dlowan wrote:Jurors. He sure never convinced additional Doctors of his correctness... but his BS does seem to have had an impact on the chosen procedure... to avoid being sued.You appear to me to be suggesting that Edwards helped to create the belief that it was poor obstetric practice? Am I right? If so, in whom are you saying he helped to create this belief?
dlowan wrote:That is the simple truth. The fact that he was allowed to is a problem with our legal system, as any intelligent person (absent emotion) can clearly see that following the age old method of birthing, along with the consensus of even half of the medical community does not a malpractice suit make.You are then saying that, with medical opinion divided roughly fifty/fifty, Edwards successfully out-argued the opposing case, and his clients got damages?
dlowan wrote:Yes Deb; that is precisely what I'm saying. Approximately every other practicing expert was subject to the scumbag's wrath, if luck of the draw brought them the delivery of a baby with CP. By pretending to channel the dead baby; his appeal to emotion blinded jurors of their common sense (that half the experts agreed with the procedure used, so it was hardly malpractice). This isn't rainmaking. This isn't going after cold hearted bastards for callous decision. This is pure opportunistic scumbaggery...Is it your contention that, with medical opinion at the time divided, that he ought not to have taken on these cases?
Ill take your word OB that you dont listen to Limbaugh but some of your positions sound remarkeably like his , and I know you dont have production staff working on your behalf.
Ive posted Edwards case load in which the recent decisions and settlements were posted. What are you against here, Edwards brilliance as a trial lawyer, or the legal system itself??
Are you saying that only Edwards took on such cases?
There may even be some propensity, by jurors, to distribute the uncertainties in the favor of disabled children, and against physicians. But that does not mean their verdicts are unsupported by evidence in the individual case. The law has scoops and scoops of methods for dealing with that kind of problem. North Carolina, in particular, has been a Daubert state since even before Daubert was decided. See State v. Pennington, 327 N.C. 89, 393 S.E.2d 847 (1990).
dlowan wrote:Of course not. There's lots of similar scumbags. I just don't know of any with plans to be my president.Are you saying that only Edwards took on such cases?
OCCOM BILL wrote:dlowan wrote:Of course not. There's lots of similar scumbags. I just don't know of any with plans to be my president.Are you saying that only Edwards took on such cases?
Thank you..this:
"Approximately every other practicing expert was subject to the scumbag's wrath, if luck of the draw brought them the delivery of a baby with CP. By pretending to channel the dead baby; his appeal to emotion blinded jurors of their common sense (that half the experts agreed with the procedure used, so it was hardly malpractice). "
part of your comments led me to wonder if you were attributing the whole thing to Edwards.
So...is it your contention that any lawyer who has taken on a malpractice/negligence type suit, without 100% support for its premises by the relevant professional community, is a scumbag?
If not (and I doubt that will be your contention) what degree of disagreement would you consider ok?
I am not, btw, disagreeing that there is a problem with the legal system around this stuff, nor that many lawyers behave disgustingly around the honey pot (hell, I am amongst those liable to be subject to appalling legal tactics any time).
However
1. Most lawyers will say that it is not their job to determine guilt or innocence, but that of jury and, sometimes, judge. Do you question this?
2. While acknowledging faults in the system, you appear to be putting a great deal of personal blame onto Edwards. Are you alleging that he behaved illegally, or against the stated ethics of his profession? If not, it would seem that we are dealing more with a personal ick factor in you, rather than a substantive wrong doing by Edwards.
I can't comment on the particular cases, and hell, I would like to see a bunch of lawyers I have seen in action here subject to scathing criticism of their actions (I have routinely seen them lying in court, as well as using tactics I see as utterly morally bankrupt, so I am not cavilling with your critique absolutely), but, if Edwards' actions were both legal, and not a breach of his ethical code, I do not think you have a substantive complaint worthy of the amount of passion you obviously feel, and am curious as to where it comes from.
I mean, for your personal ick factor, well and good...but it seems you would, if you could, lead a personal crusade against his candidacy.
I do think, btw, that these sorts of cases do provide some support for such cases to be judged by a judge/judges, rather than by juries, since appeals to emotion may be less successful with them, and I think it can well be argued that juries en masse do not deal well with masses of scientific information.
But...no system is going to be perfect.
I dont wish to question the decisions as someone untrained in the field.
A little more light and a little less heat would help.
None of you, me, the Jury, or the scumbag pretending to channel the little girl could possibly know better; so it is a clear travesty of justice for a Doctor to be attacked so viciously for having done nothing, nothing more than his job.
I don't understand this cop out. Experts split 50/50 means there is no consensus on right or wrong. None of you, me, the Jury, or the scumbag pretending to channel the little girl could possibly know better
The Sarkisyan family claims that Cigna first agreed to the liver transplant surgery and had secured a match weeks ago. After the teen, who was battling leukemia, received a bone marrow transplant from her brother, however, she suffered a lung infection, and the insurer backed away from what it felt had become too risky a procedure.
"They're the ones who caused this. They're the one that told us to go there, and they would pay for the transplant," Hilda Sarkisyan said.
Geri Jenkins of the California Nurses Association said the Sarkisyans had insurance, and medical providers felt comfortable performing the medical procedure. In that situation, the the insurer should defer to medical experts, she said.
OCCOM BILL wrote:None of you, me, the Jury, or the scumbag pretending to channel the little girl could possibly know better; so it is a clear travesty of justice for a Doctor to be attacked so viciously for having done nothing, nothing more than his job.
Well, in the piece you cited from the New York Times it says he waited 90 minutes after signs of distress to perform a breach delivery. So I'm thinking this had more to do with the 90 minutes than the choice not to do a c-section.
The fact is that he was hired to win money to pay for the care of a child that was born rather traumatically and he did his job and won the money. You would have preferred he didn't a) take the job or b) win?
Do you know all the details of these cases, is that why you are so passionate? Because I don't and what's been said so far doesn't sound particularly scumbaggy. Maybe if I knew more about it.
It's the channeling of dead baby, isn't it, when you get down to it?
It wasnt Edwards job as AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF to bring out the debate among scientists. His job was clearly to win the case for which he was retained as counsel. DAUBERT rules require a legitamacy be demonstrated between the science presented and the presenters as experts. The DAUBERT requirements are more limiting and stricter for any testifying expert. Before DAUBERT, under the FRY test, experts could come out of the woodwork as "hired guns" and testify even though their experience and training may be out of the realm of the cases circle entirely.
It is my understanding that babies have a habit of deciding for themselves when it's time for a natural delivery. Breach isn't ideal, but it is natural, and the C-Section is the only alternative I'm aware of.
FreeDuck wrote:No one should win a case against an innocent doctor, and only a scumbag would try. Half the experts agreed there was nothing wrong with the procedure at the time, and have since been demonstrated correct.The fact is that he was hired to win money to pay for the care of a child that was born rather traumatically and he did his job and won the money. You would have preferred he didn't a) take the job or b) win?
I know several parents of very special needs children and you'd better believe they could use more help and more dough. That isn't what Edwards is about. In fact; he led the fight against a reform that would have helped all of these parents instead of the lucky sliver who hire scumbags like him.
OB, Im not a lawyer and I dont submit any expertise in trial advocacy but I serve as a forensic expert in mining and environmental claims and criminalistics . Ive been DAUBERT challenged before and during , in depositions and trials. If, as you say, 41 doctors were interviewed, this is of itself, a caseworthy note. If a lawyer on the defense failed to follow up (and all this is usually discoverable), then bloody shame on the defense teams
"Dr. X, I understand that you were not the first Physician that the plaintiffs interviewed to serve as an expert, is that correct?". (Now unless this information is excluded , I cannot believe that Edwards was acting in any fashion inconsistent with his profession). He had played the debate in pre natal care to his clients favor.
PS, the doctors defense was , in all cases, secured via the insurance carriers, who DO pool resources to limit their own liabilities.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I know several parents of very special needs children and you'd better believe they could use more help and more dough. That isn't what Edwards is about. In fact; he led the fight against a reform that would have helped all of these parents instead of the lucky sliver who hire scumbags like him.
Well, that's something I'd be more interested in if it is indeed true. That would be more indicative of a scumbag than what you're suggesting he did wrong by taking the 1985 case and winning it.
If it is true that he opposed a bill that would have helped more kids and parents, then I also find that very disturbing...but I would like to see the arguments.
An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.
On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.
The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.
As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"
It was clear which evidence would be crucial: "I had to become an overnight expert in fetal monitor readings," Mr. Edwards wrote.
In other cases, too, his colleagues say, the fetal monitor readings would constitute the key evidence.
"It's just like a black box in a car," said Douglas B. Abrams, Mr. Edwards's co-counsel in a cerebral palsy case settled for $1 million in 1995. "You know when a truck driver was driving too fast."
A Medical Advance Is Rethought
Electronic fetal heart monitoring was introduced in the 1960's to great fanfare. Advocates thought it would prevent most cerebral palsy by providing continuous immediate data on how babies were weathering labor and delivery.
But in the 1980's, scientists began to challenge the premise that medical care during delivery had much to do with cerebral palsy. Studies concluded that 10 percent or fewer of cases could be traced to an oxygen shortage at birth. The vast majority of children who developed cerebral palsy were damaged long before labor, the studies found.
Then a series of randomized trials challenged the notion that faster delivery could prevent cerebral palsy. Reviewing data from nine countries, two researchers reported last year that the rate of the disorder had remained stable despite a fivefold increase in Caesarean deliveries.
Dr. Karin B. Nelson, a child neurologist with the National Institutes of Health, says the notion that paying greater heed to electronic monitoring will prevent brain injuries remains just that, a notion. "Evidence of high medical quality contradicts the assumption that the use of electronic fetal monitoring during labor can prevent brain damage," Dr. Nelson said.
Mr. Edwards's former colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar certainly support his candidacy. His campaign is disproportionately financed by lawyers and people associated with them, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which calculates that about half of the $15 million he has raised comes from lawyers.
He said he planned to bring up the issue of compensation with a state commission that is studying medical malpractice. One approach would be to limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children.
This is not the first time Mr. Miller has championed the idea. In 1991, his legislation to create such a fund was defeated, in large part by the state's trial lawyers. Among those who spoke out against the bill was Mr. Edwards, who called it a baby tax.
