Uh, Elliott, not quite true. In the comments area, there are opinions from physicians reviewing the difficult choices as to fluid administration. But, then, as you’re always quick to point out, we don’t have all the facts in this case. But that doesn’t keep you from damning the doctor, does it?

So is it your position that regardless of the merits of the case, an emergency physician should be immune from liability for his acts simply because he might not return to the emergency room?

I can get a ridiculous amount of information on all of those, first hand information no less, and I can directly observe the effects of steroid use and watch a no hitter. But if I’ve formed an opinion on the merits of this particular lawsuit, what could I have based it on if I didn’t have the transcript? A story about what a nice guy the physician was and how he lost his child? John Edwards lost a child. How is that relevant to the merits of any particular case?

I’m not saying either is correct. I’m just curious if any of these people condemning a decision by those who have heard the evidence have seen the evidence themselves? If the answer is no, then how exactly are you able to disagree with the finding? How do you know that it is a spade – simply because a doctor was found to have committed malpractice the jury must have been wrong?

“that anyone who was not a paid lawyer who has read every document in the case, sat in for the entire trial, interviewed all the jurors and had dinner with the judge’s family could possibly have anything useful to say or any sort of valid opinion on any issue that gets posted here.”

Actually, no one has made that claim. The question is merely as I stated above. I know that having facts BEFORE you form an opinion is a novel idea, but surely not so novel that you can’t even contemplate it.

As to substantive discource on the subject, how exactly is it possible to have substantive discourse on a lawsuit when you don’t know the specific allegations, don’t know the evidence utilized to prove or disprove those allegations, or know exactly how fault was apportioned by the jury?

Short of having Bill Fristian diagnostic powers that is?

What’s more, how can you advocate changes in policy based on such little information?

And you don’t have to be a paid lawyer to investigate the file – if it was a trial, it’s public record. If you feel that strongly about it, you need only order the transcript from the court reporter.

There are some posters on this board (ok, maybe just one) who endlessly rolls back to the refrain that anyone who was not a paid lawyer who has read every document in the case, sat in for the entire trial, interviewed all the jurors and had dinner with the judge’s family could possibly have anything useful to say or any sort of valid opinion on any issue that gets posted here.

It’s tired. It’s old. It’s pointless. And it’s flat wrong. The sooner you knock it off and try to provide a little substance, the better off we’ll be.

I’m perfectly happy to admit that people who haven’t been to Iraq can, in fact, have valid opinions about the war, people who haven’t traveled to Cuba can have valid opinions about Communist dicatorships, and people who haven’t played an inning of major league baseball can, in fact, validly opine on everything from steroids to no-hitters.

Lawyer guy, no one’s completely informed on any given issue, yourself very much included. Pointing that out over and over again while avoiding substantive dicourse proves or gains exactly… what? I’m not sure. And I don’t think you are, either.

Neither have you reviewed the medical records, the CV of the Expert Witness, or the court transcripts. Commenting that what appears to be a spade is probably a spade is not any less rigorous than your always knee-jerk assertion that true malpractice occurred and that the plaintiff and plaintiff attorney are correct.

Either way more harm will occur because of it if doctors will not treat emergencies.

BTW, why do you no longer sign in as CJD? Are you afraid of discovery of your identity or some onther lawyer thing. Just curious