Doctors believe science (except Bill First). And the science is totally uncelar. So get a clue before mouthing off.

With respect to increasing C-section rates, I’ve always wondered if some of the reasons a C-section would be preferable could be hereditary. If some complication means a C-section is necessary, and that complication were passed on to children that previously died before C-sections were common, won’t we see more situations where C-sections are necessary?

Got a link to support this? If it’s just that he had to go through 33 doctors to find one to testify against another, I don’t doubt it. Physicians are loath to turn on their own no matter how egregious the error.

BTW, how many of you are willing to serve on this proposed panel? You don’t like the rates that the feds reimburse you at – you think cash strapped counties are going to be even better?

NY Times article once stated that Edwards had to go thru 33 experts before he found one who finally agreed to testify that there was malpractice.

Thats an absolute joke and you lawyers know it. If thats the standard, I can go thru hundreds of “experts” until I find one who goes to court and says the Earth is suspended by a giant man on his shoulders.

“Experts” make 10 times more money testifying in court than they do treating patients. It gives them an ENORMOUS incentive to outright lie or mislead a jury in the context of “professional opinion.”

Forbes did a story about this too long ago and concluded that most lucractive “specialty” in medicine is a “court expert.” Change this, and you will fix the system.

Experts should be neutral appointees at an hourly rate commensurate with their clinical work. IN other words, no docs pulling down $400 an hour for court appearances when in clinical practice they only make $70-$120 per hour. These experts should be centrally assigned from a county/district court system, and they should rotate panels such that nobody becomes entrenched or beholden to either plaintiffs OR defendants.

A nonbiased expert who makes a REASONABLE as opposed to disproportionate fee will solve the medical malpractice problem. Lawyers would fight such a system to the death because it means they no longer get to keep “experts” in their pockets with their fat payouts.

“What causes cerebral palsy?
Cerebral palsy is caused by a brain injury or problem that occurs during fetal growth, birth, or within the first 2 to 3 years of life. CP can result from:

Complications related to prematurity.
Being deprived of blood, oxygen, or other nutrients before or during birth.
A serious head injury.
Developing a serious infection that can affect the brain, such as meningitis.
Some conditions that are passed from parent to child (genetic conditions) that are linked to abnormal brain development.
In many cases, the exact cause of the injury is not known.”

Is it impossible for any of the physicians on this site to believe there are situations where malpractice has resulted in a child being deprived of blood, oxygen, or other nutrients during birth; a serious head injury; or a serious infection, and that malpractice caused cerebral palsy?

Do you all believe that it is literally impossible for malpractice to result in CP?

You’re misunderstanding the studies. And you’re making assumptions on cases you haven’t seen the scientific evidence in. No study, and indeed probably no physician, will say that CP can NEVER result from malpractice.

You probably shouldn’t lecture others on the scientific method until you understand exactly what the studies do and do not say. And you probably shouldn’t lecture juries on understanding scientific evidence since you’ve not seen one bit of the evidence they did.

from the article:
“At Lankenau, for example, the cesarean rate rose from 28 percent in 2001 to 36 percent the very next year. The jump was largely triggered by a lawsuit contending that a child was born with cerebral palsy because a cesarean was not performed. The parents won a $24 million verdict.”

No study has ever shown an increased C-section rate with decreased CP. In fact retrospective studies have shown no coorelation at all between the two. Hence doctors aren’t basing the decsion on scientific evidence. HOWEVER, neither is the jury. How can a jury find malpractice if no study has ever shown a correlation between CP and C-sections? In other words a jury is basing it’s decsion on reasons that have NOTHING to do with the scientific evidence. Maybe this is how things work in the courtroom. It is not how things work in hospital or at the lab bench. The fact that you guys defend this action shows that you have no understanding of the scientific method.

The expert for the plaintiff must testify to the above. He or she may or may not testify to the value of the damage, but they will have to testify the damage occurred.

The jury is free to disagree. If they do not testify to the above, the plaintiff will lose on directed verdict.