SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Brumar89 who wrote (107046)4/1/2005 6:16:08 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793800
 
Just a coincidence the malpractice suit was settled in January 1993?

Maybe. We know that at some point he was genuinely in sync with her parents, devoted to her recovery, and that at some point he recognized that there wasn't going to be a recovery. At first you don't understand the medical realities enough, then, as you start to, you experience denial, and then at some point you come out the other end. There doesn't seem to be anything in the record that documents that shift so we don't know when it occurred. Clearly that process had been completed when he opted for a DNR. We don't know more about the timing than that.

Because the timing of the settlement coincided, it's appropriate to question how the settlement might have affected that process. It's possible that the settlement triggered his mercenary impulses, as you believe. It's also possible that the settlement triggered a budgeting exercise which made him take a hard look at which expenditures would be useful and which wouldn't and through that exercise come to realize that rehabilitation therapy wasn't going to be effective. Or the timing of the settlement might have been just a coincidence.

It seems to me than anyone who is so certain that he's not operating in good faith must be using the evidence to confirm a prejudgment. If you look at the evidence with an open mind, certainty is elusive.