I also wanted to add to my comment that this neurosurgeon may, in fact, be very qualified-or maybe even a BETTER neurosurgeon, than members of the ‘society’ which has sanctioned his testimony.

The society isn’t the State Board of Medicine.

The point is, once again, not to skew scientific or clinical information in a manner which goes to what the courts and federal or state ‘rules of criminal or civil procedure’ [ FRCP ] refer to as “Embracing ultimate opinion.”

Once again – by way of illustration – that pain specialist that I referred to in my previous comment – knew that, or should have known that, ‘hyperalgesia’, although a factor to consider, was not ‘A contraindication to the use of opioids.’

And yet, that simple disingenuous reference to ‘hyperalgesia’ may have [ and probably did in this case ] changed the whole way in which the jury rendered an opinion.

Did it totally account for the verdict? – probably not. But carefully factored into the decision – it was an unfair, clinically incorrect, and poisonous statement.The testifying doctor ‘knew’ that is was not ‘consensus’ [ proven ] opinion.

The American specialty societies should get involved in seeing that their members use clinical information in a fair manner.

Thanks for your indulgence on this issue. Once again, I respect your various and thought provoking comments.

I was interested in saying something about your comments – and not in a mean or critical way; but merely because these comments demonstrate what I’ve been saying before-in this forum.

The American Society of Neurosurgery, and some others, are saying -”It’s OK to testify–but don’t create your own scientific theory – that isn’t part of a recognized clinical experience [ consensus ] acceptable as really being the standard of care.”

It’s OK if this doctor had a ‘different opinion.’ But no doctor should refute accepted standards.These standards are a product of clinical and scientific research related to that testimony.

That prevents ‘paid for’ distortion of consensus opinion.

Its OK if a certain doctor believes in a new theory-or treatment-that everyone else rejects; thats how science advances.

Just don’t say it in court or other trial-until its been tried and tested.

The societies have every right to sanction their members. Especially after they have SPECIFICALLY informed their members not to testify to the truthfulness of a fact-if it isn’t considered to be within what a majority of other specialists-within that same specialty, believe to be true-or a standard.

By testifying outside of consensus opinion-someone else can get hurt. Thats wrong.

A famous pain specialist recently did this very thing. He testified that Hyperalgesia was a reason not to prescribe opioid pain medications. Before he did this, he was an author of a textbook on pain. After he made this statement-with little clinical relevance- a statement in which he tried to convince the court that this ‘hyperalgesia’ was a contraindication to treatment-several other members of the pain society wrote to the judge explaining that this doctors testimony was not ‘consensus.’

This pain expert knew damn well that he was talking crap’ in plain english.

I don’t know about this specific Louisiana case- so I can’t comment on IT.

But before we jump up and down critical of the society- we need to carefully examine how doctors influence juries-and not always in good faith.

I was interested in saying something about your comments – and not in a mean or critical way; but merely because these comments demonstrate what I’ve been saying before-in this forum.

The American Society of Neurosurgery, and some others, are saying -”It’s OK to testify–but don’t create your own scientific theory – that isn’t part of a recognized clinical experience [ consensus ] acceptable as really being the standard of care.”

It’s OK if this doctor had a ‘different opinion.’ But no doctor should refute accepted standards.These standards are a product of clinical and scientific research related to that testimony.

That prevents ‘paid for’ distortion of consensus opinion.

Its OK if a certain doctor believes in a new theory-or treatment-that everyone else rejects; thats how science advances.

Just don’t say it in court or other trial-until its been tried and tested.

The societies have every right to sanction their members. Especially after they have SPECIFICALLY informed their members not to testify to the truthfulness of a fact-if it isn’t considered to be within what a majority of other specialists-within that same specialty, believe to be true-or a standard.

By testifying outside of consensus opinion-someone else can get hurt. Thats wrong.

A famous pain specialist recently did this very thing. He testified that Hyperalgesia was a reason not to prescribe opioid pain medications. Before he did this, he was an author of a textbook on pain. After he made this statement-with little clinical relevance- a statement in which he tried to convince the court that this ‘hyperalgesia’ was a contraindication to treatment-several other members of the pain society wrote to the judge explaining that this doctors testimony was not ‘consensus.’

This pain expert knew damn well that he was talking crap’ in plain english.

I don’t know about this specific Louisiana case- so I can’t comment on IT.

But before we jump up and down critical of the society- we need to carefully examine how doctors influence juries-and not always in good faith.

And actually, it’s physicians who balk more than anyone. In fact, if you’ll read http://www.rangelmd.com, you’ll see lots of complaints about medical boards policing their own.

You lawyers amaze me. You bitch about state medical boards not coming down hard enough on docs, but when the professional societies try to police their own members, you balk.