Who among you would have discharged my 18-year old son, who had a tonsillectomy, lost 1,000 cc’s of blood upon extubation, was reintubated, taken back into surgery and discharged the same day?

Oh, let’s not forget that the second surgery was omitted from the record.

Can you say “addendum” boys & girls?

But only upon return to the hospital with a full bleed?

I couldn’t agree more; we are limiting access of the best and the brightest by providing other, more attractive career opportunities.

Limited access, a byproduct of supply side restrictions, purportedly sets up a system to provide high quality care by limiting acess to the field, from the provider perspective, of the best and brightest. Instead, we have a system where vast swaths of healthcare provisionis hijacked through legislative feat by the allopathic profession. Instead of having a system that ensures that the “best and brightest” are practitioners, we have a system in which malpractitioners are protected and allowed to practice by inept and incompetent state level medical boards. The system, as a whole, is a failure… That is unless one is a provider… Then it is a vehicle for after-expense compensation rates beyond the ken of vast majority of fields of endeavor, medical worship through the sheeple mentality of the populace and guaranteed perpetual emlpoyment (regardless of actual skill in the art of clinical medicine). The American populace deserves what it gets as long as they allow the current healthcare system to be foisted upon them.

Am I? Isn’t the theory the same as to why the physicians groups were sued?

In case you don’t know “First, do no harm” is not part of the Hippocratic oath. Common misconception. It does come from Hippocrates ( Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI) but is not part of the oath.

Of course I figure that a pinhead like you would prefer the Latin phrase whenever possible so here you go: “Primum non nocere”

Another observation – you widely decry the quality of healthcare and then whine about access. I am reminded of 2 old ladies in a restaurant- “This food is lousy”, “Yes, and such small portions”

Enron the company would ultimately be liable for any acts of their employees acting in their corporate capacities. You’re making a poor comparison.

I wish we knew more about the facts of this case that would allow us to understand why the big punitive damages award.

Believe it or not… The way I write here (sans typos) is the way that I normally write. Impressing physicians is not my intent nor is it something that is of even the smallest modicum of importance from my perspective. As an aside, one would would truely have to wonder about anyone who would be “impressed” by the size of the words utilized by another when the content does not paint the former in best of light.

The underlying problem, from my perspective, is the lack of even the slightest arguement that would pass scientific muster for cause attribution from the clinical perspective unless the diagnosis itself is hallmark. The anachronism of allowing clinicians to speculate wildly on the cause of an objective condition, leaving questionable litigation diagnoses such as railway spine (remember that one?), fibromyalgia and myofascial pain syndrome out of the discusion for the moment, is irksome at best and the prime motivator for junk PI, WC and med-mal cases at worst. Part of the problem is the judiciary, which has purchased wholesale into the mindset of allopathic idolatry by not applying the rules of scientific evidence in a manner that is ubiquitous across all fields of expertise. One can see how questionable clinical causation testimony would be admissible under the Kelley-Frye standard of “general acceptance in the field” in that if all clinicians speculate wildly about the cause of a condition that a particular clinician speculating wildly in a particular case is only following the existing paradigm. What is absolutely amazing is the admissibility of such testimony under Daubert, Kumho Tire or Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The claim of “differential diagnosis” satisfying the requirements of the stricter rules of evidence falls flat in the same manner as does standard clinical cause attribution. Any method of cause determination that relies on the veracity of the litigant/patient (reliance on history)versus that which is determinable by expert clinical diagnosis makes a mockery of the claim that plaintiffs must prove their case. It is no surprise that physicians are irate when they get a taste of their own medicine, so to speak, when a fellow physician practices this same junk science upon them in medical malpractice cases. Judges are lawyers and expecting them to see the unscientific nature of clinical cause assessment would be like expecting a bilateral below the knee amuptee to run a 100m race without the use of prosthetic legs. Allopathic medicine, however, is founded upon scientific principles (unlike the field of chiropractic) and as a man of science, my personal expectation is that its practitioners carry the torch of science instead of sullying it with junk (relying on the provided history by a patient/litigant/potential litigant) and pulling the wool over the eyes of the credulous and, unfortunately, ever decreasingly educated masses. Clinicians are no more “human lie detectors” than the next person and parroting the history provided as being the scientific cause of the condition requires about as much background, training and experience as a typical PI lawyer has in clinical medicine or credulous religous “flock” member has in critical thinking – none. The system will only be changed by clinicians either stating the obvious that in the vast majority of the cases seen that they have absolutely zero ability to determine the antecedent “cause” of the diagnosed condition or intervention from the outside by showing that clinical cause assessment (particularly for the junk science MVA injury claim market) has a potential 100% error rate and is no more reliable than having than having the plaintiff advocate (patient advocate does not cut it in that no prima fascie case for an objective analysis can be made)testify as to cause. Until this is achieved, both inccoent third parties and innocent clinicians will be subject to junk science clinical causation testimony. Clinicians only having an issue with this when it comes to med mal cases (and not cases in which they or their colleagues are profiteering) really does devalue the profession as a whole. While you may not participate in this system (no cause attribution based on the word of the patient?) you are certainly subject to its junk nature should you ever find yourself involved as a defendant in a mertiless med-mal case.

Just so you know, I’m not one of the physician “whores” you constantly complain about. I’ve never testified in a suit for a plaintiff (and just in case CJD is reading, have never been asked to do so for one of my patients either). So what’s your point?

BTW, the above post might be the first time you didn’t use any big fancy words to try to impress the physician readers here (sarcasm intended).

Enron’s motto was “Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence.” Its “Vision and Values” mission statement declared, “We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves……We do not tolerate abusive or disrespectful treatment. Ruthlessness, callousness and arrogance don’t belong here.”

Sounds like a motto this blog should adopt!

The lack of objectivity here is pathological. Psychoanalysis is in order.