Wiping out our ability to sue

By Cory Franklin. Cory Franklin is an emergency room physician at Stroger
Hospital
Published September 17, 2004

Imagine for a minute a corporation manufacturing a product that has the
ability to render everyday items heat resistant. The company produces large
amounts of the compound and incorporates it into routine use so that it
becomes a ubiquitous part of the American household.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Indications arise that, after years of
use, those involved in the manufacture of the compound develop crippling
lung disease and unusual cancers that cause slow, painful death. When
suspicions are confirmed internally, the company makes a fateful
decision--it suppresses the information, concealing it from its own workers
and the public.

For the next 20 years, millions are exposed to the compound until public
health studies reveal the cause and effect. Ultimately the company, which
grew wealthy and powerful on the strength of the compound, must face
thousands of lawsuits and is forced into bankruptcy. In the meantime,
thousands of people have died, exposed to a product originally thought to be
safe.

This, of course, is the 20th Century story of asbestos.

But now imagine a twist in the story that never actually happened. What if,
early on, when it appeared asbestos was a miracle compound, there had been a
Food and Drug Administration? (Much of this occurred before the FDA was
created.) And what if, before most of those cancers and pulmonary problems
had come to light, the FDA--with the backing of the U.S. government, the
primary consumer of asbestos--declared it to be safe? Is it possible the
public would still be facing asbestos exposure today?

It is important to revisit the asbestos story, with the hypothetical FDA
scenario, because if the Bush administration has its way, there will be no
lawsuits and limited public discovery about the dangers of prescription
drugs and medical devices that initially appear safe but ultimately carry
serious long-term dangers. Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice
recently argued in court that if the FDA has approved a product, people are
not eligible to recover damages. If a designation of safety by the FDA
provides an absolute defense against lawsuits, the government is essentially
bestowing the Holy Grail on pharmaceutical and medical product companies,
defense lawyers and the insurance industry. No greater gift could come their
way.

Yet the FDA is not now and never can be the ultimate arbiter of product
safety for a very simple reason--it can never see into the future. At best,
the FDA can give only a reasonable indication of a product's current status.
Completely removing the threat of lawsuits leaves the public vulnerable to
all sorts of malfeasance and misfeasance.

Within reason, the government argument has merit. Frivolous litigation does
discourage companies from introducing new products. Companies forced to
contend with different rules in different states face increased costs and
confusion. Clearly, the public is ill-served if new products cannot be made
available because of litigation fears. Venal attorneys and greedy plaintiffs
looking for favorable venues and unjustifiable damages will always be with
us. But all of this simply does not create an imperative for an overly
expansive policy on legal immunity, especially when a government agency,
subject to political winds, has the final word on safety.

If we are meant to understand this new FDA proposal, what Bush officials are
saying, with an absolutely straight face, is this: "I'm here from the
government and I can assure you that the medical product you depend on is
safe. There's no need to worry."

Strange words coming from a Republican administration. And words that not
even the most devoted pro-business, anti-trial lawyer,
medical-innovation-promoting, diehard Chamber-of-Commerce-loving capitalist
could really believe.


Copyright © Sept. 17, 2004, Chicago Tribune


Now their checking the Dangers of using Aspertame and Teflon... and if they
find that you have put your health and life in jeopardy, you will not be
able to sue the *******s

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:56:35 -0500, "THEOLDONE"
wrote:




Wiping out our ability to sue

By Cory Franklin. Cory Franklin is an emergency room physician at Stroger
Hospital
Published September 17, 2004

Imagine for a minute a corporation manufacturing a product that has the
ability to render everyday items heat resistant. The company produces large
amounts of the compound and incorporates it into routine use so that it
becomes a ubiquitous part of the American household.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Indications arise that, after years of
use, those involved in the manufacture of the compound develop crippling
lung disease and unusual cancers that cause slow, painful death. When
suspicions are confirmed internally, the company makes a fateful
decision--it suppresses the information, concealing it from its own workers
and the public.

For the next 20 years, millions are exposed to the compound until public
health studies reveal the cause and effect. Ultimately the company, which
grew wealthy and powerful on the strength of the compound, must face
thousands of lawsuits and is forced into bankruptcy. In the meantime,
thousands of people have died, exposed to a product originally thought to be
safe.

This, of course, is the 20th Century story of asbestos.

But now imagine a twist in the story that never actually happened. What if,
early on, when it appeared asbestos was a miracle compound, there had been a
Food and Drug Administration? (Much of this occurred before the FDA was
created.) And what if, before most of those cancers and pulmonary problems
had come to light, the FDA--with the backing of the U.S. government, the
primary consumer of asbestos--declared it to be safe? Is it possible the
public would still be facing asbestos exposure today?

It is important to revisit the asbestos story, with the hypothetical FDA
scenario, because if the Bush administration has its way, there will be no
lawsuits and limited public discovery about the dangers of prescription
drugs and medical devices that initially appear safe but ultimately carry
serious long-term dangers. Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice
recently argued in court that if the FDA has approved a product, people are
not eligible to recover damages. If a designation of safety by the FDA
provides an absolute defense against lawsuits, the government is essentially
bestowing the Holy Grail on pharmaceutical and medical product companies,
defense lawyers and the insurance industry. No greater gift could come their
way.
This course of action was actually started back during the Reagan
administration.
No law suit is frivilous when one's health is involved.
The problems with the current system ingards to both the health
aspect(FDA) and legal issues is that our government has been bought
and paid for with corporate monies.(lobbying)
an accurate analogy would be one of the fox guarding the hen house.
Also as you state, the FDA has at best finite powers even when it
chooses to work for to the benefit of the people rather than corporate
entities.
As has been proven time and time again when new technologies and
medical knowledge emerge we gain more insight into what is and isn't
harmful to our health.
That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.

Yet the FDA is not now and never can be the ultimate arbiter of product
safety for a very simple reason--it can never see into the future. At best,
the FDA can give only a reasonable indication of a product's current status.
Completely removing the threat of lawsuits leaves the public vulnerable to
all sorts of malfeasance and misfeasance.

Within reason, the government argument has merit. Frivolous litigation does
discourage companies from introducing new products. Companies forced to
contend with different rules in different states face increased costs and
confusion. Clearly, the public is ill-served if new products cannot be made
available because of litigation fears. Venal attorneys and greedy plaintiffs
looking for favorable venues and unjustifiable damages will always be with
us. But all of this simply does not create an imperative for an overly
expansive policy on legal immunity, especially when a government agency,
subject to political winds, has the final word on safety.
Up till the time of corporate takeover of the governement the idea in
the judicial system was that it was better to allow a few frivilous
lawsuits to prevail rather than deny one injured party the right to
legal recompense.
After all the track record of corporate industry was far from
pristine, in fact it was shown to be extremely corrupt with it's sole
concern that of maximizing profits at any and all costs and with
little or no regard for public safety.(Any concern for consumer safety
was only incidental and was really only a self-concern inregards to
possible lawsuits. Just look at the Ford Pinto as the classic
example.)


If we are meant to understand this new FDA proposal, what Bush officials are
saying, with an absolutely straight face, is this: "I'm here from the
government and I can assure you that the medical product you depend on is
safe. There's no need to worry."
Yeah right! The biggest lie ever told. "I'm from the government, I'm
here to help you."
One only has to look at the actions of the FDA over the past 24 years
to see it no longer has the public interest at heart.
Attacking the vitamin/supplement industry while allowing toxic crap to
flow freely onto the consumer market all the while.

Strange words coming from a Republican administration. And words that not
even the most devoted pro-business, anti-trial lawyer,
medical-innovation-promoting, diehard Chamber-of-Commerce-loving capitalist
could really believe.


Copyright © Sept. 17, 2004, Chicago Tribune


Now their checking the Dangers of using Aspertame and Teflon... and if they
find that you have put your health and life in jeopardy, you will not be
able to sue the *******s

Sure enough Aspertame is harmful to many, but let's not forget the
"latest" poison they've trotted out, Splenda.(It contains harful
levels of chlorine.)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:16:11 -0500, gothika
wrote:

...
The problems with the current system ingards to both the health
aspect(FDA) and legal issues is that our government has been bought
and paid for with corporate monies.(lobbying)
an accurate analogy would be one of the fox guarding the hen house.
Also as you state, the FDA has at best finite powers even when it
chooses to work for to the benefit of the people rather than corporate
entities.
...
After all the track record of corporate industry was far from
pristine, in fact it was shown to be extremely corrupt with it's sole
concern that of maximizing profits at any and all costs and with
little or no regard for public safety.(Any concern for consumer safety
was only incidental and was really only a self-concern inregards to
possible lawsuits. Just look at the Ford Pinto as the classic
example.)


The history of the FDA is a short, eye opening look at corporate
corruption.

The FDA came into being because of some ugly business, it's been
pretty well co-opted these days, but will be reformed when the body
count gets high enough.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:52:11 -0700, been there done that wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:16:11 -0500, gothika
wrote:

...
The problems with the current system ingards to both the health
aspect(FDA) and legal issues is that our government has been bought
and paid for with corporate monies.(lobbying)
an accurate analogy would be one of the fox guarding the hen house.
Also as you state, the FDA has at best finite powers even when it
chooses to work for to the benefit of the people rather than corporate
entities.
...
After all the track record of corporate industry was far from
pristine, in fact it was shown to be extremely corrupt with it's sole
concern that of maximizing profits at any and all costs and with
little or no regard for public safety.(Any concern for consumer safety
was only incidental and was really only a self-concern inregards to
possible lawsuits. Just look at the Ford Pinto as the classic
example.)


The history of the FDA is a short, eye opening look at corporate
corruption.

The FDA came into being because of some ugly business, it's been
pretty well co-opted these days, but will be reformed when the body
count gets high enough.

You are too optimistic, the body count has been quite high for many
years now and the corrupt practices just go on and on.
It'll take blood in the streets and in the highest halls to clean up
this corrupt government.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:59:05 -0500, gothika
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:52:11 -0700, been there done that wrote:




The history of the FDA is a short, eye opening look at corporate
corruption.

The FDA came into being because of some ugly business, it's been
pretty well co-opted these days, but will be reformed when the body
count gets high enough.

You are too optimistic, the body count has been quite high for many
years now and the corrupt practices just go on and on.
It'll take blood in the streets and in the highest halls to clean up
this corrupt government.

LOL. c'mon... tell us what you REALLY think

I think the term "high enough" is linguistically correct.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:16:11 -0500, gothika put
finger to keyboard and composed:

No law suit is frivilous when one's health is involved.
The problems with the current system ingards to both the health
aspect(FDA) and legal issues is that our government has been bought
and paid for with corporate monies.(lobbying)
an accurate analogy would be one of the fox guarding the hen house.
Also as you state, the FDA has at best finite powers even when it
chooses to work for to the benefit of the people rather than corporate
entities.
As has been proven time and time again when new technologies and
medical knowledge emerge we gain more insight into what is and isn't
harmful to our health.

That cuts both ways. What if products, or procedures, that were once
thought harmful were proven not to be? John Edwards, John Kerry's
running mate, has made a preposterously rich living chasing
ambulances. According to the July 19, 2004 issue of Time, he, like
many greedy lawyers, charges a whopping 33% for each successful
litigation. That means that hundreds of millions of dollars goes into
the pockets of these parasites, and of course the public ultimately
foots the bill. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards
won judgments totalling more than US$152m in 63 lawsuits.

In one case Edwards won damages in the amount of $4.2m for a child
born with brain damage and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. This
case has contributed to an increase of 5% in the numbers of Caesarean
sections since 1970. Time goes on to say that "meanwhile, medical
research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth
trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy."

"There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury
(cerebral palsy) occurs prenatally and is not related to the
delivery", says Dr H. Davis Burton, whose partner was a defendant in a
lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's
secretary of health and human services.

That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:09:40 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:16:11 -0500, gothika put
finger to keyboard and composed:

No law suit is frivilous when one's health is involved.
The problems with the current system ingards to both the health
aspect(FDA) and legal issues is that our government has been bought
and paid for with corporate monies.(lobbying)
an accurate analogy would be one of the fox guarding the hen house.
Also as you state, the FDA has at best finite powers even when it
chooses to work for to the benefit of the people rather than corporate
entities.
As has been proven time and time again when new technologies and
medical knowledge emerge we gain more insight into what is and isn't
harmful to our health.

That cuts both ways. What if products, or procedures, that were once
thought harmful were proven not to be? John Edwards, John Kerry's
running mate, has made a preposterously rich living chasing
ambulances. According to the July 19, 2004 issue of Time, he, like
many greedy lawyers, charges a whopping 33% for each successful
litigation. That means that hundreds of millions of dollars goes into
the pockets of these parasites, and of course the public ultimately
foots the bill. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards
won judgments totalling more than US$152m in 63 lawsuits.

The public always foots the bill because the greedy corporate
parasites refuse to take any kind of a loss, even when it's due to
their own selfish actions.
How typical of a Repube to always attack character instead of honestly
debating the issues.
Who CARES if he chases ambulances! That's the JOB of a personal injury
lawyer. At least he's there to get you some sort of justice.
Why don't you mention the lawyers for the defendants who all to often
sneak in illegally to trick the injured party's signature on liability
release forms.(DON"T say it doesn't happens, happens every day.)
Or that the defendants all to often clog up the justice system with
endless appeals thereby costing taxpayers millions in court costs.

In one case Edwards won damages in the amount of $4.2m for a child
born with brain damage and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. This
case has contributed to an increase of 5% in the numbers of Caesarean
sections since 1970. Time goes on to say that "meanwhile, medical
research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth
trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy."

Ceesareans DO carry more health risks contrary to what you would like
to believe. The stats bear that out.

"There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury
(cerebral palsy) occurs prenatally and is not related to the
delivery", says Dr H. Davis Burton, whose partner was a defendant in a
lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's
secretary of health and human services.

Right! Let's take the word of another right wing conservative as fact.
After all they NEVER tell lies or spin facts do they?
That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.

Sure! Just repeal or nullify every law passed by Reagan, Bush senior
and Dubya that robbed the individual of their rights to legal redress
and we should at least be back to square one.
Having a government that actually served the interests of the
individual voters and aggressively went after the corporate monster
would be nice too.

- Franc Zabkar

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:59:13 -0500, gothika put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:09:40 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

John Edwards, John Kerry's
running mate, has made a preposterously rich living chasing
ambulances. According to the July 19, 2004 issue of Time, he, like
many greedy lawyers, charges a whopping 33% for each successful
litigation. That means that hundreds of millions of dollars goes into
the pockets of these parasites, and of course the public ultimately
foots the bill. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards
won judgments totalling more than US$152m in 63 lawsuits.

The public always foots the bill because the greedy corporate
parasites refuse to take any kind of a loss, even when it's due to
their own selfish actions.
How typical of a Repube to always attack character instead of honestly
debating the issues.

I'm not a Republican, nor a conservative. I choose to evaluate every
issue on its merits, rather than accept an indivisible bag of
prepackaged policies. In that respect I consider myself a democrat, in
the dictionary sense of the word, not a "Democrat".

Who CARES if he chases ambulances! That's the JOB of a personal injury
lawyer. At least he's there to get you some sort of justice.
Why don't you mention the lawyers for the defendants who all to often
sneak in illegally to trick the injured party's signature on liability
release forms.

I despise *all* lawyers. Their profession is devoid of ethics and is
founded purely on self interest. Any proposed legislation should
impose limits on legal fees - it should not be a case of open slather.
To take one example, most cases of workers' compensation fraud in
Australia go unpunished, or uncontested, because legal costs exceed
the benefits gained. In fact, lawyers in Australia are an impediment
to justice, at least for the middle income earners. The rich scum can
afford to buy any legal outcome they choose, and the dregs at the
bottom of the social order have access to free legal aid.

(DON"T say it doesn't happens, happens every day.)
Or that the defendants all to often clog up the justice system with
endless appeals thereby costing taxpayers millions in court costs.

Agreed. And nothing will change as long as voters continue to vote for
lawyers.

In one case Edwards won damages in the amount of $4.2m for a child
born with brain damage and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. This
case has contributed to an increase of 5% in the numbers of Caesarean
sections since 1970. Time goes on to say that "meanwhile, medical
research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth
trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy."

Ceesareans DO carry more health risks contrary to what you would like
to believe. The stats bear that out.

The US medical system is erring too heavily on the side of caution.
Other Western countries have much lower rates of C-sections. But then
the USA has 2/3 of the world's lawyers looking over doctors'
shoulders.

In my area, the cost of professonal indemnity and public liability
insurance is so high, that the majority of obstetricians have decided
to give up their profession. Many public functions are now extinct
because no insurer can be found to underwrite the risk. Every day, TV
and newspaper advertisements extol the ambulance-chasing expertise of
personal injury law firms. In fact, one firm emphasises its specialty
as falling-on-your-arse-in-the-shopping-centre type incidents.

"There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury
(cerebral palsy) occurs prenatally and is not related to the
delivery", says Dr H. Davis Burton, whose partner was a defendant in a
lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's
secretary of health and human services.

Right! Let's take the word of another right wing conservative as fact.
After all they NEVER tell lies or spin facts do they?

We should at least investigate the possibility that a good doctor may
have been unfairly crucified.

Anyway, "how typical of a [Democrat?] to always attack character
instead of honestly debating the issues." ;-)

That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.

Sure! Just repeal or nullify every law passed by Reagan, Bush senior
and Dubya that robbed the individual of their rights to legal redress
and we should at least be back to square one.
Having a government that actually served the interests of the
individual voters and aggressively went after the corporate monster
would be nice too.

I agree with you in principle, it's just a matter of balance. For
example, there has to be some middle ground between the Ford Pinto
case on the one hand, and the McDonalds Hot Coffee incident on the
other.

If it were up to me, I would implement an independent panel of
intelligent laypersons to oversee court outcomes. This would be a kind
of Stupid Judgments committee made up of people who know that coffee
is hot, and that fatty foods make you fat.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:59:13 -0500, gothika
put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:09:40 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

John Edwards, John Kerry's
running mate, has made a preposterously rich living chasing
ambulances. According to the July 19, 2004 issue of Time, he, like
many greedy lawyers, charges a whopping 33% for each successful
litigation. That means that hundreds of millions of dollars goes
into
the pockets of these parasites, and of course the public
ultimately
foots the bill. According to the Center for Public Integrity,
Edwards
won judgments totalling more than US$152m in 63 lawsuits.

The public always foots the bill because the greedy corporate
parasites refuse to take any kind of a loss, even when it's due to
their own selfish actions.
How typical of a Repube to always attack character instead of
honestly
debating the issues.

I'm not a Republican, nor a conservative. I choose to evaluate every
issue on its merits, rather than accept an indivisible bag of
prepackaged policies. In that respect I consider myself a democrat,
in
the dictionary sense of the word, not a "Democrat".

Who CARES if he chases ambulances! That's the JOB of a personal
injury
lawyer. At least he's there to get you some sort of justice.
Why don't you mention the lawyers for the defendants who all to
often
sneak in illegally to trick the injured party's signature on
liability
release forms.

I despise *all* lawyers. Their profession is devoid of ethics and is
founded purely on self interest. Any proposed legislation should
impose limits on legal fees - it should not be a case of open
slather.
To take one example, most cases of workers' compensation fraud in
Australia go unpunished, or uncontested, because legal costs exceed
the benefits gained. In fact, lawyers in Australia are an impediment
to justice, at least for the middle income earners. The rich scum
can
afford to buy any legal outcome they choose, and the dregs at the
bottom of the social order have access to free legal aid.

(DON"T say it doesn't happens, happens every day.)
Or that the defendants all to often clog up the justice system with
endless appeals thereby costing taxpayers millions in court costs.

Agreed. And nothing will change as long as voters continue to vote
for
lawyers.

In one case Edwards won damages in the amount of $4.2m for a child
born with brain damage and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
This
case has contributed to an increase of 5% in the numbers of
Caesarean
sections since 1970. Time goes on to say that "meanwhile, medical
research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth
trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy."

Ceesareans DO carry more health risks contrary to what you would
like
to believe. The stats bear that out.

The US medical system is erring too heavily on the side of caution.
Other Western countries have much lower rates of C-sections. But
then
the USA has 2/3 of the world's lawyers looking over doctors'
shoulders.

In my area, the cost of professonal indemnity and public liability
insurance is so high, that the majority of obstetricians have
decided
to give up their profession. Many public functions are now extinct
because no insurer can be found to underwrite the risk. Every day,
TV
and newspaper advertisements extol the ambulance-chasing expertise
of
personal injury law firms. In fact, one firm emphasises its
specialty
as falling-on-your-arse-in-the-shopping-centre type incidents.

"There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury
(cerebral palsy) occurs prenatally and is not related to the
delivery", says Dr H. Davis Burton, whose partner was a defendant
in a
lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's
secretary of health and human services.

Right! Let's take the word of another right wing conservative as
fact.
After all they NEVER tell lies or spin facts do they?

We should at least investigate the possibility that a good doctor
may
have been unfairly crucified.

Anyway, "how typical of a [Democrat?] to always attack character
instead of honestly debating the issues." ;-)

That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of
the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of
erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.

Sure! Just repeal or nullify every law passed by Reagan, Bush
senior
and Dubya that robbed the individual of their rights to legal
redress
and we should at least be back to square one.
Having a government that actually served the interests of the
individual voters and aggressively went after the corporate monster
would be nice too.

I agree with you in principle, it's just a matter of balance. For
example, there has to be some middle ground between the Ford Pinto
case on the one hand, and the McDonalds Hot Coffee incident on the
other.

If it were up to me, I would implement an independent panel of
intelligent laypersons to oversee court outcomes. This would be a
kind
of Stupid Judgments committee made up of people who know that coffee
is hot, and that fatty foods make you fat.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.


Er gents, with respect this is an international electronics repair
group. I am sure most readers (who are probably outside the US) would,
like me, prefer that you found somewhere else to argue your domestic
politics, especially such long posts. All it does is use up valuable
bandwidth and for people who pay by time for dial-up access it costs
them money to see it to boot.


--
Woody in Harrogate, UK

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:46:42 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:59:13 -0500, gothika put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:09:40 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

John Edwards, John Kerry's
running mate, has made a preposterously rich living chasing
ambulances. According to the July 19, 2004 issue of Time, he, like
many greedy lawyers, charges a whopping 33% for each successful
litigation. That means that hundreds of millions of dollars goes into
the pockets of these parasites, and of course the public ultimately
foots the bill. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards
won judgments totalling more than US$152m in 63 lawsuits.

The public always foots the bill because the greedy corporate
parasites refuse to take any kind of a loss, even when it's due to
their own selfish actions.
How typical of a Repube to always attack character instead of honestly
debating the issues.

I'm not a Republican, nor a conservative. I choose to evaluate every
issue on its merits, rather than accept an indivisible bag of
prepackaged policies. In that respect I consider myself a democrat, in
the dictionary sense of the word, not a "Democrat".

Who CARES if he chases ambulances! That's the JOB of a personal injury
lawyer. At least he's there to get you some sort of justice.
Why don't you mention the lawyers for the defendants who all to often
sneak in illegally to trick the injured party's signature on liability
release forms.

I despise *all* lawyers. Their profession is devoid of ethics and is
founded purely on self interest. Any proposed legislation should
impose limits on legal fees - it should not be a case of open slather.
To take one example, most cases of workers' compensation fraud in
Australia go unpunished, or uncontested, because legal costs exceed
the benefits gained. In fact, lawyers in Australia are an impediment
to justice, at least for the middle income earners. The rich scum can
afford to buy any legal outcome they choose, and the dregs at the
bottom of the social order have access to free legal aid.
No different in the US. The rich have bought the legal system
lock,stock and barrel.
That's why they are now pushing legislation to lock out the working
class from any use of the system to their benefit.
hence the need for lawyers even more.
I'm sure their are necesary evils in your society that you accept
every day, so why so adverse to a few lawyers.
As bad as many lawyers may be there are far worse persons in the
workings of the system doing far more harm.
Take politicians for instance!
A good analogy would be fighting fire with fire.

(DON"T say it doesn't happens, happens every day.)
Or that the defendants all to often clog up the justice system with
endless appeals thereby costing taxpayers millions in court costs.

Agreed. And nothing will change as long as voters continue to vote for
lawyers.

In one case Edwards won damages in the amount of $4.2m for a child
born with brain damage and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. This
case has contributed to an increase of 5% in the numbers of Caesarean
sections since 1970. Time goes on to say that "meanwhile, medical
research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth
trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy."

Ceesareans DO carry more health risks contrary to what you would like
to believe. The stats bear that out.

The US medical system is erring too heavily on the side of caution.
Other Western countries have much lower rates of C-sections. But then
the USA has 2/3 of the world's lawyers looking over doctors'
shoulders.

In my area, the cost of professonal indemnity and public liability
insurance is so high, that the majority of obstetricians have decided
to give up their profession. Many public functions are now extinct
because no insurer can be found to underwrite the risk. Every day, TV
and newspaper advertisements extol the ambulance-chasing expertise of
personal injury law firms. In fact, one firm emphasises its specialty
as falling-on-your-arse-in-the-shopping-centre type incidents.

"There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury
(cerebral palsy) occurs prenatally and is not related to the
delivery", says Dr H. Davis Burton, whose partner was a defendant in a
lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's
secretary of health and human services.

Right! Let's take the word of another right wing conservative as fact.
After all they NEVER tell lies or spin facts do they?

We should at least investigate the possibility that a good doctor may
have been unfairly crucified.
Part and parcel of being a Doctor these days.
What high paying job doesn't come with equally high risks?
Should doctors then be exempt from the facts of life in our society?
It's just common sense to hold a professional to a higher standard who
in return holds the power of life and death over us all.
Anyway, "how typical of a [Democrat?] to always attack character
instead of honestly debating the issues." ;-)
I'm not a Democrat either, though I know from having lived a long
time that whenever you have a Democrat in the White House and at least
a fair balance in Congress the little guy doesn't get kicked quite as
hard.
Simply a matter of the lesser of two evils.
And FYI you were the one who started the character attacks first.

That said I believe we have sufficient tools in the arsenal of the
medical science that when combined with the correct policy of erring
on the side of caution we can maintain some level of safety in
consumer products.
It will require a major overhauling of our current system of
government though.

Sure! Just repeal or nullify every law passed by Reagan, Bush senior
and Dubya that robbed the individual of their rights to legal redress
and we should at least be back to square one.
Having a government that actually served the interests of the
individual voters and aggressively went after the corporate monster
would be nice too.

I agree with you in principle, it's just a matter of balance. For
example, there has to be some middle ground between the Ford Pinto
case on the one hand, and the McDonalds Hot Coffee incident on the
other.
FYI the McDonald's incident WAS a justified case.
The woman was skalded by coffee that was FAR too hot.
Look at the case files, the thermostat on the coffee maker was turned
all the way up by a disgruntled employee. This was a deliberate act.
Would you then say that an employer isn't responsible for the actions
of their employees?(This wouldn't happen if corporate America wasn't
such a bunch of bottom line cheap asses, trying to get their labor for
nothing.)
I don't know where you're getting your figures but the numbers of so
called "frivilous" law suits that even got on the dockett, much, less
reached a favorable verdict for the plantiff have declined drastically
since Reagan and Bush senior changed the laws back in the 80's.
Sounds to me your obsessing, and worst doing so on faliscious data.


If it were up to me, I would implement an independent panel of
intelligent laypersons to oversee court outcomes. This would be a kind
of Stupid Judgments committee made up of people who know that coffee
is hot, and that fatty foods make you fat.

Actually such a panel already exists. It's staffed by members of the
bar. Problem is it's seldom ever used for the benefit of the populace,
only to remove judges who are far to left leaning.
The fatty foods issue is a whole 'nother can of worms but with the FDA
regulation either totally done away with or never enforced you could
argue that one too.(The food and snack retailer are lieing their asses
off in regards ro all the food/snack items they're claiming are "fat
free" these days.)
As for the government allowing lay persons in on the decision making,
dream on. It'd take a bloody revolution.
The judicial system in America is broken and needs to be
replaced/revamped. This would only be effective if implemented by
citizenry, NOT government officials.(And certainly not ANYONE from
corporate America.)


- Franc Zabkar