Impeding changes to our Health Care system - Page 4

Clodfobble · 04-23-2009, 01:10 PM

If you put cameras in the operating room, then standardized procedures suddenly become open to subjective opinion. WTF does a lawyer know about the best way to suture something? Nothing--but if he can convince 12 other people who don't have a medical degree that those sutures "don't look like they're being done right," that doctor will lose a lawsuit that never should have existed. Quite frankly, sugarpop, you are the exact type of person who would look at an operation room video with your emotions, and just feel in your heart that some sort of malpractice is taking place rather than acknowledge you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

classicman · 04-23-2009, 02:20 PM

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 02:59 PM

Clod said it best. There was a short time when people use to actually film and record laproscopic procedures when they first started doing them, specifically cholesystectomies (gall bladder removal). They stopped doing it soon after they started.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 04:33 PM

It would have to looked at by other professionals, not lawyers.

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 04:39 PM

Unfortunately that is not how our system is set up. A jury of your peers is hardly ever composed of your peers.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 04:42 PM

No, but they have to have expert testimony.

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 04:47 PM

Even with that a clever lawyer can get answers to questions they want while they supress others. That is the art of a good lawyer. If Doctors had juries made up of only doctors I think you would have a much different outcome in many cases.

DanaC · 04-23-2009, 04:59 PM

Expert testimony, like that given by a medical expert leading to the wrongful conviction of numerous women because of a series of (criminally) mistaken diagnoses of so-called shaken baby syndrome.?

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 05:13 PM

huh? Shaking a baby is bad. It can be very damaging to their tiny brains.

DanaC · 04-23-2009, 06:55 PM

Yes. Shaking a baby is bad. But a medical expert's evidence led to several women being convicted of murdering either their own children or the babies in their charge (one very prominent case was of a babysitter). That evidence was shown in the end to have been entirely misleading.

In one case, (the babusitter I mentioned) the evidence given was that she must have shook the child so violently and then swung it against the bannister rail of the stair with a force equivalent to a car hitting a stationary object. There was no bruising consistent with this. Nor was any attention paid to several other very important details. It was purely by chance that a doctor watching a programme about it and seeing aphoto of the kiddie in question before he died, noticed his eye drooping slightly and beginning to turn in. Turned out the child had some very serious and undiagnosed health problems. There was no violence involved in his death. It was just a tragic situation.

The same doctor who insisted that this child's injuries were consistent with the kind of injuries 'expected' in 'shaken baby syndrome' has also provided the mostdamning evidence in other cases involving mothers whose children had died of cot death. he was insistent that actually they were shaken to death. He has even made suggestions to the effect that most cot-deaths are in fact abuse.

Hiss was a very prominent case and I believe he has been struck off now as a medical practitioner. His evidence was not just inadequate it was in some cases actually dishonest. But...he was an expert witness. The fact he'd been an expert witness in so many cases only served to increase his prestige until the miscarriages of justice began to come to light. He was an expert witness, and on the basis primarily of his evidence juries convicted several women of murder, including some who'd actually lost their baby to cot death and were still grieving.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 07:07 PM

There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but. IMO the solution is to get them out of the system.

classicman · 04-23-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

It would have to looked at by other professionals, not lawyers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but.

yup - thats why they don't need nor want no stinkin cameras.

glatt · 04-24-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but. IMO the solution is to get them out of the system.

When a case that requires experts goes to trial, we get an expert for our side. They get an expert for their side. Usually, the two experts will contradict each other. You can almost always find a qualified expert to oppose a position. Just look at the global warming "debate."

xoxoxoBruce · 04-24-2009, 11:24 AM

No problem, have each expert present their case and the Cellar will decide their validity. We Rule!

kerosene · 04-24-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No problem, have each expert present their case and the Cellar will decide their validity. We Rule!

I will not be presented by any experts and I don't need anybody to decide whether I am valid, thank you very MUCH! :p

04-23-2009, 01:10 PM	#46
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	If you put cameras in the operating room, then standardized procedures suddenly become open to subjective opinion. WTF does a lawyer know about the best way to suture something? Nothing--but if he can convince 12 other people who don't have a medical degree that those sutures "don't look like they're being done right," that doctor will lose a lawsuit that never should have existed. Quite frankly, sugarpop, you are the exact type of person who would look at an operation room video with your emotions, and just feel in your heart that some sort of malpractice is taking place rather than acknowledge you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

04-23-2009, 02:20 PM	#47
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	__________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

04-23-2009, 02:59 PM	#48
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Clod said it best. There was a short time when people use to actually film and record laproscopic procedures when they first started doing them, specifically cholesystectomies (gall bladder removal). They stopped doing it soon after they started. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-23-2009, 04:39 PM	#50
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Unfortunately that is not how our system is set up. A jury of your peers is hardly ever composed of your peers. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-23-2009, 04:47 PM	#52
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Even with that a clever lawyer can get answers to questions they want while they supress others. That is the art of a good lawyer. If Doctors had juries made up of only doctors I think you would have a much different outcome in many cases. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-23-2009, 04:33 PM	#49
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	It would have to looked at by other professionals, not lawyers.

04-23-2009, 04:42 PM	#51
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	No, but they have to have expert testimony.

04-23-2009, 04:59 PM	#53
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Expert testimony, like that given by a medical expert leading to the wrongful conviction of numerous women because of a series of (criminally) mistaken diagnoses of so-called shaken baby syndrome.?

04-23-2009, 05:13 PM	#54
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	huh? Shaking a baby is bad. It can be very damaging to their tiny brains.

04-23-2009, 06:55 PM	#55
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Yes. Shaking a baby is bad. But a medical expert's evidence led to several women being convicted of murdering either their own children or the babies in their charge (one very prominent case was of a babysitter). That evidence was shown in the end to have been entirely misleading. In one case, (the babusitter I mentioned) the evidence given was that she must have shook the child so violently and then swung it against the bannister rail of the stair with a force equivalent to a car hitting a stationary object. There was no bruising consistent with this. Nor was any attention paid to several other very important details. It was purely by chance that a doctor watching a programme about it and seeing aphoto of the kiddie in question before he died, noticed his eye drooping slightly and beginning to turn in. Turned out the child had some very serious and undiagnosed health problems. There was no violence involved in his death. It was just a tragic situation. The same doctor who insisted that this child's injuries were consistent with the kind of injuries 'expected' in 'shaken baby syndrome' has also provided the mostdamning evidence in other cases involving mothers whose children had died of cot death. he was insistent that actually they were shaken to death. He has even made suggestions to the effect that most cot-deaths are in fact abuse. Hiss was a very prominent case and I believe he has been struck off now as a medical practitioner. His evidence was not just inadequate it was in some cases actually dishonest. But...he was an expert witness. The fact he'd been an expert witness in so many cases only served to increase his prestige until the miscarriages of justice began to come to light. He was an expert witness, and on the basis primarily of his evidence juries convicted several women of murder, including some who'd actually lost their baby to cot death and were still grieving.

04-23-2009, 07:07 PM	#56
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	There are some doctors who provide "expert" evaluations that are anything but. IMO the solution is to get them out of the system.

04-24-2009, 11:24 AM	#59
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	No problem, have each expert present their case and the Cellar will decide their validity. We Rule! __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)