Florida's new anti-physician law

[Sessamoid]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey, I think we've beaten this to death. I appreciate all of your warm and fuzzy comments.

To summarize, you've made it clear that you believe doctors are more important than public health officials and lawyers, and I'm sure you believe that they are more important than everyone else as well.

You're really good with the strawmen arguments. The rest of your post is all anecdotal arguments. You say we've beaten this to death, but you continue to beat it harder than anybody.

 

[margaritaboy]

....It's ridiculous that a physician's first impulse is: these guys are doctors, ergo, they're beneficient Gods....

Speaking of the strawman arguement, can you please tell us what physician said this?

 

[juddson]

re: "The tort system is NOT intended to be a regulatory system. It's function is NOT the improvement of the delivery of medical care (how stupid would that be anyway - doctors, those people who actually know something about medicine, should be setting medical standards) but rather the compensation of injured patients. That's it's sole purpose."

Sorry, while you do use capital letters and write very authoritatively, you are not correct. In fact, one of the purposes of tort law, alongside fixing the damage, is to deter future wrongdoing. Hence, the very concept of punitive damages. See the following website from Harvard Law on how the different purposes of tort law, including deterrence, ought to impact the system:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/book/03torts.pdf

Young grasshopper. . . Oh, nevermind.

Further, while you are correct in saying that physicians ought to set the standards, the implication that the court ought not hold them to these very standards is not correct. The court uses expert witnesses to evaluate what the physician ought to have done. It uses that information in determining whether a given physician acted negligently. (As a side point, the claim that the average court is not capable of making these decisions may have some merit. It's clear, however, that to ask doctors to police themselves is also untenable. Again, tort law is needed to prevent future negligence.)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. You agree with me that doctors ought to be the ones who set the standard, but claim that I am suggesting that courts ought not use those standards in determining negligence? That's crazy. Believe me, I've never suggested that courts ought not use expert medical testimony to determine whether standards have been complied with. It is the sin quo non of medical malpractice tort.

Judd

 

[juddson]

To Bier6 -
"Expert witnesses" are paid by the prosecution to support their case. They are usually not practicing physicians, and make their salary by giving testimony in trials. They are selected by the prosecuting attorney, and say whatever bolsters the case. Again, in theory, the "expert testimony" was supposed to give laypeople (jurors) an idea of what "standard of care" is for medical cases. However, this has become so manipulated, that one can no longer assume that the "standard" presented is actually the true accepted standard of care!

Most states have statutes which require that those doctors who give expert testimony on medical malpractice cases spend at least 50% of thier time in an active clinical practice. The legislatures of most states realized the problems of "professional experts" a long time ago. The system is not perfect by any stretch. But the expert witness part of it is turning around.

judd

 

[juddson]

lawyers and insurance companies, it's all a scam. there used to be good lawyers, then there were too many and now they are chasing ambulances

EH.

yea, this is where all the extra lawyers go. . .

judd

 

[juddson]

I agree with many of the things stated so far, and disagree to an unmeasurable degree to the posts by bier6 and Juddson .

OK. please set forth, with quotes, what I have written here with which you disagree (or is, by your estimation "false").

Thanks
Judd

 

[juddson]

Haha good one. Going to law school to avoid egomaniacal arrogant bastards. And people say medical professionals don't have a good sense of humor.

Just one more thing, in addition to law not even being about justice, there isn't even any innovation! The whole system is based on precedent. A court 200 years ago rules that Blacks are property? Lets keep that going for another dozen decades or so and call it precedent. Whopee doo. Law, what a bunch of crap. No wonder it attracts the kind of people it does.

The ignorance of the law demonstrated by this post is breathtaking. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Judd

 

[erichaj]

Well, I agree with some of you points. Doctors are not Gods, We do have a legal system that is trying to protect us. doctors are people and people make mistakes and lie and cheat and do good things as well.

Even with a legal system, people still lie,cheat, kill,etc.

"get rid of all doctors and average life span decrease a couple of years" hmmm
tell that to the thousands of pneumonia cases we save every year or the trauma cases etc etc etc.

I think you need to go to law school. You don't like doctors, you don't seem to like medicine. You are angry at doctors. So, why are you in it. I'm not saying that to be rude to you. I'm just saying it because your post is very angry.

Just so you know for the rest of your life. There are dinguses in all walks of life. Including medicine. And people can be dingus sometimes all the time.

EH.

not much time, quick points.

-- yes, I'm a little jaded. It's bad enough watching docs mess up; it's worse when they do things they know contribute to errors/spread of infection thinking that what they do couldn't possibly be the problem. It's the worst watching docs lie to their patients, " No, what you have was there before we did anything..."

-- You have no appreciation for what the legal system does for you. Defense attoneys are there to defend, not to be judges. You don't go to trial before going to trial. We have an adverserial system where the defense attorney defends and the prosecutor prosecutes (amazing, huh?). This system is intended to lead to the truth. The defense attorneys don't invent "tehnicalities." They exist to protect our civil liberties; have some appreciation for them. You're welcome to go to countries where there aren't civil liberties and where the prosecutors are judges. Have a nice time. Tort law is there to prevent people from getting robbed, tricked, hurt, etc. Please go form a community and agree to have no concept of tort law; I'm sure it'll be lovely.

Without a legal system we'd have murder, robbery, fraud, and kidnapping running rampant. Our society would be completely different, turned on its head. No justice. Get rid of all the doctors, you'd have the same society with an average lifespan shortened by a couple years. Yes, after clean water, sewage, and vaccines, that's all we're really worth. Have some appreciation.

-- Again, I don't believe the current system is perfect, and I'd be very interested in hearing workable alternatives. Consider though, that most of the rise in malpractice payments is generated by the increasing cost of future medical care. If paying fro 1% is a lot, think about 100%. And find a way to encourage improvement in the system. When doctors and hospitals pay for their errors, they have incentive to improve. They'll pay people to improve because otherwise they'll pay in court. How else will this happen. Please don't suggest doctor's innate goodness and desire to better care for their patients. This clearly doesn't work very well.

 

[docB]

Take the time to think about the issues -- don't just make a gut reaction.

I think about them all day long every day. I live them. Don't try to lecture me. I have to live in fear of the system you support.

The ignorance of the law demonstrated by this post is breathtaking. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

True. Docs don't know law. We don't want to. If the lawyers would just leave us alone we'd be happy.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

The ignorance of the law demonstrated by this post is breathtaking. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Judd

Haha what an argument. Hey look at me SDNers, I can counter arguments by calling them ignorant. You're already halfway to being a lawyer (now all you have to do is scam someone, and then you're set!)

And the best part about all this is you have ignorant aholes trying to tell us doctors how important the legal system is blah blah blah and that we don't know anything about law since we dont have a JD.

Well I think its absolutely freaking ironic that JDs try to go around without an MD trying to sue doctors on how THEY practice medicine.

Imagine that. Dont worry Judd, I know you cant counter the hypocrisy you represent. You will probably just try to come off as if you know something (which you dont) by trying to sound all arrogant. So let me save you the trouble of copying and pasting from your text file of 7th grade comebacks and predict your response.

"I won't dignify this post from a non-JD about law with a comment"

There, not so bad. Thanks for proving my point by the way-- that lawyers dont really know what theyre talking about and are able to argue both sides of the case because they dont believe what they're saying. Lawyers are just taught to be cocky about it, forget actual argumentation-- go for the emotional appeals mofos! And you wonder why lawyer jokes are so common.

Have you heard this one?

"A bus with one empty seat crashes, killing everyone inside. What's the tragedy?

That one of the seats on the bus rented out by lawyers was empty."


Ouch, glad Im not in that hellhole of a field. Having a soul is pretty nice ya know.

 

[juddson]

Haha what an argument. Hey look at me SDNers, I can counter arguments by calling them ignorant. You're already halfway to being a lawyer (now all you have to do is scam someone, and then you're set!)

And the best part about all this is you have ignorant aholes trying to tell us doctors how important the legal system is blah blah blah and that we don't know anything about law since we dont have a JD.

Well I think its absolutely freaking ironic that JDs try to go around without an MD trying to sue doctors on how THEY practice medicine.

Imagine that. Dont worry Judd, I know you cant counter the hypocrisy you represent. You will probably just try to come off as if you know something (which you dont) by trying to sound all arrogant. So let me save you the trouble of copying and pasting from your text file of 7th grade comebacks and predict your response.

"I won't dignify this post from a non-JD about law with a comment"

There, not so bad. Thanks for proving my point by the way-- that lawyers dont really know what theyre talking about and are able to argue both sides of the case because they dont believe what they're saying. Lawyers are just taught to be cocky about it, forget actual argumentation-- go for the emotional appeals mofos! And you wonder why lawyer jokes are so common.

Have you heard this one?

"A bus with one empty seat crashes, killing everyone inside. What's the tragedy?

That one of the seats on the bus rented out by lawyers was empty."


Ouch, glad Im not in that hellhole of a field. Having a soul is pretty nice ya know.

kinetic?

Just in case you are not. . .I don't expect you to know anything about the law (as I am not expected to know anything about the neuromuscular junction system). I think you know this.

You have been called out because you said something stupid about the law that you would not have said if you knew something about it. Kinda like me saying "what is all this crap about 'neurotransmitters'. Chemicals are WAY too slow to account for the fast response of neuronal transmission. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How stupid!!!"

Are you getting it now?

Nobody expect you to know anything about legal doctrine. That being the case, don't cry foul when you are called out on saying something stupid about something you admit you know nothing about.

Judd

 

[Mirror Form]

To summarize, you've made it clear that you believe doctors are more important than public health officials and lawyers,

Why the heck are you separating public health officials from doctors? Doctors pioneered public health and are still very largely involved with it. And do you somehow think that doctors aren't involved with researching and developing vaccines? Furthermore, your comment about life expectancy only being shortened by a few years w/o doctors is insane. Next time you walk outside in a crowded area, take a look around. If it wasn't for antibiotics, half of the people would be dead. I'd love to see what you'd do with a broken bone that won't heal, or a skin infection, if there weren't any health care professionals around

 

[Fantasy Sports]

Nobody expect you to know anything about legal doctrine. That being the case, don't cry foul when you are called out on saying something stupid about something you admit you know nothing about.

Judd

Thanks for making my point. And thanks for proving:

1. That you will indeed switch from argumentation to condescension when losing an argument

2. That you are indeed a full-fledged hypocrite (moving on closer to lawyer superstardom!). I mean honestly, you're telling people they can't make solid arguments on this issue simply because they arent MD/JD? Hello Mr. "I am going to make 1000 posts bashing doctors and insulting REAL MDs about their views on this issue even though I haven't even taken Step I yet". Woohoo talk about hypocrisy, that takes the cake. At least Im not the one going around telling real MDs they dont know anything about malpractice even though they are the ones that are dealing with the real world ethics of it

3. You really cant counter any of my arguments, so you make generalizations about "not understanding legal doctrine" or "that is not how it is", basically proving you really have no arguments.

4. I dealt with your kind throughout undergrad, as one of my majors was the most popular pre-law major, so honestly, you're not fooling anyone here, and you're definitely not fooling me. I know all your dirty tactcs.

5. And apparently the general public knows all about the dirty tactics of lawyers too. Man, Im glad Im not viewed as worse than auto mechanics, execs, POLITICANS. Hey, at least you beat out the car salesmen... this year!

kinetic?

Just in case you are not. . .I don't expect you to know anything about the law (as I am not expected to know anything about the neuromuscular junction system). I think you know this.

You have been called out because you said something stupid about the law that you would not have said if you knew something about it. Kinda like me saying "what is all this crap about 'neurotransmitters'. Chemicals are WAY too slow to account for the fast response of neuronal transmission. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How stupid!!!"

Are you getting it now?

Nobody expect you to know anything about legal doctrine. That being the case, don't cry foul when you are called out on saying something stupid about something you admit you know nothing about.

Judd

 

[TysonCook]

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?


A good start.

Couldn't help from posting. My brother is a MD, and my Dad a JD (along w/multiple cousins). At least in their opinion, med-mal JD's are a bunch of scum that ruin the entire name for the rest of them. They consider them less than human and not worth the breath to curse at them.

You know it is a bunch of god forsaken a-holes that run med-mal when even their own colleagues wish to distance themselves.

When I finish in a year I'll pull along with some of the other physicians that refuse to treat JD's and their families. I'm going to avoid "lawsuit" situations as best as I can, starting with them.

 

[Mirror Form]

Wmy Dad a JD (along w/multiple cousins). At least in their opinion, med-mal JD's are a bunch of scum that ruin the entire name for the rest of them. They consider them less than human and not worth the breath to curse at them.

Yep, and I think most med mal lawyers realize they're scum, but are just okay with it. It's so amazing how people like Juddson continually try to somehow justify the med mal lawyers actions, no matter how many logical inconsistencies it takes.

 

[timtye78]

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?


A good start.

Couldn't help from posting. My brother is a MD, and my Dad a JD (along w/multiple cousins). At least in their opinion, med-mal JD's are a bunch of scum that ruin the entire name for the rest of them. They consider them less than human and not worth the breath to curse at them.

You know it is a bunch of god forsaken a-holes that run med-mal when even their own colleagues wish to distance themselves.

When I finish in a year I'll pull along with some of the other physicians that refuse to treat JD's and their families. I'm going to avoid "lawsuit" situations as best as I can, starting with them.

Hey! This isn't a bad idea, but it would be hard to tell which of your pts were JDs unless you asked. I once toyed with the idea of some type of little survey presented to potential patients where legally you weren't 'assuming care' and two questions might be:

1. Have you ever threatened or filed a lawsuit?
2. Are you or anyone in your family an attorney?

Hmm..Might be getting a few flaming replies on this