Michigan Supreme Court throws out huge malpractice verdict

[tharkûn]

Moral of this story: according to the apologists, serious incompetence is not a cause for professional discipline in the medical industry as long as you get lucky and no one can prove you maimed anybody with it. A hospital which accidentally drugs somebody twice is perfectly safe, and no precedent need be set that such carelessness is not acceptable.

The moral of the story would be, one might establish that actual overdosing occurred. One might then demonstrate some harm before whacking his career out from under a doctor who didn't even commit the incompotence (by ANYONE's account).

This is not a $21 million mistake, nor is it a simple case where the doctor clearly deserves to be tossed out on his ass. Everybody makes mistakes, and you should be held accountable when you make them. However in this particular case, with this particular dosage and drug - it just doesn't amount to crap. It does, however have "oppurtunistic lawyer seeking winfall" written all over it (including BS psuedoscience).

[Darth Wong]

Thank you, I have my own references, including the official ones required by the government. WHICH OF THESE SIDE EFFECTS WERE OBSERVED?

Irrelevant to the question of whether some kind of disciplinary action is warranted if an error was made. Stormbringer claimed that it's OK to make a serious error if you get lucky and nobody is hurt by it, so no disciplinary action should occur. His claim is bullshit, and your defense of it is bullshit, based mostly on gross misinterpretations of my argument. You won't even admit that you were wrong to assume I thought he should have won the case; you just quietly ignore that point in your rebuttal, along with the obvious fact that you never bothered reading my position before responding to what you thought it was.

You are missing the point. I adminster a drug to your pregnat wife, SHE experiences an overdose. It does not follow that YOUR SON would experience the same overdose. There is this little thing called the placental barrier, drugs administered to the mother do not automatically get administered to neonatites in the same dosage.

So? How does this change the fact that if a drug with serious potential side-effects from overdose was accidentally administered twice, some kind of discipline should be applied? Leaving aside the obvious fact that complications during childbirth can potentially harm the infant regardless of whether his overdose is smaller than the mother's overdose, the point is that you are denying the importance of a serious mistake in determining whether disciplinary action is warranted. You are treating this exclusively from a standpoint of legalism, not professional standards.

Everything I've read aside from the dubious hired gun thrown out by the court backs Stormbringer. Everything I know about pharmacology backs Stormbringer. The child's treating neurologist, backed by MRI and a whole slew of informatio, backs Stormbringer.

Possibly, in this case he got away with it. The evidence does not, however, back Stormbringer's assertion that oxycotin overdoses are necessarily harmless. In fact, it says the exact opposite, listing specific and numerous possible side-effects.

The claim that it causes cerebral palsy is BS. That doesn't mean an overdose is necessarily harmless, for fuck's sake. And the fact that it's a different type of hormone than estrogen is obvious and has no bearing on the point I made earlier; at no point did I claim that estrogen and oxytocin are the same thing, so please dispense with the sophistry.

Then why in hell were you bringing up HRT?

Because Stormbringer made the unbelievable comment that in general, hormone overdoses should be assumed harmless by default. I was merely giving numerous well-known examples of how this is obviously untrue. Sorry you never learned to read.

The effects of pitocin are well known and it is not harmless. However when bad things happen, there are characteristic symptoms and diagnostic obersvations that are COMPLETELY LACKING IN THIS CASE (note this is NOT disputed in the case, the plaintiff's hired guns conceed this).

I reiterate my earlier rebuttal: you seem to believe that if somebody risks the health of a patient via incompetence but gets lucky, then no discipline should be forthcoming. This is bullshit, and totally contradicts any meaningful definition of professional licensing for the safe of public safety. There is also the issue of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy that the medical industry employs by default in which no harm is assumed to exist prior to long detailed studied being performed, hence it took decades to admit that HRT could hurt people ...

<snip many more repetitions of your triumphant declaration that there was no clinical evidence of damage>

The doctor didn't administer the drug, that would be the nurse. The doctor is only being sued because he is the nurses' boss.

Legal vicarious liability is a bitch. But that does not change the fact that some kind of disciplinary action needs to be meted out to the appropriate parties if a serious error such as double-dosing did in fact occur.

It buggers the mind to think how you double bag a patient in these circumstances, but hey what would I know

Much more serious medical mistakes than that have taken place. It's hardly impossible.

The doctor got away with it, even though no clinical evidence of neonatal overdose is forthcoming

You're asking for very specific details about this case now, which you say you have followed but which none of us have, in yet another effort to be a pedant. You note that none of the serious complications associated with an oxytocin overdose were present, hence you conclude that it was impossible for the patient to receive said overdose. Do the severity of side-effects vary from patient to patient, or is this wonder-drug so controlled in its effects that it always has the same side-effects with respect to dose in every patient?

If somebody doesn't get lung cancer, does the absence of recognized side-effects of smoking mean he couldn't possibly be a smoker? If somebody lacks serious liver damage, does that mean he couldn't possibly have taken an overdose of tylenol?

At least in engineering, simply putting someone at risk is considered a serious problem; the risk doesn't have to become a death or serious injury to be of significant import.

Frankly I'm betting the doctor never put anyone at risk (more than normal). It just seems whack to double bag with the pump.

That is not the point of contention between myself and Stormbringer, idiot. You are saying that the entire case is just plain fraudulent, and that no error occurred at all. If that is the case (based on your "it just seems whack" logic), then it has no bearing on Stormbringer's absurd argument that it's perfectly acceptable to make the error and receive no disciplinary action whatsoever as long as you can't prove specific damages.

[tharkûn]

Mike let's review:

The only question is how much harm it did

Okay so the answer to your "only question" is none so far as medical science can detect.

Stormbringer, et al, never suggest that the doctor should get off scott free, but state:

And this was, according to the medical evidence a harmless mistake. Exactly why is it that we should drop the hammer on that?

Note the question isn't should the doctor not be disciplined, but why should the hammer be dropped (as in ruin his career).


Stormbringer again ascerts that without evidence we cannot assume harm.

Frankly, unless there's some evidence that it was harmful in any other way the point stands. It was apparently a harmless mistake.

And all the medical evidence points to this, if a mistake occurred it was a harmless one.

So you reject all of the medical evidence that hormone overdoses or even long-term low-level exposure can be harmful?
Now in reply do you talk about anything remotely close to the case at hand? No you talk about the medical evidence of overdose, which in this case SUPPORTS STORMBRINGER, and long-term low-level exposure which has piss all to do with these circumstances.

And an honest mistake that causes no harm requires drumming some one out why?

I already explained why. Please address my response rather than mindlessly repeating your question.


Now I'm still not finding where Stormbringer or anyone else is argueing that something like a letter of censure, mandatory remedial education, or something similar is not warranted if the experts deem it to be so needed. EVERYONE talks about "drumming some one out" or otherwise canning the doctor.


So here was my initial take:

So what should happen in this case? First the criminal courts should determine if criminal negligance occurred ... in which case you bring the idiot up on charges; not hit his insurance company up for all it's worth.

Second you have a medical board look into the misconduct and award appropriate sentence. That may be a letter of reprimand, mandatory remedial courses, stripping of medical licensing, or referal back to the criminal system with recomendation for charges.

Lastly you go to civil court and establish legal responsibility and award recompense for damages suffered.

Now what part of that do you disagree with?

Stormbringer claimed that it's OK to make a serious error if you get lucky and nobody is hurt by it, so no disciplinary action should occur.

This is BS, pure and and simple BS. Stormbringer asks should we "drop the hammer" or "drum some one out", NOWHERE did stormbringer advocate "no disciplinary action". Now perhaps my reading skills are deficient, but please feel free to show me a post where Stormbringer says no disciplinary action should be taken.

You won't even admit that you were wrong to assume I thought he should have won the case

Did I ever say such a thing? Maybe its my deficient memory and my deficient reading skills, but I just can't find me saying "Mike Wong beleives the case should have been won".

along with the obvious fact that you never bothered reading my position before responding to what you thought it was.

Your position appears to be that the doctor should be fired over this alleged mistake. Your position appears to be that actual harm was done to the child despite having piss all for evidence to back that up.

How does this change the fact that if a drug with serious potential side-effects from overdose was accidentally administered twice, some kind of discipline should be applied?

I have preciously reposted I already said such discipline should be administered by a medical board and that such discipline should NOT be termination of the doctor's practice. Show me anywhere I say no discipline should be taken.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that complications during childbirth can potentially harm the infant regardless of whether his overdose is smaller than the mother's overdose, the point is that you are denying the importance of a serious mistake in determining whether disciplinary action is warranted. You are treating this exclusively from a standpoint of legalism, not professional standards.

The first thing needed to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted is evidence that an error occurred. For 13 years no one even claimed an error was made, retroactively some hired guns concluded that a mistake must have been made to cause the kid's brain damage.

After is actually established that an error occurred, the magnitude of the error and the individuals responsibility for it must be weighed against the magnitude of the punishment meeted out. In this case, even if the error occurred EXACTLY as the plaintiff alleges, it DOES NOT WARRANT TERMINATION OF LICENSING. And before you tell me again how horrible pitocin is in OD, you should note that the dosages typically required to cause the side effects you posted is twice what the mother was given (in other words four times the standard dosage).

Possibly, in this case he got away with it. The evidence does not, however, back Stormbringer's assertion that oxycotin overdoses are necessarily harmless. In fact, it says the exact opposite, listing specific and numerous possible side-effects.

Yes at double the dosage we are talking about here with clear clinical indicators when such a thing occurs

Further I can't seem to find where Stormbringer said that. The closest is Blkbrythegreat, but even he speaks about hormones in general.

Because Stormbringer made the unbelievable comment that in general, hormone overdoses should be assumed harmless by default. I was merely giving numerous well-known examples of how this is obviously untrue. Sorry you never learned to read.

No that would be BlkbrryTheGreat:
Hormones are nothing more then a specific pattern of protein, they work via a "lock" system found only on the designated receptor cells and only produce effects within those cells. With most hormones, an overdose won't have the damaging effects you're implying. The ones that do, such as the adrenal hormones (ephonphrin and neuraephonephrin), do so for very obvious reasons.

and echoed by Chrostas. But hey I'll try learning to read.

you seem to believe that if somebody risks the health of a patient via incompetence but gets lucky, then no discipline should be forthcoming.

Let me reiterate my position word for word:

Second you have a medical board look into the misconduct and award appropriate sentence. That may be a letter of reprimand, mandatory remedial courses, stripping of medical licensing, or referal back to the criminal system with recomendation for charges.

You're asking for very specific details about this case now, which you say you have followed but which none of us have, in yet another effort to be a pedant. You note that none of the serious complications associated with an oxytocin overdose were present, hence you conclude that it was impossible for the patient to receive said overdose.

None of the clinical indicators period were observed. It is hypothetically possible to be administered an OD of pitocin and not show any of the clinical indicators, however that is just about as unlikely as winning the lottery. It is not just that no harm was witnessed, but that all the standard diagnostic procedures, like the apgar test, tested well inside the normal range.

Do the severity of side-effects vary from patient to patient, or is this wonder-drug so controlled in its effects that it always has the same side-effects with respect to dose in every patient?

The side effects you listed are typically seen with double the dosage alleged to be given here (there is a difference between a mild overdose and a severe overdose). Given that and the placental barrier, the minimum required sensitivity would be 2 to 3 std's above normal. Note there is jack didly squat that a doctor could have done then to determine said sensitivity before hand. This is almost bee sting and peanut land.

If somebody doesn't get lung cancer, does the absence of recognized side-effects of smoking mean he couldn't possibly be a smoker? If somebody lacks serious liver damage, does that mean he couldn't possibly have taken an overdose of tylenol?

If he doesn't show blood vessel constriction I'd bet good money on him not having nicotene in his system. If blood oxgyen levels are normal, he almost definately isn't a smoker.

If the serum acetaminophen assay comes up negative you better beleive he didn't OD on tylenol.

It isn't just that nothing harmful was witnessed, it was that none of the clinical indicators were witnessed and nobody thought anything of it for 13 years. It was only after somebody saw a pot of gold that any of this became an issue.

That is not the point of contention between myself and Stormbringer, idiot.

I know that would be wether or not the mistake was sufficiently grave to bar the man from practicing medicine. The fact that the entire case may well be fraudulent has no bearing on barring him from practicing medicine

Stormbringer's absurd argument that it's perfectly acceptable to make the error and receive no disciplinary action whatsoever as long as you can't prove specific damages.

No Stormbring explicitly states:
An objective proffesional reveiw and investigation which would determine the what, how, and why is a much better start. After that the appropriate punishment should be decided on the basis of that investigation.

[Stormbringer]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS ZERO HARM?

BECAUSE THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF HARM!

Appeal to ignorance fallacy. There is considerable evidence that hormones and for that matter, any drug administered to a newborn is dangerous. In fact, there is a risk of brain damage to an infant from any induced labour, even one that goes by the book for fuck's sake. So take your worthless assumptions and fallacies and shove them up your pompous ass. It is VERY difficult to tie an action to a particular form of damage in a single human case; you can't even conclusively prove that a lifetime of cigarette smoking caused a particular case of cancer.

The only alleged harm is the cerebral palsy which isn't linked to the hormone overdose.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF POTENTIAL HARM BESIDES CEREBRAL PALSY, FUCKTARD?

And if you wish to argue that the child suffers from any of that then it's up to you to provide evidence that the child did indeed suffer harm and you damn well know it. You're the one making the claim that the child was harmed here and it's up to you to provide the evidence for it.

If there was damage done to this child because of the hormones don't you think some one might have noticed and said something?

Obviously, your knowledge of how the medical industry works is nonexistent. They do not go out of their way to inform you of contraindications, risks, and other potential side effects of a treatment at the time it is recommended to you.

Nice appeal to ignorance. The child must be harmed because no one has proved otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

Nice appeal to ignorance. The child must be harmed because no one has proved otherwise.

Nice strawman fallacy. The drug is known to be harmful in overdoses. This has been clearly established. If in fact no overdose or error occurred at all then that's a different matter, but you asserted that if the hospital DID fuck up and administer a serious overdose of the drug, that no disciplinary action whatsoever should take place unless conclusive evidence can be presented of harm, as if professional incompetence itself is not worthy of discipline. This kind of idiotic attitude can only come from someone whose entire approach to ethics revolves around individual rights without responsibilites.

[Darth Wong]

Stormbringer, et al, never suggest that the doctor should get off scott free, but state:

And this was, according to the medical evidence a harmless mistake. Exactly why is it that we should drop the hammer on that?

Note the question isn't should the doctor not be disciplined, but why should the hammer be dropped (as in ruin his career).

Oh, so "drop the hammer" has a specific concrete definition now?

Stormbringer again ascerts that without evidence we cannot assume harm.

PUTTING PEOPLE AT RISK IS ENOUGH, FUCKTARD. This is a founding principle of medical and engineering ethics. You have admitted that the drug is dangerous in overdoses. Stormbringer was not disputing that the overdose took place; he accepted it as I did. If you dispute that there was no overdose at all that's a different matter, but he argued that if there was an overdose but one could not present conclusive evidence of specific harm, no discipline should take place.

So here was my initial take:

So what should happen in this case? First the criminal courts should determine if criminal negligance occurred ... in which case you bring the idiot up on charges; not hit his insurance company up for all it's worth.

Second you have a medical board look into the misconduct and award appropriate sentence. That may be a letter of reprimand, mandatory remedial courses, stripping of medical licensing, or referal back to the criminal system with recomendation for charges.

Lastly you go to civil court and establish legal responsibility and award recompense for damages suffered.

So? I was not arguing with that; I was arguing with the notion that if an overdose DID occur and no one was disciplined for it, that this is just fine. If you can't fucking read, that's not my problem.

Now what part of that do you disagree with?

The part where you ignore the fact that I never responded to it because it had nothing to do with my position.

<snip more endless pedantic bullshit in which you completely ignore my actual argument in favour of your strawman>

Wow, such impressive ability to be long-winded while not addressing your opponent's argument at all.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The burden of proof regarding harm from pitocin overdose is pretty straight forward. The drug may cause the fetus' heart rate to plummet which can deprive the brain of oxygen. However, a fetus' heart is usually monitored and its difficult to imagine how this straight-forward effect (from which all secondary harmful effects are derived) could somehow be missed and not have the Court hang the doctor for it. If he'd given an enormous pitocin administration followed by a collapse of the fetus' heart rate, he'd most certainly have not had this case overturned.

Quite frankly, the entire argument is predicated on the opinion of an overdose, but an overdose is defined by the circumstances of medication at hand. A complicated pregnancy, a baby with a weak heart, etc. all define what that could be. Tolerances aren't mathematically determined as in other fields. I'd like to know why they feel this was an overdose, beyond "well we feel it was a bit much." Like I said. A true overdose would cause the fetus' heart rate to plummet or the mother to be in more intense pain and possible injury. I would like to know how they determined it was an overdose.

[Darth Wong]

Quite frankly, the entire argument is predicated on the opinion of an overdose, but an overdose is defined by the circumstances of medication at hand. A complicated pregnancy, a baby with a weak heart, etc. all define what that could be. Tolerances aren't mathematically determined as in other fields. I'd like to know why they feel this was an overdose, beyond "well we feel it was a bit much." Like I said. A true overdose would cause the fetus' heart rate to plummet or the mother to be in more intense pain and possible injury. I would like to know how they determined it was an overdose.

Well, there's two arguments here. Stormbringer's argument is one of general principle: he feels that even if they did make a mistake, they shouldn't be disciplined unless you can produce concrete evidence that this mistake did specific damage.

Tharkun's argument, on the other hand, is that after carefully following the case in question, he is convinced that they actually didn't screw up at all, and that the plaintiff just made it up completely out of thin air, which makes one wonder how they could have possibly won a conviction from even the dumbest jury (you'd think there must have been some basis for the conclusion that an overdose occurred, particularly with such specific circumstances attached, ie- the assertion that the dose was accidentally given twice; he makes it seem as if they just pulled it out of thin air without a shred of evidence and the jury bought it).

Not having studied this particular case in-depth, I certainly can't say more about it, but I stand firm on the professional ethics issue: one should not have to demonstrate injury in order to produce a justification for professional disciplinary action following a mistake.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I understand, and agree in principle, but my comment was that in medicine the "overdose" is often determined by that which will cause harmful effects. Now all medications have side-effects. How does one define an overdose as a crime of professional negligence in this case? In engineering, a bridge can collapse with no one on it (Tacoma Narrows) or another engineer can take a peek and see that the fucking specifications are not sufficiently safe. How does one do this in medicine, where each case is minutely unique, and one is often playing a variety of risks off one another, trying to determine the course of action with the least accumulative risk. My problem is determining how can a specific quantity of medication be objectively determined as safe for this specific situation? This is why the license committees are composed of doctors themselves, but its still not an objective determination the way it could be in, say, engineering.

Take cancer patients for example, not everyone reacts to chemotherapy the same way. Two patients of similar medical background both recieve the standard chemotherapy and radiation. Patient A has his tumor go into remission. Patient B dies of secondary infections as a result of complications from radiation. Is the doctor guilty of professional negligence, even in this case where there is harm?

[Darth Wong]

I understand, and agree in principle, but my comment was that in medicine the "overdose" is often determined by that which will cause harmful effects. Now all medications have side-effects. How does one define an overdose as a crime of professional negligence in this case? In engineering, a bridge can collapse with no one on it (Tacoma Narrows) or another engineer can take a peek and see that the fucking specifications are not sufficiently safe. How does one do this in medicine, where each case is minutely unique, and one is often playing a variety of risks off one another, trying to determine the course of action with the least accumulative risk.

Supposedly, the proper dose was determined for this case and then accidentally applied twice. This would obviously be an overdose. Moreover, one could easily see how an accidental double-dose could be extremely hazardous in some cases, so it should be treated accordingly. Now, if (as Tharkun says), there was no double-dose and the plaintiff just pulled that out of his ass without a shred of evidence (and we accept that the jury just bought it because they're imbeciles), then that would be a different matter. But given the variability of human reactions to drugs, it's not hard to imagine that an individual might receive an overdose without necessarily being harmed. It's still an overdose in the sense that the physician did not intend to apply that much, and had no way of knowing beforehand whether it would do any damage.

My problem is determining how can a specific quantity of medication be objectively determined as safe for this specific situation?

Couldn't you ask that question of all drugs? Countless drugs have been found to be routinely administered in grossly excessive quantities only long after the fact, and the damage done by those overdoses was deemed "side-effects" rather than actionable harm (the birth-control pill is an excellent example).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Supposedly, the proper dose was determined for this case and then accidentally applied twice. This would obviously be an overdose. Moreover, one could easily see how an accidental double-dose could be extremely hazardous in some cases, so it should be treated accordingly. Now, if (as Tharkun says), there was no double-dose and the plaintiff just pulled that out of his ass without a shred of evidence (and we accept that the jury just bought it because they're imbeciles), then that would be a different matter. But given the variability of human reactions to drugs, it's not hard to imagine that an individual might receive an overdose without necessarily being harmed. It's still an overdose in the sense that the physician did not intend to apply that much, and had no way of knowing beforehand whether it would do any damage.

Well I'd have to say in the case that she did recieve twice the dose she was supposed to (I don't possibly see how this could happen, as the nurse would not prepare two different injectors and then forget about the first one), it would constitute a situation where it was impossible for a genuine and conscious decision that some other doctor felt was slightly excessive. My point was that one should be careful in drawing precise parallels between engineering and medicine because the objectivity of assessing what consitutes negligence is much different.

And I've personally witnessed patient bullshit regarding how doctor's administer medication. One imbecile claimed my father gave her so much sufentanil, that it would've immediately caused her to go into cardiac arrest and killed her.

Couldn't you ask that question of all drugs? Countless drugs have been found to be routinely administered in grossly excessive quantities only long after the fact, and the damage done by those overdoses was deemed "side-effects" rather than actionable harm (the birth-control pill is an excellent example).

Of course you could, but what you just described was as-of-then medical ignorance. Many medications are not precisely understood. I would describe this as different from individual physician negligence, and if any outright negligence, that of the pharmecutical company for doing shody safety research.

[tharkûn]

Tharkun's argument, on the other hand, is that after carefully following the case in question, he is convinced that they actually didn't screw up at all, and that the plaintiff just made it up completely out of thin air, which makes one wonder how they could have possibly won a conviction from even the dumbest jury (you'd think there must have been some basis for the conclusion that an overdose occurred, particularly with such specific circumstances attached, ie- the assertion that the dose was accidentally given twice; he makes it seem as if they just pulled it out of thin air without a shred of evidence and the jury bought it).

Summurizing the Plaintiff's arguement:
1. Each defendant entered a brief. The hospital's brief names one nurse to have administerd the Pitocin, the doctor's brief names a different nurse. Ergo both nurses, simultaneously, administered pitocin
2. The plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy, cerebral palsy can be caused by head deformation, head deformation can be caused by pitocin; ergo an overdose of pitocin was administered.


In short what I think happened is one nursed signed off on the order and another administered the medicine; this is not official, but happens.

If you don't accept that the administration of pitocin caused the plaintiff's cerebral palsy, then the only question you should be asking yourself is it more likely to have a pitocin overdose and NOT see tachycardia, brachycardia, low Apgar etc. or for the nurses to screw up the paperwork?

My money, and the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists in their friend-of-the-court, is on the latter.

Frankly the plaintiff's lawyer was a lying sack of BS, presented hired guns to give nice sounding "opinion" that an overdose "must have occurred", and jumped all over bad paperwork. He blatantely lied that the Physcian's Desk Reference was a publication of the US government (the first page specifically states that it is privately published) and that Pitocin is no longer sold (in his closing to sway the jury) but Oxytocin is (oxytocin IS pitocin) as is a new brand name Syntocin.

The basics are these; when an overdose occurs there are a few ways to establish that it occurred:
1. Somebody saw it happen. Not the case here.
2. Levels of the drug in question, or its unique metabolic products, are found in the blood, urine, feces, or tissue at levels not possible without an overdose. Not the case here.
3. Clinical indicators consistent, preferably uniquely consistent, with an overdose are observed and all other possible causes can be reasonably ruled out.
4. Harm suffered is consistent with an overdose and other possible causes can be ruled out.

The jury bought it because the trial judge was a moron (the ACOG has a bit of strong language about that), the paperwork appears to be bad, plaintiff's lawyer is a talented at deceiving the uniformed, and the jury were morons (who couldn't even grasp the generic-brand name connection).



Nobody is saying that a doctor who gives an overdose should get off scott free, but that he shouldn't be terminated for so doing.

The representative profesional body has weighed in on this case in SUPPORT of the defendant as have other profesional associations, so in this particular case I highly doubt the doctor merits more punishment than a slap on the wrist (because his nurses did sloppy paperwork).

[Darth Wong]

OK, given the details you pointed out, I agree that the original trial seems to have been a joke.

Nobody is saying that a doctor who gives an overdose should get off scott free, but that he shouldn't be terminated for so doing.

Well, in this case it would have been a nurse at fault rather than the doctor anyway, but I never said the person should necessarily be immediately given a lifetime ban either. However, I would still argue for some kind of suspension at the least.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think a regular administrative audit of paperwork done for procedures under this physician for a monitoring period which actually be more progressive and focused on the error which occured. I don't know if a mechanism exists to do this, but it should.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mike is right about abuse and hand-slapping, but broad-application isn't necessarily appropriate in the medical field.

He is right in many "revolutionary" fields and small clinics. There's a lot of shady shit around plastic surgery, Lasik, and other procedures like this.

However, Ob/Gyn's and especially cerebral palsy cases are the polar opposite. They're one of the most blatant instances of abuse in the malpractice courts. Like I said, it got so bad in Florida they had the brilliant plan of charging all licensed and practicing M.D.'s a fee which goes to a fund to all families with children with cerebral palsy. Yes, a tax on being a doctor to pay for handouts even for those cases when a CP case could be a result of something stupid the parents did. Of course this "solution" didn't work and the attorneys still try to sue Ob/Gyn's for virtually any CP case. John Edwards, scumsucker extraordinarie, made his millions this way. Apparently in one case he made closing arguments with some moving claim to the jury that he could "hear the child talking to him" and that the jury must be exhorted by the child's spirit to award cash.

I'm with Dawkins. Trial by jury needs to go.

[tharkûn]

Trial by jury should decide guilt, penalty and compensation should be decided by the judge. Punative damages should, under no circumstances, go to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyer; but should be donated to an applicable non-pofit organization. Loser pays court costs should become part of the default settlement.

Those three changes would go lightyears towards improving medicine and eliminating lottery lawyers.

[Darth Wong]

Trial by jury should decide guilt, penalty and compensation should be decided by the judge. Punative damages should, under no circumstances, go to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyer; but should be donated to an applicable non-pofit organization. Loser pays court costs should become part of the default settlement.

Those three changes would go lightyears towards improving medicine and eliminating lottery lawyers.

Switch to a federal universal health insurance plan and you'll see lawsuit reform, because the government is the entity that will be paying for these damage awards. But until then, the government has little incentive to go out of its way on behalf of liability defendants.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hey you'll never find me on the other side of something like what Howard Dean had in mind (merging of Medicaid and Medicare plus reform and expanding to cover everyone as a safety net/base standard of health care).

One also needs to go after the monopolistic and abusive practice of the pharmeceutical industry in order to help drive down costs. Because currently everyone's getting robbed blind.

Oh, and the retirement age needs to go up.