CIGNA HealthCare Murders Teenage Girl

farmerman wrote:

Im not going to agree with you because youve tried to oversimplify the role of trial advocacy. Further, you are accusing based upon motive that you cannot back up as real. The fact that Edwards hd successfully brought cases to sue on med malpractice begs the issue of WHAT DID HE UNDERSTAND WAS THE SCIENCE AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL??

50/50 FOR CRYING OUTSIDEWAYS. NOT ENOUGH FOR MALPRACTICE. The last one I quoted, in 95, the writing had well been on the wall for quite some time and most experts already knew better, but the emotional pony show still works. Read the damned story from the times and you'll see some other scumbag landed a monster in 2004... about the same time the lying scumbag was still defending his treachery as backed by science. This is a simple, sleazy fault in our system to allow juries to award based on pity-fueled scientifically bankrupt BS, instead of the simple, scientific truth. That he still defends it; proves beyond a reasonable doubt (let alone a preponderance of the evidence) that he's a scumbag. But enough.

farmerman wrote:

HOWEVER--Lets get back to the CIGNA issue, we may have some common ground here in that "if", as was reported, the girl was being aggressively treated for leukemia of a severe type, did that sort of exclude her from consideration for a liver transplant?? Its a decision that, although makes me seem two faced, I sorta agree with now that I see the additional facts.

Why would we give her a liver if the prognosis for the leukemia wasnt good??

There's never enough liver to go around... but the impression I got was that a family member was the donor. If that's the case; they should have given the go ahead to give it a try, or they're scum too. If, the liver wasn't being donated specifically for her; then CIGNA may very well be getting a bad rap. We raised thousands for a kid who needed a multi-organ transplant, succeeded, but she died shortly thereafter anyway. I can see denying the organ on a long shot, but not the procedure.

0 Replies

It is the lawyer's job to do the best job he can, within the boundaries of law, for his clients. It's up to the system (including judges, juries and the opposing attorney(s)) to counterbalance the lawyer's best efforts.

Anything short of doing one's level best is unethical. No matter what one's personal ick factor, if you want a legitimate legal system you have to accept that someone has to take even the most untoward of cases, and it's legal ignorance to get all hot under the collar about the lawyer.

It's his responsibility, both moral and by law to do his level best to represent the clients. You should be calling the clients scumbags if anyone but better yet a more mature understanding of how the legal system works might be best.

Sometimes the right and wrong seem glaringly obvious to the armchair quarterbacks, but a legal system can't share their absolutism and the system needs the lawyers to represent these cases.

Thankfully, lawyers understand this for them most part because if they had the layman's simplistic absolutism we wouldn't have a legal system to depend on.

No matter how bad/wrong/outright false a client's case is, it has to be represented by somebody for the system to work, and more people with a good enough understanding of our need for the system to work that way understand that it's a necessary evil for a justice system.

The more simple view just demonizes people who do their jobs. Again, it's the lawyer's job to represent the worst people and the worst cases at times. The outcome is not their responsibility, their responsibility is to do every trick in the book that's legal and let the system do its job.

Compare it to the OJ case. Playing the race card was ugly, but the lawyers have a responsibility to do it if it can help win the case. In that particular case the verdict was disgusting, but it had more to do with an incompetent prosecution (especially Darden) and jury.

Sometimes the wrong guys win. And the lawyers aren't supposed to be making moral calls and are supposed to be doing their best, regardless of the merits of the case.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

It is the lawyer's job to do the best job he can, within the boundaries of law, for his clients. It's up to the system (including judges, juries and the opposing attorney(s)) to counterbalance the lawyer's best efforts.

Anything short of doing one's level best is unethical. No matter what one's personal ick factor, if you want a legitimate legal system you have to accept that someone has to take even the most untoward of cases, and it's legal ignorance to get all hot under the collar about the lawyer.

It's his responsibility, both moral and by law to do his level best to represent the clients. You should be calling the clients scumbags if anyone but better yet a more mature understanding of how the legal system works might be best.

Sometimes the right and wrong seem glaringly obvious to the armchair quarterbacks, but a legal system can't share their absolutism and the system needs the lawyers to represent these cases.

Thankfully, lawyers understand this for them most part because if they had the layman's simplistic absolutism we wouldn't have a legal system to depend on.

No matter how bad/wrong/outright false a client's case is, it has to be represented by somebody for the system to work, and more people with a good enough understanding of our need for the system to work that way understand that it's a necessary evil for a justice system.

The more simple view just demonizes people who do their jobs. Again, it's the lawyer's job to represent the worst people and the worst cases at times. The outcome is not their responsibility, their responsibility is to do every trick in the book that's legal and let the system do its job.

Compare it to the OJ case. Playing the race card was ugly, but the lawyers have a responsibility to do it if it can help win the case. In that particular case the verdict was disgusting, but it had more to do with an incompetent prosecution (especially Darden) and jury.

Sometimes the wrong guys win. And the lawyers aren't supposed to be making moral calls and are supposed to be doing their best, regardless of the merits of the case.

Thanks for bringing nothing to the conversation that isn't obvious to everyone in it... or completely idiotic. Attorneys choose their area's of focus, and good ones can be damn selective about it. I've made it abundantly clear that I think Edwards is an extraordinary attorney. I've also made it abundantly clear that I think he's a scumbag for what he chose to do with that talent. I could just about care less if that's too difficult for you to understand.

0 Replies

Quote:

50/50 FOR CRYING OUTSIDEWAYS. NOT ENOUGH FOR MALPRACTICE

was that in 1985 when his firt cases were tried?.The issue has been that he believed in the cases and the NYT article did not refute that point. You seem to want to paint all scientists and lawyers as prescient demigods who should know what the stand of medical science will be a decade or more in advance. Doesnt work that way OB

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
50/50 FOR CRYING OUTSIDEWAYS. NOT ENOUGH FOR MALPRACTICE
was that in 1985 when his firt cases were tried?.The issue has been that he believed in the cases and the NYT article did not refute that point. You seem to want to paint all scientists and lawyers as prescient demigods who should know what the stand of medical science will be a decade or more in advance. Doesnt work that way OB

Yes, that was in 1985. Everything I've ever read about it says the experts were about split on the opinion. By 95, it was a landslide against him... but the emotional BS still works. Who said he should know anything in advance? Show me where I said that or retract it.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thanks for bringing nothing to the conversation that isn't obvious to everyone in it... or completely idiotic.

I don't think anything was idiotic, but can't be sure even what you are talking about specifically since you don't even point it out, much less make a case for it. So I'll have to write that off as being a rhetorical flourish of the ipse dixit variety. Because Bill said so.

As to it being obvious, I think you are probably giving yourself too much credit here, but at least giving "everyone" too much credit.

I know that it's not always obvious to me, despite knowing the necessary evils of a justice system I will sometimes lose sight of it. It's not that simple because it takes a bigger picture than our individual opinions and it takes a lot of sociological understanding to get why it has to be that way. And even if one understands all of that, it can be hard to accept because there are many ways that just sucks.

So if you aren't giving yourself too much credit, allow me to assure you that you are at least giving me too much credit, and a lot of very intelligent people I know can't always keep the issues separate when emotions run high.

Quote:

Attorneys choose their area's of focus, and good ones can be damn selective about it. I've made it abundantly clear that I think Edwards is an extraordinary attorney. I've also made it abundantly clear that I think he's a scumbag for what he chose to do with that talent. I could just about care less if that's too difficult for you to understand.

I understand what your position is, and it's not even that difficult given your tenacity in expressing it but I don't agree.

I think it's an integral part of the justice system to have all cases represented fairly. In a very pure fair ideal attorney's wouldn't even have a choice and all cases would be randomly assigned, but we sacrifice that for the attorney's rights to pursue happiness.

If all attorneys followed your line of thinking in order to not be scumbags we'd have no justice, and we'd be back to individuals arbitrarily deciding the merits of a case.

I think it's very important that good attorneys represent any case and I go so far as considering it their ethical obligation. I don't consider any of them scumbags for representing even the most opportunistic and deceptive cases because it is their job not to make those decisions.

That's why I don't think criminal attorneys are all scumbags, they choose to represent people who are, in large part, reprehensible (hey, they could all choose to be corporate lawyers and represent a less criminal demographic). But it's essential to achieve justice that they do so blindly.

It does not fall on any one man's shoulders to determine right and wrong within the legal system. We on the sidelines have this luxury as a matter of opinion, but I think it's important to recognize that those in the legal system should not. In a perfect world, he'd never even try to think for himself about the moral issues underlying a case and just do his job to the best of his ability. And in a perfect world it would be as obvious to his critics that he has no business doing so. Based on your commentary, I don't think it's as obvious, even to you, as you make it out to be.

0 Replies

Robert, you have my apology for answering in such an insulting tone. Farmerman's senseless comments about Limbeau and being spoon-fed news-clips, despite the fact that I have provided 3 different, non conservative sources for my information... that he didn't even have the decency to read before taking sides insultingly (and since it is he who clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about), got me riled.

For clarification: your valid points were brought up by Deb a couple pages ago and answered in this post. Specifically:

Quote:

dlowan wrote:

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?
I do not. On that same point; I recognize the need for attorneys to do their very best at defending the very worst of humanity in order for our system to be considered reasonably just. In civil law; I similiarly recognize the need for attorneys to do their very best by their clients. This doesn't mean that I have to approve of the people who choose to do so (let alone want them to be my next president).

dlowan wrote:
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.
Edwards has done his job legally and extraordinarily well. I hold him in disdain for choosing to do so. His disregard of well-meaning, innocent doctors most certainly provides a personal ick factor. One that I think will be shared by other readers, whose attention is drawn to the facts. I have no illusion that "I can convince all of the people" to agree. My work will not be fruitless if some do... even incrementally.

At one point it was legal to own slaves. I hold those who did in no less disdain because of this. Legality has nothing to do with it.

Allow me to change idiotic to idealistic: It is an idealistic notion that Attorney's don't or shouldn't have opinions of their own. I know several, but none who would sink to Edwards level, even if they did have his talent for doing so. Now, in an ideal world; that may make them lesser attorneys. But in any world; it makes them better suited to be my next president, IMHO. Get it?
Edwards was handed his first case; and very shortly their after became a force to be reckoned with, who could choose his own way. He chose 20+ times to exploit the tragedy of CP against what half (in the beginning, FM), leading to a hell of a lot more than half of the experts considered a faulty premise. We can now see it was utter nonsense; but the Edwards strategy is still working (at least as of 2004, it was Rolling Eyes

). Everyone who read the materials I provided; also read that Edwards was VERY selective. Once this is considered; your more idealistic notions fall flat.

From that same exchange with Deb:

Quote:

dlowan wrote:
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.
Agreed and agreed. I'm not ready to endorse any particular change in the system; but I'll continue to hold in disdain those who choose to exploit the weaknesses in this one (by maligning and extorting other innocents) for personal profit. I won't hold the suffering parents at fault for wanting to blame someone; but I'll damn sure do so to the ambulance chasing scumbag that parasitically exploits their tragedy.

It seems that at least the two of us agree that our jury system has trouble dealing with this kind of case. Guys like Edwards feed off this weakness, rather than the strength of the available science.

Even the very first judge on one of these Doc caused CP-dog and pony shows overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," wiki

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Robert, you have my apology for answering in such an insulting tone. Farmerman's senseless comments about Limbeau and being spoon-fed news-clips, despite the fact that I have provided 3 different, non conservative sources for my information... that he didn't even have the decency to read before taking sides insultingly (and since it is he who clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about), got me riled.

For clarification: your valid points were brought up by Deb a couple pages ago and answered in this post. Specifically:

Quote:
dlowan wrote:

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?
I do not. On that same point; I recognize the need for attorneys to do their very best at defending the very worst of humanity in order for our system to be considered reasonably just. In civil law; I similiarly recognize the need for attorneys to do their very best by their clients. This doesn't mean that I have to approve of the people who choose to do so (let alone want them to be my next president).

dlowan wrote:
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.
Edwards has done his job legally and extraordinarily well. I hold him in disdain for choosing to do so. His disregard of well-meaning, innocent doctors most certainly provides a personal ick factor. One that I think will be shared by other readers, whose attention is drawn to the facts. I have no illusion that "I can convince all of the people" to agree. My work will not be fruitless if some do... even incrementally.

At one point it was legal to own slaves. I hold those who did in no less disdain because of this. Legality has nothing to do with it.

Allow me to change idiotic to idealistic: It is an idealistic notion that Attorney's don't or shouldn't have opinions of their own. I know several, but none who would sink to Edwards level, even if they did have his talent for doing so. Now, in an ideal world; that may make them lesser attorneys. But in any world; it makes them better suited to be my next president, IMHO. Get it?
Edwards was handed his first case; and very shortly their after became a force to be reckoned with, who could choose his own way. He chose 20+ times to exploit the tragedy of CP against what half (in the beginning, FM), leading to a hell of a lot more than half of the experts considered a faulty premise. We can now see it was utter nonsense; but the Edwards strategy is still working (at least as of 2004, it was ). Everyone who read the materials I provided; also read that Edwards was VERY selective. Once this is considered; your more idealistic notions fall flat.

From that same exchange with Deb:

Quote:
dlowan wrote:
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.
Agreed and agreed. I'm not ready to endorse any particular change in the system; but I'll continue to hold in disdain those who choose to exploit the weaknesses in this one (by maligning and extorting other innocents) for personal profit. I won't hold the suffering parents at fault for wanting to blame someone; but I'll damn sure do so to the ambulance chasing scumbag that parasitically exploits their tragedy.
It seems that at least the two of us agree that our jury system has trouble dealing with this kind of case. Guys like Edwards feed off this weakness, rather than the strength of the available science.

Even the very first judge on one of these Doc caused CP-dog and pony shows overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," wiki

By "answered" did you mean rebutted?

If so, I did not consider my points to have been answered in that sense, though they were certainly answered in the sense of being responded to.

I just decided that you were doing personal "ick", and that no discussion was going to make any difference.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

By "answered" did you mean rebutted?

If so, I did not consider my points to have been answered in that sense, though they were certainly answered in the sense of being responded to.

I just decided that you were doing personal "ick", and that no discussion was going to make any difference.

I answered you as honestly as I could. If you wanted something different; I don't know what.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Robert, you have my apology for answering in such an insulting tone.

No worries buddy.

Quote:

It is an idealistic notion that Attorney's don't or shouldn't have opinions of their own.

I think it's outright idiotic to think that they don't but I don't think it's that inordinately idealistic to think that they shouldn't. I think that the ideal of a fair justice system is prejudiced, in a very literal sense, the more individuals within said system allow their own opinions to influence matters.

A very good attorney who chooses to represent cases he agrees with slightly prejudices the system by doing so. I completely understand and respect the motivations of those who do so and if I were an attorney I would probably be perfectly willing to accept the guilt of doing so in order to escape the personal discomfort I'd feel from performing in my legal ideal but I'd not think less of those who do, as they are taught to be blind for an ideal of justice.

Quote:

I know several, but none who would sink to Edwards level, even if they did have his talent for doing so. Now, in an ideal world; that may make them lesser attorneys. But in any world; it makes them better suited to be my next president, IMHO. Get it?

Yeah I do. I thought it over carefully and the exact way I condensed your position in my mind was that "Bill understands that the system needs people to play that role and trusts that a lower echelon (morally) of individual is what society relies on to fill that role. Bill also makes the legitimate point that while he can accept those people in society he doesn't have to accept them as the leader of the society."

I may have some of it wrong in places, I didn't read every of your posts on the issue but if that's the nuts and bolts of how you feel on this I think it's very reasonable, and it made me think it over hard.

I do actually think that's the way things tend to be, and the more idealistic attorneys will make some form of prejudice in cases they choose to represent. I think they take an even larger prejudice in the cases they represent in terms of whether they think it will be profitable for them, both financially and otherwise as well (e.g. they may take easy winnable cases over very legitimate harder cases).

And I think all of this prejudices the system, and makes it harder for someone with a less obvious moral case to get their own bit of justice. Someone who holds that blind ideal very highly may choose to represent the cases despite their own feelings of its merits and may not be a scumbag. And that's the crux of what I disagree with you on.

Just because someone did that job doesn't mean they had the moral deficiency you are saying. "Scumbag" is pretty strong. It's entirely possible that he was naively idealistic about the justice system (as you claim I am), or that he himself was inordinately swayed by the emotions of the case (the one I think is likely).

Of course it's also possible that his primary motivation was greed, but I don't think you've given nearly enough information to establish that strong of a case for his motivations to make that damning a critique of his character. I like your reasoning in that if at least 50 percent of the field's experts support their colleague's actions a strong case can be made that it's morally wrong to hold them liable. But that many experts disagree then it's entirely conceivable that a non-expert would as well and is fighting for what he believes in.

In short, another option is that he believed the science he preached and used his reportedly formidable arsenal of talent to fight for it.

So in only a little bit of time I came up with several perfectly acceptable reasons Edwards took cases like that:

- Believed in them, wrongly as did the juries and many experts at times.
- Got carried away with the emotional appeal of the cases as did the juries at times.
- Or he holds a blind ideal to the justice system and is just inordinately idealistic about it.

Perhaps it is a combination of all these and other factors, I just don't know. The fact that he chooses public office doesn't seem to support a very greedy kind of man and I just can't agree with you that he's a scumbag. It's just too absolute and simple for such a nuanced set of possibilities for me to be as sure about as you are. I certainly admit that he may well be a scumbag, and even if he isn't it's entirely reasonable for you to consider someone who you feel had erred so to be unfit for the position of President. But I just don't think it's fair for you to be so sure he's a scumbag.

Quote:

It seems that at least the two of us agree that our jury system has trouble dealing with this kind of case. Guys like Edwards feed off this weakness, rather than the strength of the available science.

Even the very first judge on one of these Doc caused CP-dog and pony shows overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," wiki

Yeah, my problem with a jury system is that many humans make mistakes and aren't as smart as you or I, or as perfectly capable of emotional control to make the right decisions (I'm being sarcastic, we are dumb as rocks and over-emotional). But maybe he too was guilty of only being as wrong as the juries.

Anywho, that's a perfect reason to not be president if you feel that way. I'm not even convinced the cases were as appalling as you make them out to be though, and even less so that this is as clear cut of a case of him being a scumbag.

0 Replies

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert, you have my apology for answering in such an insulting tone. Farmerman's senseless comments about Limbeau and being spoon-fed news-clips, despite the fact that I have provided 3 different, non conservative sources for my information... that he didn't even have the decency to read before taking sides insultingly (and since it is he who clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about), got me riled.

Now Im senseless and you wish people to apologize for arguing from their side of the fence (Im sorry I dont buy your logic). I believe youre a little too wound up on this because youre being purposely obtuse. You have lawsuits everyday where a cause celebre is adjuticated and the science isnt overwhelming (smoking cases went against plaintiffs dor years until the 90's, environmental cases were split on SUperfund issues for decades)(IT took special legislation in several states to define joint and several issues). None of this has any bearing on whether a case is VALID AND TRIABLE or not. Id be willing to let one of our REAL attorneys chime in and Id stand by that in the Edwards cases.

yOU CONFUSE AN ATTORNIES JOB WITH HIS ABILITY TO LEAD. Ya think that someone like Edwards would be any more immoral in his deception of the US public and the world as our present White House resident? I think Edwards would bring a breeze into the Executive Branch to remove the present fetid stench of deceit, payoffs, and lies(but thats me)

This thread is about CIGNA and Ive left a turd in the road to be discussed . I wonder what kicky"s response to it is?

PS , if youd read youd have seen that I never accused you of being a Limbaugh foillower, I stated that your position and his are vaguely similar. Maybe you both use the same clipping services or google alerts

0 Replies

Uh-oh. My health insurance is CIGNA (International).

0 Replies

Wowza.

I was going to say something about how remarkable it was to find, on one page, O'Bill praising a Michael Moore movie and Brandon (!) praising Edwards. Gave me a good Xmas feeling that.

But that was just page 1 of the thread... :wink:

I also think with O'Bill and Edwards it's a visceral thing, and as such a priori impossible to reason with. I mean, there's a lot of reasoning and quoting going on, but the underlying fire seems to me purely visceral, and will win out over any argument. Depending on how long the primaries last and who wins them, we should see a repeat of this thread a bunch of times..

But the numbers and unanimity of the responses to the "Edwards Scumbag" trope have been heartening Cool

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dlowan wrote:
By "answered" did you mean rebutted?

If so, I did not consider my points to have been answered in that sense, though they were certainly answered in the sense of being responded to.

I just decided that you were doing personal "ick", and that no discussion was going to make any difference.
I answered you as honestly as I could. If you wanted something different; I don't know what.

Sure...you responded with your answer.

I am just not sure your answers really make rational sense, but decided, since you felt so strongly and just kept coming back with various versions of scumbag and other very emotive stuff, it wouldn't be worth discussing further, as you were just going to keep saying the same thing.

As a matter of fact, I am very interested in the area of what ethical lawyers can and cannot do in court, and have had very long and interesting discussions with them about this...sometimes extremely passionate ones. I would be interested in another sensible one, but my sense was that I was not going to have it with you.

I think the interesting stuff is, eg., about when they are consciously presenting a case they "know" to be untrue in court, (they are actually ethically not allowed to tell conscious lies) and what are the criteria for "knowing" in the legal sense...given that they are NOT to be judge and jury.

I know lawyers who will very ably defend very unsavoury people who have done awful things, but will not use in their defence certain tactics or say anything they know to be untrue.

I also know many lawyers who will use any tactic, including lies they think they can get away with, and I consider them ethically at fault.

To a foreign eye, US lawyers seem more prone to use very emotive and hokey tactics...or at least some of them do.......and I likely have a culturally based strong ick factor re this. I found the baby stuff "ick"...but I think it an exaggeration to call it baby channelling.

As far as I can see, medical opinion was divided re the birth damage stuff, and I think you rail too strongly against Edwards re this...this is despite my watching with some despair as Oz follows the US down a line of what I consider to be ridiculous litigousness (in fact, I see the apparent knee-jerk reaction I see amongst many Americans that, if something awful has happened, it must be someone's fault, and someone must be sued, as the US version of what some of you decry as the "nanny-state"...but I digress).

As I read Edwards' comments re his cherry-picking cases, he was saying that they were cases he considered to be genuine malpractice.

I have also heard very genuinely ethical legal folk arguing against any measure which takes away people's right to sue, or limiting damages which are achievable (which I understand was what the bill Edwards and others were arguing against proposed..I may be wrong) so I do not consider his opposing that bill as a slam-dunk proof that his intention was simply to keep the malpractice gravy train rolling.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Wowza.

I was going to say something about how remarkable it was to find, on one page, O'Bill praising a Michael Moore movie and Brandon (!) praising Edwards. Gave me a good Xmas feeling that.

But that was just page 1 of the thread... :wink:

I also think with O'Bill and Edwards it's a visceral thing, and as such a priori impossible to reason with. I mean, there's a lot of reasoning and quoting going on, but the underlying fire seems to me purely visceral, and will win out over any argument. Depending on how long the primaries last and who wins them, we should see a repeat of this thread a bunch of times..

But the numbers and unanimity of the responses to the "Edwards Scumbag" trope have been heartening

Er.....I am having a dumb moment....are you saying you are happy to see folk questioning Bill's invective, or the opposite?????

I think the former, but I am not absolutely sure.

0 Replies

Thank you for a very well thought out response. I'd say your synopsis of my position is fairly spot on:

Quote:

"Bill understands that the system needs people to play that role and trusts that a lower echelon (morally) of individual is what society relies on to fill that role. Bill also makes the legitimate point that while he can accept those people in society he doesn't have to accept them as the leader of the society."

Quote:

I may have some of it wrong in places, I didn't read every of your posts on the issue but if that's the nuts and bolts of how you feel on this I think it's very reasonable, and it made me think it over hard.

I strongly suspect, the more carefully you examine the links I provided, the more clear my case becomes.

For instance: It was 50/50 difference of opinion by experts in the field at the time he started. A decade later, he was still riding that cash-cow despite an ever increasing knowledge that he was selling hot air. A decade after that, when a 35 year increase from 6% cesarean births to 24% still hadn't reduced the CP incidence one iota; he still defends it like he was correct the whole time. How can this be explained? Surely, while handling 20+ cases he did at least as much homework as I did? He's clearly brilliant; so it isn't stupidity? By now; he must know the truth.
The windfall of cases that he pioneered has resulted in billions in what amounts to frivolous lawsuits. Further; he doesn't deny these lawsuits increased the frequency of cesarean births (which are more dangerous). He hasn't apologized for vilifying his own victims (the doctors themselves). And you suspect this may be the work of an idealist?

Quote:

Someone who holds that blind ideal very highly may choose to represent the cases despite their own feelings of its merits and may not be a scumbag. And that's the crux of what I disagree with you on.

Well sure, he may do that at random... but would he specialize in it and take 20+ cases with the same questionable science, earning many millions out of a sense of idealism or duty? That's stretching pretty badly, no?

Quote:

Someone who holds that blind ideal very highly may choose to represent the cases despite their own feelings of its merits and may not be a scumbag. And that's the crux of what I disagree with you on.

As I stated earlier; that is possible that it started out that way. But a decade and 20+ cases, while his pool of potential friendly experts continuously shrinks; you still think that's likely?

Quote:

Of course it's also possible that his primary motivation was greed, but I don't think you've given nearly enough information to establish that strong of a case for his motivations to make that damning a critique of his character. I like your reasoning in that if at least 50 percent of the field's experts support their colleague's actions a strong case can be made that it's morally wrong to hold them liable. But that many experts disagree then it's entirely conceivable that a non-expert would as well and is fighting for what he believes in.

At first, perhaps... but for how long?

Quote:

In short, another option is that he believed the science he preached and used his reportedly formidable arsenal of talent to fight for it.

So in only a little bit of time I came up with several perfectly acceptable reasons Edwards took cases like that:

- Believed in them, wrongly as did the juries and many experts at times.

Possible in 85. Damn near impossible by 95.

Quote:

- Got carried away with the emotional appeal of the cases as did the juries at times.

20+ times as his science swirls in the toilet? Pretty tough sell.

Quote:

- Or he holds a blind ideal to the justice system and is just inordinately idealistic about it.

20+ time on the same million dollar show... but for idealistic duty?

Quote:

Perhaps it is a combination of all these and other factors, I just don't know. The fact that he chooses public office doesn't seem to support a very greedy kind of man and I just can't agree with you that he's a scumbag.

Have you ever heard of a poor ex-President. Can you imagine what his speaking fees would be in retirement, what with that much talent AND that kind of resume. He could meet or beat Clinton.

Quote:

It's just too absolute and simple for such a nuanced set of possibilities for me to be as sure about as you are. I certainly admit that he may well be a scumbag, and even if he isn't it's entirely reasonable for you to consider someone who you feel had erred so to be unfit for the position of President. But I just don't think it's fair for you to be so sure he's a scumbag.

I don't choose to be so certain. It is the product of analysis. I can tell you it isn't political... because the way the polls looked last time I looked; I'd be voting Obama were the election held tomorrow.

Quote:

Yeah, my problem with a jury system is that many humans make mistakes and aren't as smart as you or I, or as perfectly capable of emotional control to make the right decisions (I'm being sarcastic, we are dumb as rocks and over-emotional). But maybe he too was guilty of only being as wrong as the juries.

He could have started that way; but I even doubt that. 50/50 would not compel any reasonable Judge who was experienced at keeping his/her emotions in check. And every case after the first; the evidence was pointed more towards his science being nonsense.

Quote:

Anywho, that's a perfect reason to not be president if you feel that way. I'm not even convinced the cases were as appalling as you make them out to be though, and even less so that this is as clear cut of a case of him being a scumbag.

I can only encourage you to read more about it. I've now referenced 4 different, non-conservative (as in non-political enemy) sites that paint the picture only to clearly, for anyone who wants to check it out.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

PS , if youd read youd have seen that I never accused you of being a Limbaugh foillower, I stated that your position and his are vaguely similar. Maybe you both use the same clipping services or google alerts

Read your latest complaint at the top of your post, and then review your accusation that I called you, rather than your comments, senseless. Yes Farmerman; they are. Thus far, only Free and myself have provided any source material whatsoever... and you only recently figured out when the 50/50 mark was met (opening day, just in case you still haven't. I like you dude; but you are instinctually arguing on this one, and from ignorance at that. I don't object to your disagreement with my positions. I object to your false charges, and defenses of things you haven't even bothered to read.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Wowza.

I was going to say something about how remarkable it was to find, on one page, O'Bill praising a Michael Moore movie and Brandon (!) praising Edwards. Gave me a good Xmas feeling that.

But that was just page 1 of the thread... :wink:

I also think with O'Bill and Edwards it's a visceral thing, and as such a priori impossible to reason with. I mean, there's a lot of reasoning and quoting going on, but the underlying fire seems to me purely visceral, and will win out over any argument. Depending on how long the primaries last and who wins them, we should see a repeat of this thread a bunch of times..

But the numbers and unanimity of the responses to the "Edwards Scumbag" trope have been heartening

I considered apologizing to you right as I posted my initial rant, but I didn't want it to seem baiting. Yes, you can look forward to me doing my part to shove Edwards behind Obama and Hillary, where I feel very strongly he belongs.

0 Replies

Quote:

ridiculous litigousness

I love it. I'm hesitant to limit liability myself, as it disturbs me to think of a manufacturer or insurer (like CIGNA), for instance, figuring a certain number of deaths costs X, and fixing the product would cost more... which is certainly common enough already. At the same time; I read experts are split 50/50 and the jury awarded $6,500,000 and my mind screams foul! This means, with a talented enough attorney, like Edwards: the Doctors who deliver CP babies through Cesarean could be proven liable for some shaky causal link just as easy. And if this is so; then obviously neither should. (As that causal link evaporated and the story didn't change; I freely admit it drives me bonkers.) There does need to be some change, some oversight that overrules awards that are clearly ridiculous appeals to emotion. But I sure don't know what it is.

0 Replies

Experience, in this arena carries as much weight as a posted link, (which implies a secondary source and therefore an imperfect understanding of the nuance). Ill put my experience and working within the legal system in several states and would be, if called to the mat, valid evidence.
Youve somehow made the connection of Edwareds character with his experience as a "hired advocate". (Jack Nickolson was actually only playing a deranged writer in "The SHining") Very Happy

We have a majority of our legislators from the legal industry and many have been trial advocates for or against industry. SInce Edwards has been elected Senator his record had been admirable as a rep of his constituents.

Last point on this Edwards thingy. The 1997 case involved an associated skull fracture with hypoxia as a modifier. It wasnt a matter that Edwards was beating a dead horse, he was pressing a case against a hospital whose staff brain injured a child and substantially decreased its quality of life. (The skull fracture and hypoxia). Ive been looking at your charges of channeling a dead baby. In all cases, the lawyer must speak for a deceased or severely retarded injured party. Using the technique of personalizing the victim as "I" doesnt constitute "channeling" . I wonder whether I were to google the term "channeling the dead baby" , what fellow traveler sites Id come up with??maybe Limbaugh?? or Hannity??

Also your (OB's) insistance that the moving of science to a position that now recognizes that only 10% of the hypoxia results are induced by poor pre natal action actually has actually increased the settlements into this millenium. (The relationship that you tout seems to be counter intuitive re: the number of larger settlements and verdicts.) Look at thisNORTH CAROLINA LAWYERS WEEKLY.

However, in the CIGNA case , weve not even touched the issue of the girls pre-existing leukemia affecting the decision re her liver transplant. Im willing to have my mind changed on this because that was a later revelation in my travels through this case.

0 Replies

CIGNA HealthCare Murders Teenage Girl

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know