• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Edwards' malpractice suits

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IMHO:
1) Trial lawyers get too much money in medmal suits.
2) Hospitals/physicians occasionally fail the basic moral duty "to do no harm" and then often compound that lapse by failing to take responsiblity.
3) Despite claims to the contrary, neither trial lawyers nor hospitals/physicians truly act as if "patient care" or "patient rights" is their primary concern in this debate.
4) Politicians are responding to respective lobbies . . . not the needs of society.
5) Patients often have unrealistic expectations due to 1) poor physician communication, 2) poor patient knowledge/communication (you people lie a lot), and 3) sensationalist media.
 
BBD -- You'd be more accurate if you qualify every one of your points by starting each sentence with the word, SOME...

For example, before you jump on what trial lawyers make on medical malpractice suits, remember, if they take them on contingency:
  • They do all the required work, possibly for no money, which may take years.
  • They don't work alone so they have to support their staff, and any resources (investigators, researchers, secretaries, etc.), and pay court fees.
  • They don't make anything if they lose. What they earn depends not only on what they make on one case, but what they average over all the cases they take. The winning cases also pay for the costs of the ones they lose at trial, even the cause was just.

    I know some good, honest, caring attorneys who are, ethically, exactly what you would hope a plaintiff's attorney would be. You have to do the same kind of critical evaluation for each of your points.

    P.S. The numbering system goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The CS rate quadrupled in the US between 1969 and 1989 (23.8%). Rates in Canada also quadrupled between 1967 and 1987 (18.3%).

Why?
Dude, I've tried explaining stuff to you before. You don't read text and you don't read links. Why continue the charade?
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
BBD -- You'd be more accurate if you qualify every one of your points by starting each sentence with the word, SOME...

For example, before you jump on what trial lawyers make on medical malpractice suits, remember, if they take them on contingency:
  • They do all the required work, possibly for no money, which may take years.
  • They don't work alone so they have to support their staff, and any resources (investigators, researchers, secretaries, etc.), and pay court fees.
  • They don't make anything if they lose. What they earn depends not only on what they make on one case, but what they average over all the cases they take. The winning cases also pay for the costs of the ones they lose at trial, even the cause was just.

    I know some good, honest, caring attorneys who are, ethically, exactly what you would hope a plaintiff's attorney would be. You have to do the same kind of critical evaluation for each of your points.

    P.S. The numbering system goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 😉
  • My extended family has a law practice. They are all honorable people and two are pretty damn good lawyers. I fully understand contingency and indeed it should be factored in. BUT . . . in my state no one takes questionable cases. The requirements to file and sustain cases is a significant burden . . . as it should be. Counsel has a right to have those costs covered.

    It's a different issue altogether about how much they should be compensated. Tobacco settlement . . . ridiculous. Silicone implants . . . ridiculous. Further, I'm not convinced that punitive damages should go to the plaintiff and their legal team.

    The class action orgy perpetrated by SOME lawyers is essentially a redistribution of wealth from many (consumers) to a few (lawyers/plaintiffs).

    In general adding the qualifier "some" would imply that MOST trial lawyers are justifiably compensated, MOST politicians are acting in the public interest, MOST hospitals/MDs/trial lawyers ALWAYS put the needs of those they serve about their own, and MOST patients communicate well with their doctors. Even if I was willing to cede that point . . . our society is truly in a sad state if the overwelming majority are accurately described above . . . yet our healthcare system (and certain elements of the legal system) are so profoundly dysfunctional.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The CS rate quadrupled in the US between 1969 and 1989 (23.8%). Rates in Canada also quadrupled between 1967 and 1987 (18.3%).

Why?
Dude, I've tried explaining stuff to you before. You don't read text and you don't read links. Why continue the charade?

You can just say you don't know. I won't think any worse of you.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's a different issue altogether about how much they should be compensated. Tobacco settlement . . . ridiculous.
I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with you on this one. At last count, I have lost around ten close friends in a seven year period to caused related illnesses. :|

And before you tell me they should have known better, or they made their own choices, or any other such garbage, I'll tell you, I'm 62 years old, and most of my friends who smoke became addicted when they were teens, about the same time the tobacco murderers were glamourizing smoking by placing it in movies and advertising sh8 on radio and TV like, "More doctors recommend..." such and such brand of cigarettes, and there were NO warning labels. :| :| :|

The tobacco industry has known since the 50's that tobacco is carcinogenic and highly addictive, and they connived to keep that information secret, and they bribed our legislators to continue their coverup and to keep it legal. I saw those lying asshole pricks raise their hands in front of Congress and swear that they didn't believe tobacco was addictive or carcinogenic.

AFIC, every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should tried for crimes against humanity. They killed hundreds of thousands of Americans for greed, and nothing more, and they continue doing so, today. I won't be happy until every one of them is dead or in jail, and every tobacco company is flat ass broke from paying for the damages they have done to so many human beings.

If you think I'm pissed, you don't know the half of it. :| :| :|

If you think I'm irrational, you're wrong. I'm just tired of watching good people die because these killers intentionally addicted my friends so many years ago and lied about it and continue to lie about it.
 
I guess I haven't been clear. I fully believe that ALL smokers that started prior to the late 90s deserve FULL compensatory damages.

What I disagree with is the punitive damages going to plaintiffs and in particular plaintiffs attorneys. IMO, the majority of the money should have gone into public health and general healthcare. There's a certain degree of contributory negligence that should be factored into the settlement. Accordingly, people should be compensated for injuries they've sustained but have no right to the punitive damages.

The punitive phase is designed to punish the accused . . . not enrich the plaintiffs or their lawyers.

Trust me, aside from handgun, landmine, and liquor producers . . . the tobacco industry is lowlife central. I have more respect for pot farmers than the "death stick" junta. But let's be honest, RJR et al just raised prices and bought cheaper killer weed from Brazil. IMHO, a few people got paid . . . yet smoking remains the number one cause of preventable disease/death. The only reason it won't hold that title for another 50 years is our other pasttime . . . eating and not exercising.
 
While we're suing everybody, why don't we sue the AHA for putting their "Heart Check" seal of approval on high-sugar, empty calorie foods and the AMA for telling people not to eggs and to eat margarine rather than butter?

And can we sue the government for the food pyramid?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The CS rate quadrupled in the US between 1969 and 1989 (23.8%). Rates in Canada also quadrupled between 1967 and 1987 (18.3%).

Why?
Dude, I've tried explaining stuff to you before. You don't read text and you don't read links. Why continue the charade?

You can just say you don't know. I won't think any worse of you.

NIH Brief History of Cesarian Section
It's four pages . . . but there's a lot of pictures so don't you worry.🙂 Feel free to cite the relevant paragraphs. It's conceivable that citing a single sentence will bolster your case. Alas you would have to ignore everything else though . . .
 
Accroding to the the National Center for Health Statistics, the 2001 cesarean section rate reached an all-time high of 24.4%, and the number of women having a vaginal delivery after a previous c-section dropped to an all-time low of 16.4 %.

I'll take a look at the article. My understanding is that the number of c-sections has increased because of
"avoidance of labor pain, patient or provider convenience, legal concerns of the provider or questionable assumptions about the origin of incontinence in women" (according to the ACNM).
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
While we're suing everybody, why don't we sue the AHA for putting their "Heart Check" seal of approval on high-sugar, empty calorie foods and the AMA for telling people not to eggs and to eat margarine rather than butter?

And can we sue the government for the food pyramid?
Can you give an example of a high-sugar, nutrient poor food that has an American Heart Association seal on it?

The AMA telling people not to eat eggs made sense when we thought most people were eating them fried (which was true). The AMA moved away from that position as it became clear that a few yolks a week are actually good for you . . . and egg whites are great food.

The AMA never endorsed margarine. They believed eating partially hydrogenated fat was better than saturated fat. Now that we know trans fats are worse than saturated fat . . . the position on margarine vs butter has changed.

This is how intelligent people work. When the evidence points in a different direction you reassess your position. We can look forwards to intelligent people taking over the White House next year. Intelligence and forethought will be a great disinfectant for the previous four years of recalcitrant BS.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Accroding to the the National Center for Health Statistics, the 2001 cesarean section rate reached an all-time high of 24.4%, and the number of women having a vaginal delivery after a previous c-section dropped to an all-time low of 16.4 %.

I'll take a look at the article. My understanding is that the number of c-sections has increased because of
"avoidance of labor pain, patient or provider convenience, legal concerns of the provider or questionable assumptions about the origin of incontinence in women" (according to the ACNM).
I you are quoting the NCHS you should link it. If I had to guess you are referencing someone that mentions the NCHS. Your post creates the false impression the C-sections have been on the rise throughout the 90s and VBAC has been on a steady decline. Both impressions are false.


Since 1940, the trend toward medically managed pregnancy and childbirth has steadily accelerated. Many new hospitals were built in which women gave birth and in which obstetrical operations were performed. By 1938, approximately half of U.S. births were taking place in hospitals. By 1955, this had risen to ninety-nine percent.

During that same period medical research flourished and technology was greatly expanded in scope and application. Advances in anesthesia contributed to improving the safety and the experience of cesarean section.
---
Currently in the United States slightly more than one in seven women experiences complications during labor and delivery that are due to conditions existing prior to pregnancy; these include diabetes, pelvic abnormalities, hypertension, and infectious diseases. In addition, a variety of pathological conditions that develop during pregnancy (such as eclampsia and placenta praevia) are indications for surgical delivery. These problems can be life-threatening for both mother and baby, and in approximately forty percent of such cases cesarean section provides the safest solution. In the United States almost one quarter of all babies are now delivered by cesarean section -- approximately 982,000 babies in 1990. In 1970, the cesarean section rate was about 5%; by 1988, it had peaked at 24.7%. In 1990, it had decreased slightly to 23.5%, primarily because more women were attempting vaginal births after cesarean deliveries.

How can we explain this dramatic increase? It certainly far exceeds any rise in the birth rate, which went up by only 2% between 1970 and 1987. In fact there were several factors that contributed to the rapid rise in cesarean sections. Some of the factors were technological, some cultural, some professional, others legal. The growth in malpractice suits no doubt promoted surgical intervention, but there were many other influences at work.
---
While the operation historically has been performed largely to protect the health of the mother, more recently the health of the fetus has played a larger role in decisions to go to surgery.
---
Since the advent of heart monitors in the early 1970's, fetal monitoring routinely tracks fetal heart rate and indicates any signs of distress. As a result of the ability to detect signs of fetal distress, many cesarean sections are swiftly undertaken to prevent such serious problems as brain damage due to oxygen deficiency.

With these innovations came criticism. Fetal monitoring as well as numerous other antenatal diagnostics have been faulted in recent years by some of the lay public and members of the medical profession. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and similar organizations in several other countries have been working to reduce some of the reliance on high-cost and high-tech features of childbirth and to encourage women to attempt normal delivery whenever possible.
---
Some doctors have for many years expressed doubts about the rates of cesarean section. Recently many medical practitioners have responded to this situation and have begun to work with lay organizations to encourage more women to undertake normal delivery.
---
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists responded swiftly to calls from within the organization and from the patient population and in 1982, as a standard of care, recommended a trial of labor in selected cases of prior cesarean section. In 1988, the guidelines were expanded to include more women with previous cesarean births. Consequently, there was a steady increase in vaginal births after cesarean in the late 1980's. In 1990, an estimated 90,000 women gave birth vaginally after cesarean section.
---
This study indicates that, while cesarean section continues to be a procedure that saves the lives of mothers and infants and prevents disabilities, both the medical and lay communities must bear in mind that most births are normal and more births should progress without undue intervention.
---
As this brief history suggests, the indications for cesarean section have varied tremendously through our documented history. They have been shaped by religious, cultural, economic, professional, and technological developments -- all of which have impinged on medical practice. The operation originated from attempts to save the soul, if not the life, of a fetus whose mother was dead or dying.
---
Finally, in the late twentieth century, in mainstream Western medical society the fetus has become the primary patient once labor has commenced. As a result, we have seen in the last 30 years a marked increase in resort to surgery on the basis of fetal health indications.

Brief History of C-Section from National Library of Medicine
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Riprorin
While we're suing everybody, why don't we sue the AHA for putting their "Heart Check" seal of approval on high-sugar, empty calorie foods and the AMA for telling people not to eggs and to eat margarine rather than butter?

And can we sue the government for the food pyramid?
Can you give an example of a high-sugar, nutrient poor food that has an American Heart Association seal on it?

The AMA telling people not to eat eggs made sense when we thought most people were eating them fried (which was true). The AMA moved away from that position as it became clear that a few yolks a week are actually good for you . . . and egg whites are great food.

The AMA never endorsed margarine. They believed eating partially hydrogenated fat was better than saturated fat. Now that we know trans fats are worse than saturated fat . . . the position on margarine vs butter has changed.

This is how intelligent people work. When the evidence points in a different direction you reassess your position. We can look forwards to intelligent people taking over the White House next year. Intelligence and forethought will be a great disinfectant for the previous four years of recalcitrant BS.

Intelligent people do their own research on diet and nutrition and don't blindly follow the whims of the AHA and AMA. The whole anti-fat craze (with the exception of trans-fat) is misguided. Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.
You have a source to verify that? Not that Americans are getting fatter but that they are eating less fat.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The whole anti-fat craze (with the exception of trans-fat) is misguided. Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.
It's not about the fat. Look at Atkins and how people lose weight.

Eating fast foods high in calories and carbs and guzzling down sugar-loaded soft drinks and then going home and parking on the couch watching TV and eating Doritos and more soft drinks is what's making people fat.
 
Intelligent people do their own research on diet and nutrition and don't blindly follow the whims of the AHA and AMA. The whole anti-fat craze (with the exception of trans-fat) is misguided. Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.
Dude sometimes I cannot tell if you are mocking yourself . . . or just mocking yourself.

What you call the whims of the AHA and AMA are typically best evidence with a few notable exceptions (AMA giving a temporary seal of approval to Sunbeam).

To the contrary the anti-fat craze took off b/c people embrace simple messages (vis a vis GWB's success) and messengers. It's the same reason the anti-carb craze has taken off. Both are ridiculous in and of themselves.

Dr. Atkins was called a quack (which he was) for saying you can eat all the fat you want in any form you want . . . to lose weight and live a healthier, happier life . . . just don't eat carbs. That was total BS in the 60s/70s and it's total BS now.

The true message of the low fat diet proponents was to consume little if any saturated fat (which your body can make itself), eat low amounts of cholesterol (which your body makes and recycles), but include generous amounts of monounsaturated fats (olive oil) and other essential oils found in marine life (DHA/EPA).

When the food pyramid put fats and oils at the top people thought that meant you couldn't eat a bunch of nuts. But the true meaning was to avoid fried foods, the skin off of flesh foods, and other sources of saturated fat. It's hard to draw a picture of that so they included a picture of nuts. Bad move but such is life when you are talking to people that don't like to read.

Atkins flips the pyramid 180 degrees but he was horribly misguided. It's not that people need less bread per se. They need less processed grains. It's not that people need less fruits and vegetables. They need less fruit juice, canned fruit in heavy syrup, canned veggies, and fried veggies.

Before he went to the great big buffet in the sky, Atkins started to write books that better reflected the science of diet and nutrition instead of the pop sci BS that made him rich. Any intelligent person that read his first book and his last will understand. Granted, most intelligent people shouldn't bother reading Atkins.
 
I'm not about to debate the merits of Edwards' cases, I'll just point out a few things since I am a life-long N.C. resident currently without health insurance.


#1) Though not truly related to the question, it should be known that Edwards is widely despised in North Carolina by Republicans and Democrats alike. He is perceived to be someone who abandoned the state immediately upon election, has failed to deliver any of his major campaign promises or even give the appearance of pushing for them, has missed more votes (even before the pres. run) than almost any other Senator, and has rarely been back to the state since his election (until the recent pres. run). As a humorous aside, some friends and I happened to be in Wilmington where he appeared on July 4th (we didn't know he was coming), and a rather large crowd began heckling him with taunts like "Welcome to North Carolina!" and "Go back home to Washington!" A poll by the Raleigh News & Observer actually had Edwards losing a Senate re-election campaign before his opponent was even named, although he obviously pulled out once he decided to go all out for a spot on the Democratic ticket.


Anyway, enough of that tangent...

#2) The legal aspect of the medical system is broken, and has been all along. This is not Edwards' fault, although I do blame him for taking advantage of it and especially for opposing productive reform on behalf of his lawyer buddies (he received far more money from lawyers than any candidate, rep or dem, in the primaries). As an older example I'll point to Peter Angelos, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, who made hundreds of millions in class-action suits involving asbestos. My godfather was one of the hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, but he only got around $10,000 for getting permanent lung damage. If Edwards was such a "good guy," why would he take a very hefty portion of the award given to families he keeps saying so desperately needed the money?

#3) I don't know of any logical objection to caps on punitive damages. I'm all for unlimited medical damages since some injuries result in life-long afflictions that can far exceed current proposals on overall caps, but punitive damages are where most of the money comes in. Let's face facts, the doctors, hopsitals, and pharmaceutical companies committing the errors aren't bearing the burden. Any damages levied against them are passed on to their insurers, and how do those insurance companies deal with that burden? By passing the costs onto their customers.

I am on a shoestring budget, but I could probably afford some basic health insurance. The problem is that I've done some rudimentary calculations and believe that I'm better off not having it unless something catastrophic happens to me (in which case I hope I just die so I'm not a burden to my family). The costs are so high precisely because of lawsuits and the rising costs of the health industry, much of which also comes from doctors and companies being sued. We've already seen significant results in California and other states as a result of capping punitive damages, so there isn't really an argument that it wouldn't have an impact. The only argument seems to be that we should all shed blood for admittedly unfortunate people who get hurt by someone's greed/incompetence/or honest mistake.
 
Originally posted by: jdbolick
I'm not about to debate the merits of Edwards' cases, I'll just point out a few things since I am a life-long N.C. resident currently without health insurance.


#1) Though not truly related to the question, it should be known that Edwards is widely despised in North Carolina by Republicans and Democrats alike. He is perceived to be someone who abandoned the state immediately upon election, has failed to deliver any of his major campaign promises or even give the appearance of pushing for them, has missed more votes (even before the pres. run) than almost any other Senator, and has rarely been back to the state since his election (until the recent pres. run). As a humorous aside, some friends and I happened to be in Wilmington where he appeared on July 4th (we didn't know he was coming), and a rather large crowd began heckling him with taunts like "Welcome to North Carolina!" and "Go back home to Washington!" A poll by the Raleigh News & Observer actually had Edwards losing a Senate re-election campaign before his opponent was even named, although he obviously pulled out once he decided to go all out for a spot on the Democratic ticket.


Anyway, enough of that tangent...

#2) The legal aspect of the medical system is broken, and has been all along. This is not Edwards' fault, although I do blame him for taking advantage of it and especially for opposing productive reform on behalf of his lawyer buddies (he received far more money from lawyers than any candidate, rep or dem, in the primaries). As an older example I'll point to Peter Angelos, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, who made hundreds of millions in class-action suits involving asbestos. My godfather was one of the hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, but he only got around $10,000 for getting permanent lung damage. If Edwards was such a "good guy," why would he take a very hefty portion of the award given to families he keeps saying so desperately needed the money?

#3) I don't know of any logical objection to caps on punitive damages. I'm all for unlimited medical damages since some injuries result in life-long afflictions that can far exceed current proposals on overall caps, but punitive damages are where most of the money comes in. Let's face facts, the doctors, hopsitals, and pharmaceutical companies committing the errors aren't bearing the burden. Any damages levied against them are passed on to their insurers, and how do those insurance companies deal with that burden? By passing the costs onto their customers.

I am on a shoestring budget, but I could probably afford some basic health insurance. The problem is that I've done some rudimentary calculations and believe that I'm better off not having it unless something catastrophic happens to me (in which case I hope I just die so I'm not a burden to my family). The costs are so high precisely because of lawsuits and the rising costs of the health industry, much of which also comes from doctors and companies being sued. We've already seen significant results in California and other states as a result of capping punitive damages, so there isn't really an argument that it wouldn't have an impact. The only argument seems to be that we should all shed blood for admittedly unfortunate people who get hurt by someone's greed/incompetence/or honest mistake.


Hahaha, I like it, we are turning this into discussion about medical lawsuit cap.
I agree with jdbolick on no-limit to the medical damages suit, and restricted punitive damage amount, maybe even regulated, ie tier/level system based on how serious the mistakes are, maybe something like our tax system. On the other hand, we also need to proceed on healthcare reform and hospital practice reform as much as to stem the rising cost of medical care & insurance being past down to consumers.
I don't think Edward is a scumbag for doing what he did, he is doing what the system allowed him to do, represented patients with legitimate lawsuit & doing a good job at it. The amount of money he made as far as I know is probably in the median of what succesful lawyers made. People complain about lawyers taking huge chunck of the money from their clients, but they forget that most probably represent them on no fee basis and relied upon winning the case to cover their research & staff costs otherwise money is coming out of their pocket. Maybe some reform into what amount of money lawyers can pocket is in order, simply just to discourage any lawyers from encouraging people for filling malicious & false lawsuit, but it probably need further discussion.
 
I agree, part of any punitive cap should be a limit on how much the lawyer gets. He shouldn't get any percentage of the medical damages in my opinion. Some say this will decrease the quality of representation available to victims and I say hogwash. It just means greedy lawyers will fight over clients more than they already do.

Edit:
I would be fine with the costs of prosecution being taken out of the settlement before the cap, however. That way the plaintiff could still afford all the necessary tests and experts.
 
Back
Top