NationStates Jolt Archive

CONTROVERSY ERUPTS AS VOTING BEGINS IN FLORIDA:
DNC/KERRY BALLOT COLLECTION CALLED 'UNLAWFUL'.

As early voting begins Monday in the sunburn state of Florida controversy has already developed around a Democratic National Committee/Kerry-Edwards election manual.

The election manual titled -- "FLORIDA VICTORY 2004" -obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, advocates an apparent unlawful "BALLOT PICKUP" drive by campaign volunteers.

In Florida, it is legal to handle ballots.

This means it is possible for the campaign to canvass base neighborhoods, pick up completed ballots and deliver them to Early Vote locations.

A designee may pick up an absentee ballot for a voter on election day or 4 days before election day. A designee may only pick up two absentee ballots per election, other than his or her own ballot or ballots for members of his or her immediate family. Designees must have written authorization from the voter, present a picture I.D. and sign an affidavit. Candidates may pick up absentee ballots only for members of their immediate family.

They're going door to door picking up voting ballots? What's to stop the Democratic Party from commiting voter fraud?

The whole system is out of control here.

I got a call from some guy Friday evening asking me to vote against proposition 3. Proposition 3 will limit damages in medical mal-practice suits. I have looked into it and I asked the guy what it was about....and he really had no information. I asked him why I should vote against it and all he said was is "it is a bad proposition." What is it with these people? Yesterday my GF and I were invited to a Kerry rally in Baldwin Park today. We get 3-4 calls a day now from one group or another wanting us to vote one way or another......it is insane.

How about we move Floridans to the rest of the USA and give it to Mexico to solve their overpopulation issue?
That might fix a few problems.

:rolleyes: :)

3-4 calls a day, Biff?!

How do you cope with such abuse?!

You must never get any sleep! Obviously, you can't just put the phone down when you realise what's going on. You have to stay on the line, it's pratically the law! God damn these fascists!!

3-4 calls a day, Biff?!

How do you cope with such abuse?!

You must never get any sleep! Obviously, you can't just put the phone down when you realise what's going on. You have to stay on the line, it's pratically the law! God damn these fascists!!

Nah, I have fun with them....;)

Jahovah's Witnesses never come back to my house either...... ;)

I can be quite frustrating to those who I disagree with....much better in person though.

We have the same vote going on here over medical mal-practice suits. The State is complaining that all of these suits are causing doctors to leave.

We have the same vote going on here over medical mal-practice suits. The State is complaining that all of these suits are causing doctors to leave.

Actually it is not the suits themselfs that are causing doctors to leave, it is the result of the suits.

When the suit is won by a plantiff the money is paid out by the doctors malpractice insurance carrier. When insurance companies have big payouts they reevaluate the risks of all doctors in that area.

What that means is higher insurance premiums .. upwards of 200-500% in some instances.

If your cost of business went up by 200-500% how long would you stay in business. Or better put, if your car insurance went up by that much, how long would you own a car?

Actually it is not the suits themselfs that are causing doctors to leave, it is the result of the suits.

When the suit is won by a plantiff the money is paid out by the doctors malpractice insurance carrier. When insurance companies have big payouts they reevaluate the risks of all doctors in that area.

What that means is higher insurance premiums .. upwards of 200-500% in some instances.

If your cost of business went up by 200-500% how long would you stay in business. Or better put, if your car insurance went up by that much, how long would you own a car?

Officials should not block a patient from suing their doctor. I think a better plan would be to not force the insurance companies to pay the sum. Rising interest rates are a punishment for all doctors. The Courts should make those crooked doctor's pay it out of their own pockets.

Actually it is not the suits themselfs that are causing doctors to leave, it is the result of the suits.

When the suit is won by a plantiff the money is paid out by the doctors malpractice insurance carrier. When insurance companies have big payouts they reevaluate the risks of all doctors in that area.

What that means is higher insurance premiums .. upwards of 200-500% in some instances.

If your cost of business went up by 200-500% how long would you stay in business. Or better put, if your car insurance went up by that much, how long would you own a car?

The only good thing about all this is that the lawyers and the insurance companies are on opposite sides of the issue!

Officials should not block a patient from suing their doctor. I think a better plan would be to not force the insurance companies to pay the sum. Rising interest rates are a punishment for all doctors. The Courts should make those crooked doctor's pay it out of their own pockets.

Yeah......a $2,000,000 jury award being paid out by a Dr. Get real.....noone would be a Dr. then.

Why should a good doctor be afraid of being sued?

Because many work ten hour days six days a week and make mistakes now and then.

Why should a good doctor be afraid of being sued?

Because Jurists are usually stupid and will award based on emotion instead of logic.

On the whole voting fraud issue, there's not much to stop either party, no?

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe

They're going door to door picking up voting ballots? What's to stop the Democratic Party from commiting voter fraud?
the same thing preventing the republicans from committing voter fraud by having democrats fill out applications and think they are registered then not turning the registrations in

Vote Libertarian and throw BOTH Republicans AND Democrats out on their asses!!!

Why should a good doctor be afraid of being sued?

Because even if the doctor does everything right, sometimes the patient is not satisfied and sometimes they sue.

Partisan Example
John Edwards made tens of million claiming that the cerebral palsy in some patients was the result of the doctor making incorrrect choices(eg not performing a casearian). Because of him and lawyers like him, doctors started performing many more caesarians. Oddly, the rate of cerebral palsy has stayed the same despite the increase in caesarians.

Still,
the plaintiffs kept their millions

The lawyers kept their millions

The doctors paid their increased premiums

Health Insurance companies and the govt has still spent those millions or billions for caesarians sections that are not needed.

We all are paying the higher healthcare premiums and higher medicare taxes.

The woman who received these unneeded operations kept their scars

Yeah, it was the doctors fault.

Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the states? One of the reasons is because of all the unneeded medical proceedures performed solely to protect the doctor and insurance company in case they get sued.

Because even if the doctor does everything right, sometimes the patient is not satisfied and sometimes they sue.

Partisan Example
John Edwards made tens of million claiming that the cerebral palsy in some patients was the result of the doctor making incorrrect choices(eg not performing a casearian). Because of him and lawyers like him, doctors started performing many more caesarians. Oddly, the rate of cerebral palsy has stayed the same despite the increase in caesarians.


You know why they that decided for her? Because their doctor was an incompetent moron who knew that he shouldn't have made that choice, and yet he did? Who knew that there was a increased probability of problems if they went that route and yet he still did?

Ever actually research things instead of sprouting talking points?

You know why they that decided for her? Because their doctor was an incompetent moron who knew that he shouldn't have made that choice, and yet he did? Who knew that there was a increased probability of problems if they went that route and yet he still did?

Ever actually research things instead of sprouting talking points?

So explain to me why the rate of cerebral palsy has stayed the same despite the increase in caesarians? I mean that was what Edwards was claiming. Claiming that it was the doctors fault for not performing a caesarian. Claiming that a caesarian would have prevented the cerebral palsy.

If I am mistaken about this, then show me some sources.

I have an idea.

Take away Floridians' right to vote!

And I was joking, so lets not have everyone pounce on me...

Ever actually research things instead of sprouting talking points?

Man you are a twisted sort. I typed "caesarian cerebral palsy" into google and got a ton of articles about how caesarians don not affect the rate of cerebral palsy. Despite this, the rate of caesarians has risen to 26% of births from 5% mostly because of lawsuit fear.

Why dont YOU do some research and stop spouting talking points.

Man you are a twisted sort. I typed "caesarian cerebral palsy" into google and got a ton of articles about how caesarians don not affect the rate of cerebral palsy. Despite this, the rate of caesarians has risen to 26% of births from 5% mostly because of lawsuit fear.

Why dont YOU do some research and stop spouting talking points.
You didn't read what I wrote. In some cases, it is simply to risky to allow a natural delivery, such as when the child is in the wrong position and could cause the umbilical cord to get entangled around his/her neck, causing blood flow to drop dramatically. This is what happened, and yet the doctor decided to deliver naturally instead of making the safer (and proper) choice.

Why should a good doctor be afraid of being sued?

Because many procedures are high-risk and have a percentage chance of complications even if the doctor does absolutely everything right. However, medicine has evolved past the point where lay people understand it. Thus, any complications occur, and people want to sue. If it is not the fault of the doctor, it doesn't really matter, because the jury doesn't understand medicine, but hates that nasty rich doctor (who is probably not rich at all with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from becoming a doctor in the first place).

So explain to me why the rate of cerebral palsy has stayed the same despite the increase in caesarians? I mean that was what Edwards was claiming. Claiming that it was the doctors fault for not performing a caesarian. Claiming that a caesarian would have prevented the cerebral palsy.

If I am mistaken about this, then show me some sources.

Only about 5-6% of CP cases are believed to occur from asphyxia during birth. The vast majority of cases occur from hypoxia much, much earlier in development.

The Ewards case is an iffy one. Because so few cases of CP are caused by anything during birth, it is highly unlikely that this one was. However, the doctor did choose to ignore the measurable symptoms of asphyxia - which went on much longer than they should have.

However, it is a fact that fear of lawsuits has greatly increased the number of unnecessary C-sections each year.

Because Jurists are usually stupid and will award based on emotion instead of logic.

Funny how conversatives decide that jurists can decide between the death penalty and life just fine, but can't trust them to judge the amount of money someone should pay?

Where I live, the Doctors in the 60s used to live in a country clubish area. Maybe the houses cost about 50% better than the laymen house. Now, they're living by the waterside where the costs are 300% more than the layman house. I have no to little sympathy.

So explain to me why the rate of cerebral palsy has stayed the same despite the increase in caesarians? I mean that was what Edwards was claiming. Claiming that it was the doctors fault for not performing a caesarian. Claiming that a caesarian would have prevented the cerebral palsy.

If I am mistaken about this, then show me some sources.
when was the decision made

You didn't read what I wrote. In some cases, it is simply to risky to allow a natural delivery, such as when the child is in the wrong position and could cause the umbilical cord to get entangled around his/her neck, causing blood flow to drop dramatically. This is what happened, and yet the doctor decided to deliver naturally instead of making the safer (and proper) choice.

You are correct that I read what you said differantly than what you are stating now. I am aware that caesarians are a useful and needed procedure.

But that isnt what John Kerry and others of his ilk were suing about. They specifically claimed that their clients cerebral palsy was caused by their doctors failure to perform a caesarian. Even though it is bullshit, the lawyers still made millions. And fear of lawsuits has increased the use of caesarians 5 fold. While I am sure some of this increase is for reasons other than lawsuit fear, I think most of it is.

You are correct that I read what you said differantly than what you are stating now. I am aware that caesarians are a useful and needed procedure.

But that isnt what John Kerry and others of his ilk were suing about. They specifically claimed that their clients cerebral palsy was caused by their doctors failure to perform a caesarian. Even though it is bullshit, the lawyers still made millions. And fear of lawsuits has increased the use of caesarians 5 fold. While I am sure some of this increase is for reasons other than lawsuit fear, I think most of it is.

Really. You do know that John Kerry never was a trial lawyer, right? That John Edwards never made that argument?

Funny how conversatives decide that jurists can decide between the death penalty and life just fine, but can't trust them to judge the amount of money someone should pay?

Where I live, the Doctors in the 60s used to live in a country clubish area. Maybe the houses cost about 50% better than the laymen house. Now, they're living by the waterside where the costs are 300% more than the layman house. I have no to little sympathy.


And it is exactly this type of mentality that is behind so much of the lawsuit abuse in the USA. Very short term thinking indeed.

Because of people with atitudes like yours, people are dying/becoming mentally retarded in places like Florida(because neurosurgeons cant afford the insurance so there are barely any nuerosurgeons practicing).

Try and find an obgyn in many places and see how hard it is to find a good one, again for the same reason. Good luck going back to the midwife system I guess.

Really. You do know that John Kerry never was a trial lawyer, right? That John Edwards never made that argument?

I meant to say Edwards. I think Kerry spent a stint as a district attorney. And as to Edwards making that argument, that is my current belief. If its mistaken then correct me.

I meant to say Edwards. I think Kerry spent a stint as a district attorney. And as to Edwards making that argument, that is my current belief. If its mistaken then correct me.
Chief prosecutor, I believe. Edwards argued that the doctor exercised malpractice in not taking the proper (and advised) step of delivering though a c-section in conditions where it was warranted, and not noticing signs of asphyxia.

Chief prosecutor, I believe. Edwards argued that the doctor exercised malpractice in not taking the proper (and advised) step of delivering though a c-section in conditions where it was warranted, and not noticing signs of asphyxia.


Yeah, thats what I am saying. You are throwing in that asphyxia thing sure, but the articles I have read that asphyxia(during the birthing process) is not a cause of cerebral palsy. It needs to be sustained.

However, perhaps demopubs will chime in here because he seems to be in a related field.

Yeah, thats what I am saying. You are throwing in that asphyxia thing sure, but the articles I have read that asphyxia(during the birthing process) is not a cause of cerebral palsy. It needs to be sustained.

However, perhaps demopubs will chime in here because he seems to be in a related field.
I don't think that he argued cerebral palsy, I'd have to go look. I do remember that the doctor ignored signs of asphyxia and made a very ill-advised and risky choice.

And it is exactly this type of mentality that is behind so much of the lawsuit abuse in the USA. Very short term thinking indeed.


No, it's called living with your means. It's also called common sense. Funny you didn't mention anything about the jurists and life and death.

I don't think that he argued cerebral palsy, I'd have to go look. I do remember that the doctor ignored signs of asphyxia and made a very ill-advised and risky choice.

Here are some articles for your reading

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011234-1949r.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html

Here are some articles for your reading

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011234-1949r.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html
Much libel, little substance. I'd read the court documents if I were you.

No, it's called living with your means. It's also called common sense. Funny you didn't mention anything about the jurists and life and death.


The whole idea is that people in the jusies have the same idea of rich vs poor that you do thus leading to crazy judements. The lawyers know how juries are going to react and bring forth cases that wouldnt win if it wasa n unbiased jury.

Much libel, little substance. I'd read the court documents if I were you.

I thought about that for a minute, then I realized that there is no way I am going to read court documents just to back up an internet argument. Besides, I think you are just saying those articles are biased because they disagree with your views.

I thought about that for a minute, then I realized that there is no way I am going to read court documents just to back up an internet argument. Besides, I think you are just saying those articles are biased because they disagree with your views.
Sensibility here then.
You used your own opinion to propegate your argument, and you are being called on it.
If it's nothing more than your opinion, it shouldn't be considered anything other than an opinion, and honor would likely substantiate you noting the difference between that and the facts of the case.
It's noone else's problem that you don't educate yourself with the actual facts, which CSW is going through the trouble of suggesting to you .... it is however a problem if you are stating things that you BELIEVE to be true even in the DIRECT FACE of evidence to the contrary.
It can be safely said that you are not bothering to look up the facts on this specific situation because you yourself are biased since the facts could/do disagree with your views.
The consequence beyond your opinion is upon the lesser minded, more lazy, or more willingly gullible in the reading public on this thread, mercy to them. They'll carry on your opinion on good faith, not dissimilar from the idea that the trial lawyers play on the emotions and keep the facts in a case in careful check ....

I thought about that for a minute, then I realized that there is no way I am going to read court documents just to back up an internet argument. Besides, I think you are just saying those articles are biased because they disagree with your views.
Eh, your loss. We can agree to disagree then?

Eh, your loss. We can agree to disagree then?

Are you implying that you have read the actual court documents?

Are you implying that you have read the actual court documents?
Transcrips and such. Quite a bit more then what those articles state.

I thought about that for a minute, then I realized that there is no way I am going to read court documents just to back up an internet argument. Besides, I think you are just saying those articles are biased because they disagree with your views.
if you wont read the facts and history to back up your argument with, dont start it

Sensibility here then.
You used your own opinion to propegate your argument, and you are being called on it.
If it's nothing more than your opinion, it shouldn't be considered anything other than an opinion, and honor would likely substantiate you noting the difference between that and the facts of the case.
It's noone else's problem that you don't educate yourself with the actual facts, which CSW is going through the trouble of suggesting to you .... it is however a problem if you are stating things that you BELIEVE to be true even in the DIRECT FACE of evidence to the contrary.
It can be safely said that you are not bothering to look up the facts on this specific situation because you yourself are biased since the facts could/do disagree with your views.
The consequence beyond your opinion is upon the lesser minded, more lazy, or more willingly gullible in the reading public on this thread, mercy to them. They'll carry on your opinion on good faith, not dissimilar from the idea that the trial lawyers play on the emotions and keep the facts in a case in careful check ....

Seriously, I feel like I am in an episode if the twilight zone. Here is the sequence of events so far.

I voiced an opinion
CSW voiced an opinion
I provided links to articles that back up my opinion
CSW so far has not.

yet you are claiming that I am making some random argument based on emotion? "DIRECT FACE of evidence to the contrary. " Evidence?? what evidence? where?

I have always said that if I am mistaken correct me, so far all CSW has said is that he doesnt like the links I provided.

You on the other hand are logic impaired.

Transcrips and such. Quite a bit more then what those articles state.


Are you sure that you read it for the correct case of his? The $25.5 million one. The one where he claimed that CP was caused because of a lack of a caesarian. Cause it says it in findlaw. He has done other med malpractice suits besides CP ones

Seriously, I feel like I am in an episode if the twilight zone. Here is the sequence of events so far.

I voiced an opinion
CSW voiced an opinion
I provided links to articles that back up my opinion
CSW so far has not.

yet you are claiming that I am making some random argument based on emotion? "DIRECT FACE of evidence to the contrary. " Evidence?? what evidence? where?

I have always said that if I am mistaken correct me, so far all CSW has said is that he doesnt like the links I provided.

You on the other hand are logic impaired.
It was a pleasure reading your article about medical malpractice litigation and John Edwards. I worked with John for eight years, first as an associate and then as a partner. The Jennifer Campbell case was my first jury trial. I was given responsibility for finding our experts.
I have followed the recent attempt to paint John with the "junk science" brush. I am afraid your article gives his critics too much credit. When we tried the Campbell case in 1985, we knew and acknowledged that many cases of cerebral palsy are not caused by asphyxia at birth. But it was undeniable then and undeniable now that SOME cases of CP are caused by perinatal asphyxia. In the Campbell case, there was no doubt that Jennifer's injuries were caused by asphyxia during labor and delivery. Consider:
1. On the isssue of causation, we presented the testimony of two highly qualified experts: a pediatric neurologist and a neonatologist. Defendants presented NO experts on the issue of causation. The defendants had excellent lawyers, who were well aware of the controversy about the cause of CP. But they could not find anyone to say that Jennifer's injuries did not result from asphyxia at birth..
2. The reason was simple. This was a case in which the fetal monitor strip irrefutably told the tale. Jennifer was a full term baby. There were no prenatal complications. When the monitor was first attached at about 2:00 p.m., there were all the signs of a completely healthy baby -- good variability, regular reassuring heart rate, reassuring decelerations at the time of contractions. But then, soon after 3:00, the heart rate pattern gradually deteriorated in the classic downward cycle of perinatal asphyxia. Anyone looking at the strip who understood monitoring (and any juror educated by weeks of expert testimony) could plainly see that this baby desperately needed to come out at 5:30. Instead Jennifer was delivered at 7:00.
3. When Jennifer was born, there was an obvious explanation for her asphyxia. She was in the footling breech presentation (feet first)-- the most dangerous presentation -- and the umbilical cord was entangled in her legs. During the last stages of labor, the cord became wrapped tighter and tighter, cutting off the flow of oxygen and suffocating her. That's why, in 1979 and now, it is malpractice to attempt a vaginal delivery when the baby is in the footling breech presentation.
4. At birth, Jennifer had all the classic signs of perinatal asphyxia (extreme metabolic acidosis, low apgar scores, seizures an hour after delivery...), even using the restrictive guidelines now advocated by the obstetrical establishment.
In short, the Campbell case was the complete opposite of a "junk science" lawsuit. Even today, no objective scientist who reviewed the records (instead of AMA press releases) would claim that Jennifer's cerebral palsy was unrelated to birth asphyxia. No obstetrician would say that it's OK to attempt the vaginal delivery of a baby in the footling breech presentation, especially without the parents' informed consent (and no parent, informed of the risks, would give their consent). And no doctor or obstetrical nurse who has the slightest understanding of fetal monitoring could look at that monitor strip and stand by while the baby slowly suffocates.
Burton Craige
Patterson Harkavy LLP
Post Office Box 27927
Raleigh, NC 27611

Talk to them, not me, if you don't believe me

It was a pleasure reading your article about medical malpractice litigation and John Edwards. I worked with John for eight years, first as an associate and then as a partner. The Jennifer Campbell case was my first jury trial. I was given responsibility for finding our experts.
I have followed the recent attempt to paint John with the "junk science" brush. I am afraid your article gives his critics too much credit. When we tried the Campbell case in 1985, we knew and acknowledged that many cases of cerebral palsy are not caused by asphyxia at birth. But it was undeniable then and undeniable now that SOME cases of CP are caused by perinatal asphyxia. In the Campbell case, there was no doubt that Jennifer's injuries were caused by asphyxia during labor and delivery. Consider:
1. On the isssue of causation, we presented the testimony of two highly qualified experts: a pediatric neurologist and a neonatologist. Defendants presented NO experts on the issue of causation. The defendants had excellent lawyers, who were well aware of the controversy about the cause of CP. But they could not find anyone to say that Jennifer's injuries did not result from asphyxia at birth..
2. The reason was simple. This was a case in which the fetal monitor strip irrefutably told the tale. Jennifer was a full term baby. There were no prenatal complications. When the monitor was first attached at about 2:00 p.m., there were all the signs of a completely healthy baby -- good variability, regular reassuring heart rate, reassuring decelerations at the time of contractions. But then, soon after 3:00, the heart rate pattern gradually deteriorated in the classic downward cycle of perinatal asphyxia. Anyone looking at the strip who understood monitoring (and any juror educated by weeks of expert testimony) could plainly see that this baby desperately needed to come out at 5:30. Instead Jennifer was delivered at 7:00.
3. When Jennifer was born, there was an obvious explanation for her asphyxia. She was in the footling breech presentation (feet first)-- the most dangerous presentation -- and the umbilical cord was entangled in her legs. During the last stages of labor, the cord became wrapped tighter and tighter, cutting off the flow of oxygen and suffocating her. That's why, in 1979 and now, it is malpractice to attempt a vaginal delivery when the baby is in the footling breech presentation.
4. At birth, Jennifer had all the classic signs of perinatal asphyxia (extreme metabolic acidosis, low apgar scores, seizures an hour after delivery...), even using the restrictive guidelines now advocated by the obstetrical establishment.
In short, the Campbell case was the complete opposite of a "junk science" lawsuit. Even today, no objective scientist who reviewed the records (instead of AMA press releases) would claim that Jennifer's cerebral palsy was unrelated to birth asphyxia. No obstetrician would say that it's OK to attempt the vaginal delivery of a baby in the footling breech presentation, especially without the parents' informed consent (and no parent, informed of the risks, would give their consent). And no doctor or obstetrical nurse who has the slightest understanding of fetal monitoring could look at that monitor strip and stand by while the baby slowly suffocates.
Burton Craige
Patterson Harkavy LLP
Post Office Box 27927
Raleigh, NC 27611

Talk to them, not me, if you don't believe me

Fair enough. Now that is evidence even though it is from a source that obviously has vested interests. I mean he worked on the case.

In any case, without finding something contrary I would have to take him at his word.

Where is this article clipped from?

Funny how conversatives decide that jurists can decide between the death penalty and life just fine, but can't trust them to judge the amount of money someone should pay?

Where I live, the Doctors in the 60s used to live in a country clubish area. Maybe the houses cost about 50% better than the laymen house. Now, they're living by the waterside where the costs are 300% more than the layman house. I have no to little sympathy.

how many times more did a doctors school cost than yours...how many more hours does a doctor work than you..how many more stresses does a doctor endure than you..what is your carreer....quit hating people who work hard for what they have...if you had spent as many hours of you rlife working for something as the average doctor does maybe you coould llive by the lake too.....oh boo hoo they have more than me..boo hoo it isnt fair..boo hoo...

Yeah, thats what I am saying. You are throwing in that asphyxia thing sure, but the articles I have read that asphyxia(during the birthing process) is not a cause of cerebral palsy. It needs to be sustained.

However, perhaps demopubs will chime in here because he seems to be in a related field.

Yeah, I already did but I got ignored. =)

Basically, it is very unlikely that the CP was caused during birth, as only about 5% of cases are believed to be caused then. CP itself is not very well characterized and encompasses a set of disorders, most of which are believed to be caused by hypoxia in development well before birth.

However, from what I have seen of the case, the doctor did ignore the sighs of asphyxia for much longer than was medically prudent. He certainly should have been punished in some way. However, as there is no conclusive evidence that he caused the CP, I don't think the decision should have been to the tune of millions of dollars.

A friend of one of the doctors in my lab recently got sued for $20 mil for doing absolutely nothing wrong. There was a known risk of complication for the procedure he was doing. He actually caught the problem before finishing the surgery, and thus went in and fixed it as it needed to be done. The only permanent injury to the patient was a scar that would not have been there otherwise. He refused to settle as he had done nothing wrong and a jury that apparently hated doctors awarded her 20 million. Never mind that she wasn't even really injured.

how many times more did a doctors school cost than yours...how many more hours does a doctor work than you..how many more stresses does a doctor endure than you..what is your carreer....quit hating people who work hard for what they have...if you had spent as many hours of you rlife working for something as the average doctor does maybe you coould llive by the lake too.....oh boo hoo they have more than me..boo hoo it isnt fair..boo hoo...

I'm currently at college to get a degree in education so I can teach your kid how to use proper punctuation better than you do.

Yeah, I already did but I got ignored. =)

Basically, it is very unlikely that the CP was caused during birth, as only about 5% of cases are believed to be caused then. CP itself is not very well characterized and encompasses a set of disorders, most of which are believed to be caused by hypoxia in development well before birth.

However, from what I have seen of the case, the doctor did ignore the sighs of asphyxia for much longer than was medically prudent. He certainly should have been punished in some way. However, as there is no conclusive evidence that he caused the CP, I don't think the decision should have been to the tune of millions of dollars.

A friend of one of the doctors in my lab recently got sued for $20 mil for doing absolutely nothing wrong. There was a known risk of complication for the procedure he was doing. He actually caught the problem before finishing the surgery, and thus went in and fixed it as it needed to be done. The only permanent injury to the patient was a scar that would not have been there otherwise. He refused to settle as he had done nothing wrong and a jury that apparently hated doctors awarded her 20 million. Never mind that she wasn't even really injured.
i hgihly agree there are frivolous lawsuits, but i also vehemently assert there are indefinate malpractice actions that must be addressed


heres an idea, the standing president should make a seperate panel composed of doctors, new and old, left and right to judge over malpractice suits to see if they should even go to court

oh goody, thats what kerry proposed in the first debate

i hgihly agree there are frivolous lawsuits, but i also vehemently assert there are indefinate malpractice actions that must be addressed


heres an idea, the standing president should make a seperate panel composed of doctors, new and old, left and right to judge over malpractice suits to see if they should even go to court

oh goody, thats what kerry proposed in the first debate

I like that idea. I also think there should be a way to rule "payment on all related medical bills" instead of trying to put an actual price there. Most of the pain and suffering money in these cases goes to paying lawyers and lifetime medical costs.

I like that idea. I also think there should be a way to rule "payment on all related medical bills" instead of trying to put an actual price there. Most of the pain and suffering money in these cases goes to paying lawyers and lifetime medical costs.

Prefferable to what Kerry proposed(3 strikes and you are out law for lawyers), I think a loser pays rule would work well. Other countries have used this to curtail frivolous litigation very effectivly

I'm currently at college to get a degree in education so I can teach your kid how to use proper punctuation better than you do.


not my kid not having any..thanx tho ..most of my relatives are teachers...i went to college and manage assignments in a newsroom in the capitol of a state that has lost more doctors over this then any other..also has more class action lawsuits awarded with outrageous sums of money because of people like you who have this wierd hate for people that earn more money in a year then you ever will...so i can quote you numerous stories of how this affects people in the real world and not that fantasy perfect socialized world you live in... and by the way try hard not to instill your biases in developing minds while you are teaching perfect punctuation.

Well, one can tell you're obviously not an editor in journalism...

Well, one can tell you're obviously not an editor in journalism...


ooohhh thats it come on now..when i want to sit sown and write a paper using perfect grammar and punctuation I can..when i am responding to a post on the net i just type..you know stream of concious..Why dont you post some attacks that back up the original argument or explain why you hate people who try to take advantage of our educational system by pursuing a career that gives them the funds to have a house by the lake...besides he may remove the tumor from your well educated child someday

ooohhh thats it come on now..when i want to sit sown and write a paper using perfect grammar and punctuation I can..when i am responding to a post on the net i just type..you know stream of concious..Why dont you post some attacks that back up the original argument or explain why you hate people who try to take advantage of our educational system by pursuing a career that gives them the funds to have a house by the lake...besides he may remove the tumor from your well educated child someday

Why do I “hate” people with money? Hate is such a strong and biased statement Mr. Stream-of-Consciousness. While stream of consciousness is used in journalism and works of prose, the internet forum is a place of communication. I have been taught in every computer class I’ve been in to write as properly as I can. Why? Because if I write poorly it reflects badly on me, just the same if I speak badly.

As for my ‘hatred’. I don’t think it’s fair that people in power who notably have money can overstep the justice. Not the law. Simple justice. If I screw up at a burger place, I’m fired. If I screw up as a doctor, I get a lawsuit but I –STILL- have the ability to practice medication. I believe there are good doctors, good doctors who do mistakes. However, there are doctors who consistently screw up all the time and instead of removing them, they’re only given a lawsuit. The rich are better prepared to defend themselves in the world, innocent or guilty. The poor do not have these benefits.

As for my ‘hatred’. I don’t think it’s fair that people in power who notably have money can overstep the justice. Not the law. Simple justice. If I screw up at a burger place, I’m fired. If I screw up as a doctor, I get a lawsuit but I –STILL- have the ability to practice medication. I believe there are good doctors, good doctors who do mistakes. However, there are doctors who consistently screw up all the time and instead of removing them, they’re only given a lawsuit. The rich are better prepared to defend themselves in the world, innocent or guilty. The poor do not have these benefits.

A doctor who messes up consistently *does* lose his license. And, if willful negligence can be shown, he may even go to jail.

However, doctors (especially those in high-risk areas) are in positions to make life and death decisions every single day. They are human, not superheroes and, in some cases, medicine really has no idea on the best way to treat something. A doctor should not be liable for millions of dollars that he does not have every time he does a procedure that earns him $400, not unless willful negligence can be shown.

[QUOTE=Tellacar]Why do I “hate” people with money? Hate is such a strong and biased statement Mr. Stream-of-Consciousness. While stream of consciousness is used in journalism and works of prose, the internet forum is a place of communication. .

QUOTE]


actually in journalism we use conversational writing..we aim our dialogue at the lowest common denominator ...which is usually a 6th to seventh grade education level...thanx

Fair enough. Now that is evidence even though it is from a source that obviously has vested interests. I mean he worked on the case.

In any case, without finding something contrary I would have to take him at his word.

Where is this article clipped from?
A blog, which had posted a rather nasty and wrong anti-edwards piece.

I'd take his word for it, because he actually worked on the case.