Ladies and gentlemen...John Edwards
- Thread starter Big Ruger
- Start date
Fred Hansen
New member
He just wants doctors to do fetal stem cell research so he can "channel" the aborted fetus to a jury of - if you can believe this - my peers who will hand the supposed agrieved party a giant bag of cash.
I hope he rots in hell right next to John "Victor Charlie" Kerry.
I hope he rots in hell right next to John "Victor Charlie" Kerry.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
jefnvk - Just to show you how absurd it is - Edwards made that statement at least a day after Christopher Reeve died! 
Fred Hansen
New member
Maybe "Victor Charlie" plans on raising the dead as well. One never knows, does one??? :barf:
FirstFreedom
Moderator
On-Topic: Well, that POS Reeves badmouthed the NRA at every opportunity - good riddance I say!
Off-Topic: BTW, I'm strongly, wholeheartedly in favor of stem cell research, for disease-cure purposes, yes from fetuses, who are already DEAD mind you. Mr. Reeves did good by championing that worthy cause, but I still hated him for badmouthing law abiding, upstanding gun owners such as myself.
On-Topic: Edwards is anti-freedom piece of work.
Off-Topic: But the 7th amendment right to a trial by jury is one of the last bastions of power we the PEOPLE have to hold gov't and corporate tyranny and harmful actions in check, and should not be abridged in any way, shape, or form, other than the already perfectly-adequately-performing appellate review process, which is quite strict on punitive damage awards, by the way, contrary to what the Repub corporate whores would have you believe. It should not be curtailed any more than the second amendment should be curtailed. Let's do a Conan O'Brien SAT test example:
"Assault Weapons Ban" is to "Homeland Defense Rifle ban"
AS
"Tort Reform" is to ?
A: "Free gift to government and corporate corruption and greed, by giving up our power as the PEOPLE to sit on juries and make proper, carefully-considered damage awards for people who have been maimed, mangled, killed, crippled, and otherwise seriously, grieviously injured by the intentional and negligent acts of corporations and doctors".
Off-Topic: BTW, I'm strongly, wholeheartedly in favor of stem cell research, for disease-cure purposes, yes from fetuses, who are already DEAD mind you. Mr. Reeves did good by championing that worthy cause, but I still hated him for badmouthing law abiding, upstanding gun owners such as myself.
On-Topic: Edwards is anti-freedom piece of work.
Off-Topic: But the 7th amendment right to a trial by jury is one of the last bastions of power we the PEOPLE have to hold gov't and corporate tyranny and harmful actions in check, and should not be abridged in any way, shape, or form, other than the already perfectly-adequately-performing appellate review process, which is quite strict on punitive damage awards, by the way, contrary to what the Repub corporate whores would have you believe. It should not be curtailed any more than the second amendment should be curtailed. Let's do a Conan O'Brien SAT test example:
"Assault Weapons Ban" is to "Homeland Defense Rifle ban"
AS
"Tort Reform" is to ?
A: "Free gift to government and corporate corruption and greed, by giving up our power as the PEOPLE to sit on juries and make proper, carefully-considered damage awards for people who have been maimed, mangled, killed, crippled, and otherwise seriously, grieviously injured by the intentional and negligent acts of corporations and doctors".
FirstFreedom...
Sit in the jury on a tort case some time. I am not sure about med malpractice but I sat on a case where a grossly overweight (300#+ I would guess on a ~5'7" frame) lady twisted her ankle on a crack in the alley pavement behind a store (Big 5 SG in Inglewood, Calif). Waited years to sue and did on the grounds that it caused her arthritic ankle. Award was $1M. I was one of the dissenters. Why are our insurance prems so high? Ever hear of the Trevor Law Group? Using whistleblower laws in my state to shakedown small businesses for 10's of thousands each, naming hundreds of defendents (small biz owners) in a single lawsuit and suing them all (without an aggrieved party) for whatever minor infraction - signage, aisle width, whatever - and telling them they can buy their way out for a few thou. Been going on for years. Partisans using the lawsuit to attack gunmakers for the crimes committed by lawbreakers is yet another example. Doctors facing $100k insurance premiums before starting a practice. Ruminate before you pontificate please!
Sit in the jury on a tort case some time. I am not sure about med malpractice but I sat on a case where a grossly overweight (300#+ I would guess on a ~5'7" frame) lady twisted her ankle on a crack in the alley pavement behind a store (Big 5 SG in Inglewood, Calif). Waited years to sue and did on the grounds that it caused her arthritic ankle. Award was $1M. I was one of the dissenters. Why are our insurance prems so high? Ever hear of the Trevor Law Group? Using whistleblower laws in my state to shakedown small businesses for 10's of thousands each, naming hundreds of defendents (small biz owners) in a single lawsuit and suing them all (without an aggrieved party) for whatever minor infraction - signage, aisle width, whatever - and telling them they can buy their way out for a few thou. Been going on for years. Partisans using the lawsuit to attack gunmakers for the crimes committed by lawbreakers is yet another example. Doctors facing $100k insurance premiums before starting a practice. Ruminate before you pontificate please!
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I've ruminated plenty, and know of what I speak. Tell me what happened on appeal in that case please, then we can talk about that.
If you give away the right of the people to retain the JURY power over gov't and corporations by supporting so-called "tort reform", you are as ignorant as those who give away power and right to keep and bear arms by supporting so-called "gun control". There's no way to candy-coat it - that's a fact (though an off-topic fact). Doctors wouldn't face such high premiums if they didn't KILL many more people through medical mistakes than guns "kill" by a wide margin. And I don't know of a single doctor that is unable to eek out a living due to malpractice insurance costs. I do know of several people who can't work, support themselves and pay for their food, utilities, medication, and rehabilitation costs because of an injury caused by someone else's negligence, where there was no insurance or not enough insurance or a hit and run driver. And if you don't want to comply with the ADA by making your aisles wide enough, then lobby to repeal that law, or be prepared to face the music by paying for your infractions of the LAW. And BTW, THAT ain't got nuttin to do with the JURY power, which is what so-called "tort reform" wants to do away with - the power of the PEOPLE - the jury - to make a decision based on the EVIDENCE presented and the degree of negligence, and the amount of harm to the injured party as a result of that negligence. Don't confuse jury power abridgement with simple lawsuits for a law violation which don't go to a jury to decide. The tort reform wants to set a limit on damage awards. If you're mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son was killed, cut down in the prime of life, by a repeat offender drunk driver in the employ of a fortune 500 company (during the course of his duties), and the company KNEW of his multiple drunk driving priors, and hired him anyway, and the jury decided that your family's compensatory damages were 10 million as a result, would YOU think it's OK for the law, through an arbitrarily-reached limit in the statute, to limit those damages to 1 million or 500K, despite what the jury found were the actuals, based on unfulfilled expected life span, etc? If so, then by all means support it, because that is what tort reform is all about. Or, you can substitute a doctor that kills your loved one through clear negligence, a clear failure to follow the standard of care, you name it. It's a pure-dee gift to the LARGEST of corporations - this is so since punitive damage awards are ALREADY, and have been for many decades, based on the ACTUAL WEALTH of the defendant, which is a self-correcting mechanism, to keep the award amounts commensurate with the defendant's ability to pay them, to keep from bankrupting them. Furthermore, punitive damage awards are ONLY awarded when the defendant's conduct was either intentional or GROSSLY negligent (reckless disregard for safety of the plaintiff). Furthermore, both compensatory and punitive damage awards are ALREADY subject to STRICT appellate review for reasonableness, under well-settled law, or they're overturned - this is a check on the jury power - and an often-used and very good check. When politicians start talking about tort reform, you should be very afraid, because that's the first step down the slippery slope to taking away the jury power altogether, then nothing is left to hold in check the power of the politicians/gov't and the corporations that often control them. It is you, and many like you, that swallow the repub BS mantra about "tort reform" hook, line, and sinker who should ruminate before you pontificate on the matter, thank you very much.
PS. And yes, the lawsuits against the gun industry are by and large complete BS. But notice two things (a) the plaintiffs haven't actually WON any, to my knowledge, on the MERITS of the case, upheld on appeal. In other words, there's no jury out there that has sided with the plaintiffs when an intervening 3rd party criminal used the gun in a criminal manner, and the plaintiff is trying to hold the manufacter/distributor/seller responsible, and later upheld, and (b) most importantly, it's perfectly reasonable, seems to me, to pass a narrowly-worded LAW that states the (seemingly) obvious - that flat-out, per se, it is CANNOT be negligence, by definition, to manuf/distribute/sell a gun, when that gun is later used in a crime, either under a nuisance theory, or a defective product theory. The law can be written and passed in such a way that it doesn't limit the AWARD AMOUNTS decided upon by a jury when a general negligence case (whether medical or otherwise) IS meritorious, and there WAS negligence. But to set a limit on the actuals or punitives where the case is meritorious is a frightening infringement of our 7th amendment power as the *people*. And BTW, any such law protecting the gun manufacturers most definitely should be done at the state level; not the federal level - the STATES have the right under our Const. to regulate torts, not the fedgov, with its limited, enumerate powers. I'll admit I wouldn't cry if they did it at the fed level, but that would be an improper infringement of the 10A.
If you give away the right of the people to retain the JURY power over gov't and corporations by supporting so-called "tort reform", you are as ignorant as those who give away power and right to keep and bear arms by supporting so-called "gun control". There's no way to candy-coat it - that's a fact (though an off-topic fact). Doctors wouldn't face such high premiums if they didn't KILL many more people through medical mistakes than guns "kill" by a wide margin. And I don't know of a single doctor that is unable to eek out a living due to malpractice insurance costs. I do know of several people who can't work, support themselves and pay for their food, utilities, medication, and rehabilitation costs because of an injury caused by someone else's negligence, where there was no insurance or not enough insurance or a hit and run driver. And if you don't want to comply with the ADA by making your aisles wide enough, then lobby to repeal that law, or be prepared to face the music by paying for your infractions of the LAW. And BTW, THAT ain't got nuttin to do with the JURY power, which is what so-called "tort reform" wants to do away with - the power of the PEOPLE - the jury - to make a decision based on the EVIDENCE presented and the degree of negligence, and the amount of harm to the injured party as a result of that negligence. Don't confuse jury power abridgement with simple lawsuits for a law violation which don't go to a jury to decide. The tort reform wants to set a limit on damage awards. If you're mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son was killed, cut down in the prime of life, by a repeat offender drunk driver in the employ of a fortune 500 company (during the course of his duties), and the company KNEW of his multiple drunk driving priors, and hired him anyway, and the jury decided that your family's compensatory damages were 10 million as a result, would YOU think it's OK for the law, through an arbitrarily-reached limit in the statute, to limit those damages to 1 million or 500K, despite what the jury found were the actuals, based on unfulfilled expected life span, etc? If so, then by all means support it, because that is what tort reform is all about. Or, you can substitute a doctor that kills your loved one through clear negligence, a clear failure to follow the standard of care, you name it. It's a pure-dee gift to the LARGEST of corporations - this is so since punitive damage awards are ALREADY, and have been for many decades, based on the ACTUAL WEALTH of the defendant, which is a self-correcting mechanism, to keep the award amounts commensurate with the defendant's ability to pay them, to keep from bankrupting them. Furthermore, punitive damage awards are ONLY awarded when the defendant's conduct was either intentional or GROSSLY negligent (reckless disregard for safety of the plaintiff). Furthermore, both compensatory and punitive damage awards are ALREADY subject to STRICT appellate review for reasonableness, under well-settled law, or they're overturned - this is a check on the jury power - and an often-used and very good check. When politicians start talking about tort reform, you should be very afraid, because that's the first step down the slippery slope to taking away the jury power altogether, then nothing is left to hold in check the power of the politicians/gov't and the corporations that often control them. It is you, and many like you, that swallow the repub BS mantra about "tort reform" hook, line, and sinker who should ruminate before you pontificate on the matter, thank you very much.
PS. And yes, the lawsuits against the gun industry are by and large complete BS. But notice two things (a) the plaintiffs haven't actually WON any, to my knowledge, on the MERITS of the case, upheld on appeal. In other words, there's no jury out there that has sided with the plaintiffs when an intervening 3rd party criminal used the gun in a criminal manner, and the plaintiff is trying to hold the manufacter/distributor/seller responsible, and later upheld, and (b) most importantly, it's perfectly reasonable, seems to me, to pass a narrowly-worded LAW that states the (seemingly) obvious - that flat-out, per se, it is CANNOT be negligence, by definition, to manuf/distribute/sell a gun, when that gun is later used in a crime, either under a nuisance theory, or a defective product theory. The law can be written and passed in such a way that it doesn't limit the AWARD AMOUNTS decided upon by a jury when a general negligence case (whether medical or otherwise) IS meritorious, and there WAS negligence. But to set a limit on the actuals or punitives where the case is meritorious is a frightening infringement of our 7th amendment power as the *people*. And BTW, any such law protecting the gun manufacturers most definitely should be done at the state level; not the federal level - the STATES have the right under our Const. to regulate torts, not the fedgov, with its limited, enumerate powers. I'll admit I wouldn't cry if they did it at the fed level, but that would be an improper infringement of the 10A.
Last edited:
Fred Hansen
New member
I guess it's all in how lawyers define "kill" and who swallows what they define. An example: Joe overeats his entire life. Joe never does anything more with his life but go to his do-nothing job, come home with a 12 pack (he'll need another one tomorrow), eat chips on the couch, and reach for the remote from time to time.
Next day on his way to the liquor store he keels over, and is rushed to the hospital. Four of his coronary arteries are blocked. Using heroic measures worthy of their own chapter in Moby Dick, the doctors slice through Joe's blubber to get to his hideously enlarged heart. Meanwhile a second surgical team has been arthroscopically harvesting a vein from one of Joe's tree-trunk legs. The doctors then by-pass all of Joe's original plumbing, and stitch the blubber shut. Two days later Joe suffers a pulmonary thrombosis and dies.
According to people like John Edwards (and you judging by your post) the doctors just killed Joe.
Doctors aren't magicians. Lots of people who see doctors are going to die. Most of them went to see the doctor in the first place because something was WRONG!!!
Is it sad that someone like Joe should die despite all of the technology that could have saved his life? Sure. It's also sad that there are so many people that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Sad that there are so many people that do so much of nothing all day that one could knock them over with a feather, much less a virus, or a bacterial infection. But tell me again how that is the fault of the doctors who see these losers after they are too far gone to help?
Or how about telling me how it is right that one of my best friends has to pay FOUR times what he paid for malpractice insurance than he did only a few years ago? While you are coming up with your argument please remember that this guy is one hell of a fine doctor who is routinely able to diagnose illnesses that elude his peers. The man has a mind like a steel trap, and he is neither flip with his patients, nor is he motivated by greed. In fact it could almost be said that he is naively altruistic. So much for the class envy factor.
If you think that somehow justice is being served by putting the life and livelyhood of a man that excelled in over 20 years of academic rigor, coupled with intensely disciplined practice of healing people who are on the edge of despair - by giving 12 people who think $25 bucks and a box lunch is a good deal - the power to determine his fate, then it is you who are deeply mistaken.
Ruminate all you like, but know that the system is nearly beyond help. People like my friend above - gifted though they are - should have the good sense to tell everyone to go screw themselves. Go back to putting bacon grease on 3rd degree burns, go back to putting a poultice on a suppurating wound. Then see if the likes of Johnny Boy Edwards will help you sue the pig farmer, or Granny Clampett after you are "killed" by the treatment.
Points taken and not once have I said anything about eliminating juries. The bar must be raised for what actually goes to court and limits on awards and attorney's incentives closely held. Juries should be held to at least the lowest standard of competence. though. Awards are made without serious regard for any real cause and effect. It's real easy to feel empathy for the injured against a faceless insurance company. Simple reality. Judges have agendas well beyond the letter of the law. Plenty of leeway in the written law for scoundrels to rob the people and stay within it. Just being thrown into the court system is a punishment. Small business owners and professionals having to respond to a baseless lawsuit face several thousands in fees for your precious attorneys. Into court makes it an easy $5k plus of course the time from legitimate pursuits. Often plaintiffs have various outfits which will run the case due to political agenda or on contingency. Judgements against those who brought the suits are often uncollectible. As far as doctors, many opt out of private care into HMOs or other large bargaining groups. I am far from convinced that malpractice litigation has more than a minimal effect on the quality of health care. Insurance companies operate on a cost plus profit basis. Balance the annual hundreds(?) of billions in liability insurance, court costs (and boy are those courts crowded) and attorney fees and the negative influence on society of litigation based business and life decisions against the actual good done by the outcome. Hard sell if you think about it. I'll bet for every case you name where someone received an objectively fair outcome under the present parameters you can match an injustice created. Hard to quantify, but anecdotally rampant thruout the world of the those who have actually used the system. Old joke amongst businesspeople is "If you haven't been sued you must not be doing much business". Businesses and lives are destroyed and innocent individuals bullied by frivolous lawsuits, unreal jury awards and individuals with sinister agendas using the written and case law in cunning and unscrupulous ways. All without much positive effect in the quest for justice. The guardians of the people are generally products of the system (lawyers and judges) and currently are tested more on their ability to appear pretty on camera or their glibness and less on the constitutionality of their proposed laws or their quest for an objective justice.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
No, that's a flat out LIE, Fred. I said "medical mistakes" - read my post - do you understand what negligence means? If you don't, then go read up my friend. That ain't a mistake (negligence). You're completely throwing up a red herring - taking a ludicrous example that would never result in a lawsuit because the standard of care was followed. You're completely missing the thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands of cases where the doctor SCREWS up, and screws up bad. You are completely and totally brainwashed by that BS you hear from the repubs it appears. Are you proud to be a ditto-head, constantly spewing out the lies? Your example is not anything that actually happens and results in a lawsuit. Such things are thrown out of court mucho pronto - that's the big lie propogated by the big business interests "tort-reformers" and their pol buddies - that such a thing would actually survive more than a couple weeks on the court docket - actually a lawyer would never take the case and file it - why in the hell would a lawyer throw money down the drain when it's not going to result in a recovery - believe you me, EVERY single medical malpractice case, no matter how meritorious, no matter how clear the negligence, is fought tooth and nail by the defendant, and most certainly will result in NO recovery whatsoever - no settlement - nothing - if there's no pretty clear basis for both negligence and causation. THAT'S the MAIN thing that keeps bad lawsuits out of court. That borders on a knowing lie. What you wrote demonstrates or at least implies that the standard of care was followed - which has nothing to do with a NEGLIGENCE case. Frankly, you guys just don't know what the hell you're talking about, because you believe the lies put forth by the repubs. Go practice law for awhile and find out how very hard it is to make even a meritorious lawsuit stick, then you might know enough to argue with me. Read MY example again - that's what really happens - so go answer the question I posed to Cal in that example - would YOU want the award limited in that example to you and your family - answer the question please Fred!
Cal, it's the SLIPPERY SLOPE, get it? You don't HAVE to say anything about eliminating juries, but that's what you're doing in the long run when the camel's nose in under the tent, going down the road to eliminating juries, by limiting the damage awards! Once you do that, which takes away their power, it's a short trip to eliminating their power. What you said is no different, fundamentally, than saying "I said nothing about banning guns; all I said is ban assault rifles, destructive devices, cop-killer ammo, and sniper rifles" - everyone who is familiar with how the history of the PEOPLE's rights' abridgement works, knows that these are steps down the slippery slope to a total ban. It's the exact same thing with taking away the jury power. When oh when will "conservatives" figure this out. You have enough brain power to understand and see gun control for what it really is; this is so analygous, it shouldn't be that hard to see. "Gun control" is about taking power away from the people, and vesting it back into the gov't. "Tort Reform" is about taking power away from the people, and vesting it back in the gov't and the large corporation; nothing less.
That's where you're just flat wrong! You're "betting" but you're imagining and relying on lies you've apparently heard from some "conservative" source. It's easily closer to 1,000 to 1, probably 10,000 to 1. You just don't know what you're talking about until you practice in it and see how difficult it is to prosecute successfully clearly meritorious cases. It would be more accurate to say that for every successful recovery in a meritorious medical negligence case, there's 1 injustice all right - that 1 injustice being someone else who was injured/maimed/killed by medical negligence and couldn't get their day in court because a slick defense attorney wrote a hellacious brief on summary judgment and the plaintiff's attorney didn't know what they're doing, so the plaintiff lives in pain the rest of their lives with no source of recovery - so guess what? Then YOU pay for their care ultimately, through gov't programs such as medicaid and social security instead of the responsible party - the doctors and hospitals, paying for their care!
Incicidentally, *I* personally have NO financial interest in any of this stuff - I practice in a completey unrelated area. But I've know and practiced with enough lawyers in those areas to know what I'm talking about. Come back after you've practiced law. Meantime, it's OT.
If the bar needs to be raised Cal, then the proper way of doing it is either (a) expanding and strengthening "Rule 11" sanctions, which punish plaintiffs and their attorney's with fines/sanctions for prosecuting non-meritorious cases (which by the way is already used extensively to do so), and/or (b) having the state legislature more accurately define what constitutes negligence in certain limited areas, or what DOESN'T amount to negligence. I'm even very scared of the latter because it too begins taking power from the hands of a jury. The Rule 11 strengthening is the best way, and various state legislatures fiddle with rule 11 and similar rules all the time, so there's already a mechanism in place to deal with bogus lawsuits. Actually, there are already SEVERAL well-worn mechanisms already in place to smack the plaintiff's and their lawyers when a bogus lawsuit is filed.
Fred Hansen
New member
If it was a "flat out LIE" John Edwards would be completely without a nickle to his name. John Edwards made his multi-millions suing on behalf of parents of children with cerebral palsy. He would sue the OB/GYNs that had the misfortune to deliver such afflicted children. Do you know what causes cerebral palsy? Because modern medical science sure doesn't yet. But somehow Johnny Boy got his clients big bucks. Gee, you think he blamed the child's affliction on "medical mistakes"? I'll bet he even trotted out "big business interests", and "faceless greedy HMOs" and spiced it up by just happening to mention that one of the doctors "has a nice car" to rile up the envy that scum like Edwards count on to get the big payoff. In at least one case he "channeled" the tortured inner musings of the child in question, and the jury bought his crap. where was your "standard of care" in that case?
In the example I gave, scumbags like Edwards would tell simpletons in the jury box that if only the doctors wouldacouldashoulakindasortamighta done something, then good ol' Joe wouldn't have been the "victim" of the mean ol' doctor's "medical mistakes".
In Edwards cases he took a terrible affliction that is visited upon children, and that has no known cause. It could be (in part or in whole) caused by a virus in the womb (one of the current theories) or it could be the result of drugs/drinking/poor health on the part of the parents, or it could just be that when the most sophisticated being in the known Universe is forming in the womb that bad juju occurs from time to time, and the end result is a child that will find life more difficult than most.
The days of judges having the guts to throw a case out because it has no merit are long gone. I saw one once when I was a kid, but they are as rare as hen's teeth today. The recent "under God" pledge case is a great example. The pukebag who brought that case had NO STANDING to bring it, and yet the case had to get all the way to the Supreme Court before being TOSSED OUT!!! That's a situation where a judge should have thrown the case out in the first 5 seconds of it having been brought. The father was not the custodial parent. The father did not have standing, and yet the case went forward.
So please, spare me your lectures about how cases tranpire in court. How they should transpire, and how they do transpire bear ZERO relationship to one another.
Hi FF, back again. My experience is first hand. I am not an attorney. I am just a little guy out there. Every business, professional and trade group has a legal arm out there beseeching the legal pros to change. Individually we don't have the time or funding to take on our congresscritters and get results. Even snakes like the Trevor Law Group - they can be googled - took an interest from some radio station types and alot of time confronting them and our guardians in the system to start to effect a change. They gave up their hard earned right to practice law rather than face the system they were gaming. You give me no standing to comment until I have practiced law? What an elitest. Get off the cell phone and listen to what is happening to the common man when you walk the halls of "justice". Slippery slopes go on both sides of the hill. All these "well worn" mechanisms for controlling legal abuses require time, money and shopping for a competent legal rep and sympathetic judge. Law is not an absolute. It varies widely from day to day and judge to judge. These are my words from my life experiences. As a legal pro you probably have never sat on a jury. They are vital, but the system is still badly flawed and needs work. My state is known for having some of the worst problems. Maybe you don't practice in California and things are better elsewhere.
I've heard of cases where lawyers shopped their cases around the country till they found a judge with a reputation as being "friendly" to large award type cases. Is this true? I also know that in cases where they think big money is involved trial lawyers take a huge percentage of the awards. Maybe if we just follow the libs own model and restrict the fees lawyers can charge in a given case we can make some progress. Nope then they would just seek bigger awards. This is JMHO, as I have no right to question or criticize the lawyers, never having practiced law myself.A curious stand to take, I wonder how lawyers justify suing doctors , having never practiced medicine themselves. E
BTW, I'm strongly, wholeheartedly in favor of stem cell research, for disease-cure purposes, yes from fetuses, who are already DEAD mind you.
Actually the embryos are still alive, otherwise the stem cells ripped out of them wouldn't be endlessly replicating.
If it was a sure-fire cure for spinal-cord injury, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's to eat the warm, beating heart of a virgin child, would you still be wholeheartedly in favor of it?
Or is it the sterility and scientificness of the petri dish where the dismemberment of the living human organism takes place, instead of high atop a stepped pyramid on a stone altar, which makes it acceptable?
I thought human sacrifice went out with the Aztecs, cannibalism went out with the Pygmy tribes, and the slaughter of human subjects for the sake of medical breakthroughs went out with the Nazis. I guess I was wrong, because here we have it, in the 21st Century. Where's my space hotel? Where's my moonbase?
Any civilization that fails to protect its future generations, and uses them instead as meat to stave off its hunger for slightly longer life, cannot long endure.
Actually the embryos are still alive, otherwise the stem cells ripped out of them wouldn't be endlessly replicating.
If it was a sure-fire cure for spinal-cord injury, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's to eat the warm, beating heart of a virgin child, would you still be wholeheartedly in favor of it?
Or is it the sterility and scientificness of the petri dish where the dismemberment of the living human organism takes place, instead of high atop a stepped pyramid on a stone altar, which makes it acceptable?
I thought human sacrifice went out with the Aztecs, cannibalism went out with the Pygmy tribes, and the slaughter of human subjects for the sake of medical breakthroughs went out with the Nazis. I guess I was wrong, because here we have it, in the 21st Century. Where's my space hotel? Where's my moonbase?
Any civilization that fails to protect its future generations, and uses them instead as meat to stave off its hunger for slightly longer life, cannot long endure.
Fred Hansen
New member
Or we could implement tort reform which would mean that the injured party would recieve perhaps as much as 500,000 for their pain and suffering and be able to collect every penny of actual medical costs associated with their condition. Thus removing the incentive for scumbag lawyers to hire quacks to give "professional" testimony as to what constitutes "standard of care" to twelve chuckleheads who can't even figure out how to switch out a set of windshield wipers, much less determine what may or may not cause a coronary thrombosis.
Instead it's considered justice to have doctors with no malpractice claims against them pay 4 times what they used to pay for insurance.
Worse still are the people who can't figure out that those costs simply get passed on to the patient until the patient can no longer afford to go to a doctor in the first place.
Personally I would like to be able to sign a waiver at the doctor's office that says I do not hold him/her responsible for what is in the end my responsibility. It's up to me to stay healthy in the first place. It's up to me to realize that I am mortal, and that bad things may in fact befall me that are no one's fault in particular. It's up to me to choose the physician I go to wisely. And I don't deserve a giant bag of cash simply because the person who treated me has a house that is nicer than mine.
If the doctor can help me get better, fine. If not, not. I only ask for, and expect, competent care, not miracles. Competent care would be easily affordable.