:54:46 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Respond to of 23153

Ian, As a democracy, we get to decide how we are governed and what kind of legal system we have. Because we have not been conscious enough and aggressive enough in controlling the system, we unfortunately have the system we deserve. We can change it (through tort reform, and a lot of other reforms) but it takes courage and that has been in short supply for decades. Thank you for that article. It comes from a conservative source, so we must read it critically. As I noted, the trial bar is only doing what it can (sounds like Clinton: "Because I could") under our corrupt and corruptible legal system. I grabbed the following paragraphs from the article (note the section where the expert finds that EVERY SINGLE NEURO SURGEON in DC has been sued): "Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait. "Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told CNSNews.com . "These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift," Olson added. However, Olson believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain scientific evidence. " have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said. . . . 'Scientifically unfounded' Olson said lawsuits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage "may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation." Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about 8,000 infants annually in the U.S. But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits "scientifically unfounded," Olson explained. He contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery. "A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can't be because the nation's capital gets only bad neurosurgeons. It's because it's too tempting to file against the competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their patients," Olson added. Edwards, who opposes legislation that would cap damages in liability lawsuits, would not respond to repeated requests through his campaign offices for comment.>> Kb

To: ian124 who wrote (21920)	10/19/2004 2:35:40 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ian, if you want to change the subject to whether we should trust "for profit" personal injury attorneys to act in the public good, then you should have said so in the beginning. Of course we shouldn't. As for the opinions of article writers representing those with a "for profit" agenda who make blanket conclusions, should we trust them? Why would we? For instance; Cerebral palsy has now been shown to be secondary to birth trauma in less than 10% of cases, and it is likely that John Edwards was well aware of the fact that it is almost never a result of physician error when he was trying cases against doctors, but that doesn’t seem to have stopped him, does it? That old statistical "10%" trick works nearly every time. For instance, the odds that you and I would one day be corresponding with each other are probably millions to one at birth. So anyone that says we are must be lying. Or wait, we are corresponding. And maybe Edwards was skilled enough and had enough expert help to distinguish the minority of cases where the palsy was not only due to birth trauma, but also a result of the physician's failure to meet the standard of medicine required in his specialty. I think you'll agree that many of us make a living by using our brains and judgement to make choices that increase the odds in our favor. I assume that he did as well. So maybe the sentence should have read; "in an area of medicine where only 10% of palsy cases are traumatically induced, Edwards had the expertise to recognize such cases and he developed the talent and skill to successfully prosecute them." As for the statement that; "But he screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were going to make him richer," what was your point? Did you expect him to take losing cases that would waste his time, his money and put his clients through years of a lawsuit with nothing to show for it? Is that your idea of how to "help the little guy?" I don't understand. We should be careful not to let our deeply ingrained and carefully fostered ill will towards attorneys who represent injured people interfere with our ability to critically analyze complicated issues.