A fear of being sued IS about the money.

The most likely explanation in the absence of any data seems to me to be the economic incentive in doing a C-section. Comparing the two methods of delivery, the treatment through the course of the pregnancy is likely to be the same. The treatment at the end of the pregnancy may require more time doing the procedure, but much less time waiting (many studies show that C-section rates rise as the weekend approaches). It is a no-brainer from an economic perspective. Allow yourself as a doctor to convince yourself that it’s not about money, but a legitimate fear of being sued and the decision becomes even easier.

It’s more like – are you financially bankrupt because you want the jury to see that?

Are you saying that there is literally no proof that oxygen deprivation is a factor in causing CP, and that it is impossible for a physician to commit malpractice in such a manner as to deprive a fetus of oxygen? None?

Here’s the thing, it’s the facts of the individual case that matter, and you’ll find no single peer reviewed study that will say that malpractice cannot result in CP, either.

” I am not saying it’s right but when a JD wheels in a CP child, he is not using the “science” card or the “best evidence” card, rather the “heartstring” card.”

Would you prefer we have trials without ever seeing the plaintiff? If you’re hit by a car today, and lose the use of a leg, does how you look and the visual effects of that driver’s negligence have no relevance? Are you ethically bankrupt for wanting the jury to see that?

re “If not, why is it the fault of others that physicians are doing ineffective things to avoid a risk they can’t accurately quantify?”

That statement is akin to lawyers proving birth injury association with cerebral palsy even though no single peer-reviewed study has shown such an association. I am not saying it’s right but when a JD wheels in a CP child, he is not using the “science” card or the “best evidence” card, rather the “heartstring” card. I am sorry you are so ethically bankrupt that you can’t seethe issue.

They might not, but they can be sure it’s less likely if they look both ways. Can you say the same about performing C-sections? No.

And of course, we’re discussing this as if lawsuits were the only reason there are more. We have no idea if that’s the case. It might be convenience of the patient, it might be convenience of the physician, it might be that the physician gets paid more.

No, I’m really not. But when your opinion is based on unquantifiable terms and seeking an unquantifiable, or at least undeclared goal, don’t expect it to be immune from criticism.

And no, the expert’s word is not treated as gospel. I’ve never seen the attorney on the other side genuflect during cross examination. And you just need one person’s opinion to get the claim to the jury, and there’s even a vetting process for that. You need a lot more than that to win.

I didn’t know we were talking about global warming.

25% of phsycians are sued anulally (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001). So its a pretty good bet that if you practice long wnough, you will get sued. Or as my mentors used to say, if you don’t get sued, you aren’t practicing medicine.

Street crossers may never get hit by a car, either.