Why he is so despised within the medical community:
John Edwards, being neither a woman nor a racial minority, isn’t doing especially well in his campaign to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for the U.S. presidency. Alas for him, if he were half as successful in campaigning for America’s top job as he was as a trial lawyer, he might be sworn in tomorrow. Edwards won, according to Lawyers Weekly, of which 54 netted more than $1 million each. Normally attorneys take a 40 percent cut of cases that go to trial. In his last year as a practicing attorney, 1997, he reported an adjusted gross income of $11.4 million. Of course, despite their slimy reputation, trial lawyers can be on the side of right. It just happens Edwards wasn’t.
Related posts:
- John Edwards works a shift at a nursing home
- John Edwards calls reducing medical malpractice lawsuits a "good idea"
- What John Edwards doesn’t realize
- John Edwards and current medical care
- Will any physician vote for John Edwards?
- John Edwards, Nataline, and CIGNA: Matthew Holt is Spot-On
- C-sections and John Edwards
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 8 comments }
First, a caveat. I am a lawyer. I’m even a plaintiff’s lawyer. However, I do not have anything to do with medical malpractice.
It is interesting to me that the article cites to studies done AFTER Edwards litigated his cases. What did the science show at the time he was litigating? (Edwards shouldn’t be president, but I think this is an inaccurate way of achieving those politcal gains.)
I think the insurance companies have done a fantastic job of shifting the blame to attorneys for high premiums. Look at the profits reaped by insurance companies.
Also, look what happened with aneasthesiology (spelling?). It is my recollection that at one point they were easy targets for litigation and often paid significant settlements. At some point, “they” got the clue and started examining what went wrong. They changed the way they practiced and as a result harmed fewer patients. Not overtesting or overtreating, but simple things like color-coding certain tubes so that there was less chance of error. Now — I believe they are not so easily sued (rightfully so). (Another caveat, this information about aneasthesiology comes from a vague memory I have of reading an article in a magazine. Maybe it was Time, Newsweek, or maybe even a newspaper — I don’t remember, but I don’t recall it being a periodical that catered to attorneys.)
No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from malpractice.
End of story. None of the thousands of anti-Edwards stories generated by doctors involves a physician who has actually reviewed the evidence in his cases. Thus their opinions are at best, uninformed.
Why anyone makes a choice for President based on the opinions of uninformed people is beyond me.
“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from malpractice”
Please reread your statement. What is clear to me is that you have no understanding of research or the scientific method. The studies done have show NO clear association with CP and prolonged labor. There is a subset of CP (5-10%) which may or may not have a weak association. Depending on the study you read. Your statement shows an utter lack of how to ask and answer a scientific question. Let’s insert some other words in your “warped” reasoning to just show how idiotic you sound:
“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from Coca-cola”
“No study has ever concluded that cannot CP cannot result from smoking”
“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from a sedentary lifestyle”
“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from being a republican”
etc etc.
So then you agree with me that no one has shown the science as testified to by the plaintiff’s expert in John Edwards’ cases was faulty.
Glad we got that out of the way.
CJD:
Do you have any understanding of the scientific method? Do you understand cause and effect? Following your reasoning no study has also proven that Coca-Cola is not responsible for CP. I guess in trial attorynesse then Coke better watch out (to you normal human beings I apologize for the CJD double negative).
Do you have any idea of the simple concept that you can’t declare a result false when you know nothing of the process?
In other words, you’ve not seen a single medical record from a single case of his. None, Zero. You don’t even know as much as Bill Frist knew before diagnosing Schaivo.
Therefore, your claims that the cases were wrongly decided lack ANY basis whatsoever. Use any method you want – scientific, rhythm, whatever – and that’s still the conclusion you, and the author of the article in question, have to reach.
Good luck.
Do you have any idea of the simple concept that you can’t declare a result false when you know nothing of the process?
Apparently, the medical records that have not been seen by commenters contain data and evidence that refute the findings of multiple studies that have failed to show a link bettween CP and prolonged labor.
Analogously, you can claim that 2+2=5. You can sue me over some issue related to your assertion that 2+2=5. But anyone who doesn’t see the transcript of the trial cannot draw conclusions about your assertion that 2+2=5?
“Apparently, the medical records that have not been seen by commenters contain data and evidence that refute the findings of multiple studies that have failed to show a link bettween CP and prolonged labor. “
Apparent to who? More people who haven’t seen them? Your 2+2=5 analogy doesn’t work because you have no idea what the allegations in the cases even were.
You’d think, if all his cases were so bogus, and given the money behind the tort reformers (tobacco cash), someone would have gone and pulled the files from the courthouses. It’s not like that many stones are left unturned in political races of this magnitude And yet no one has. . . wonder why?
Comments on this entry are closed.