Now, I donated money to this guys presidential campaign, and it is not going to swing my vote, but this type of shit really bothers me.
*Suits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage “may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation,” said Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, even though the recent studies make those cases “scientifically unfounded.” *
I don’t buy into the right’s constant carping over the trial lawyers’ ties to the Democrats, but it seems that Edwards is one of those kind guys they’re talking about. Also from the article- “A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can’t be because the nation’s capital gets only bad neurosurgeons,” Olson said. “It’s because it’s too tempting to file against the competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their patients.”
That kind of shit seriously pisses me off, and I do think less of Edwards today than I did before.
So, he was an ambulance chasing lawyer stealing money from hard working physicians over tragic birth defects that were really nobody’s fault? Sounds like he’ll fit right in with the rest of the politicians.
I’m convinced that, deep down, there isn’t a single truly honorable politician in any position of power. Mostly because we as a populace demand that our leaders lie to us constantly, those that don’t get weeded out rather early in their careers.
If he did that I’d probably give him some more money.
But no, not compared to Cheney. I’m just looking at him. He and his firm got filthy rich using junk science and preying on people’s emotions, and he’s partly responsible for why my medical costs keep going up. Say what you will about him “just doing his job”, but I will continue to think poorly of ambulance chasers.
…and you followed it to WorldNetDaily, which buttresses its claims with cites from CNS and the Manhattan Institute, as well as a handful of doctors and a lawfirm whose interests and expertise are unidentified.
Notably, it doesn’t buttresses its claims of junk science with any actual science. No articles in peer-reviewed journals. No researchers describing the results of their research.
Unfortunately, this piece of unabashed propaganda had exactly the effect on you that the idealogues at WND hoped it would have: full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing, it nonetheless cast Edwards’s perfectly respectable career under a cloud of doubt and suspicion. And you’re surely not the only person it bamboozled.
Notice the story doesn’t say that’s the bulk of Edwards’ practice.
Hmmm. Might it have been some of the evidence presented in the case rather than the closing arguments alone? I don’t know. I wasn’t there; but I doubt the WND reporter was either. Nor was the CNS reporter
He was a good attorney and did what he was paid to do.
Well, if it was junk science, that would have come out pretty easily in court. There was obviously some basis for it, otherwise it wouldn’t have won cases. That’s the thing about science. Sometimes things are disproved even after they are widely held beliefs.
Once disproved, it tends not to last. I used to work at a large corporate law firm summarizing expert witness testimony. If it were shown as junk science in one courtroom, every corporate/malpractice defense practitioner would know within a month.
I don’t think it was Edwards’ job to double blind test the science he used in court.
Also, CNSNews and WorldNet are pretty biased sources, so temper yourself. In hindsight, it may appear to be “junk science”, but at the time, it most assuredly was tested both in the lab and in the courtroom.
I read the article. I don’t see how it shows that he used “junk science”. They say something like:
…and then use the results of studies done in 2003 to malign a case tried in 1985? How about some evidence of the scientific opinion around then? Surely “has long been debated” means there was some conflicting evidence?
If that’s the best that World Net Daily can do, I’m less than persuaded.
I think my B.S. sensors are detecting something is amiss coming from Olson: Neurosurgeons are sued not only for that “junk science” reason only:
I also think this piece is comparing apples to oranges, What Edwards did (and we still have to find if this was the bulk of his work) is to be expected in the current confrontational trial system that we have in the U.S.A.
The purpose for the lawyer is to win the case, not to be a scientist. And I have to say this: if the best thing, the people proposing that the majority of the cases have no merit, is to say that “At the end of the day, I verily believe we will find [the cause of cerebral palsy is] all genetic."” Then I have to say that a good belief is not good science either, and on the courtroom, it is a very lousy defense IMHO.
As I said in the other thread, even that ridiculously biased article admits that, although rare, there are indeed cases of cerebral palsy that can be attributed to negligence. It even further admits that Senator Edwards screened the cases he accepted very well, only taking the ones that he found had merit (of course their spin was that he only took the ones that would make him rich, but the point is the same, he refused cases where he didn’t feel a valid argument for negligence could be won, which, IMNSHO, is a good thing!).
And even if you allow for the “extremely rare” incidence of cerebral palsy caused by negligence, and even if you generously say that all 63 of the cases quoted in the article were cp cases (which they certainly weren’t), that means Senator Edwards successfully litigated a finding of negligence in approximately 0.00039375% of all instances of cp babies born during his 20 year tenure. To me, that hardly shows he relied on “junk science” when accepting or trying his cases.
As for the silliness about “every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can’t be because the nation’s capital gets only bad neurosurgeons,” I’d love to know what that has to do with Senator Edwards, personally? Did he sue everyone in the city?
And children, we’re still having a debate based on the ‘news’ in a WorldNetDummy article. That’s kinda like basing a debate about life among the cavemen on a B.C. comic strip. Let’s wake up and smell the coffee, shall we?
