If it’s a flip of a coin, I want to see the coin given how often physicians win.

Certainly it is not impossible, nor are the jurors stupid. However, a courtroom is not a classroom. I would submit that it is not an explanation that is taking place in a trial, but rather an argument about what happened, with conflicting points of view. A level of knowledge to discriminate between those points of view is unlikely to be present in the majority of people asked to serve on a jury.

Education is not taking place. Rather, it is persuasion, or coercion, that is taking place. A trial is not a dispassionate debate on the merits of the case, as you must be aware. Can a layman, presented with a case, and confronted with emotional appeals, choose correctly, based on scientific evidence? I am strongly skeptical that the choice would be based on anything better than the toss of a coin.

Why? Are they stupid? Is it simply impossible to have such a thing explained to you over the course of several days or a week? Are you unqualified to hear cases outside medicine?

And the plaintiff’s expert – also stupid? Or was he a “whore” while the defense experts were upstanding physicians?

One would be well advised first consider the scientific expertise of those who have seen the evidence, and made a verdict on it, as opposed to the scientific expertise of the commenters here. Of course, you remain free to decide for yourself which is more valid, but that decision says a great deal about you.

One must answer a basic question: how probable is it that the case is exceptional? The exceptional does not occur very often, and many would be skeptical of the ability of a jury of laymen to recognize it.

I’ve never disagreed with this. But the conclusions so far do not rule out the possibility that malpractice can cause brain injury leading to CP.

The difference between you and I is that I don’t automatically assume that the people who have actually seen the evidence, including at least one physician, are wrong. Simply because a physician is the defendant.

As for the breast implant litigation, I’m not surprised the subsequent studies funded by the breast implant makers concluded that. Of course, there were physicians testifying in those cases as well. Based on your review of the evidence in the individual cases, were they wrong?

And how can one discuss CP in relation to birth injury when you no nothing about the research done? Reading the conclusion of the 2003 ACOG/AAP policy statement isn’t the same thing guy. The conclusions so far is there MAY be an association in a small minority of cases. There is no test to show an association of CP in a given case. This reminds me of the breast implant fiasco of the early 90′s (which you or one your brethran defended using the Daubert standard on this website) which was later debunked. Of course I didn’t see any attorney’s or plantiff’s giving money back after the fact. In fact Dow-Corning went into bankruptcy essentially because of JUNK SCIENCE. Is this your idea of supporiting truth and the little guy? Again, if you want to advocate a program akin to the vaccine fund for these unfortunate kids until hard evidence is shown, sounds good to me. But to possibly destroy a couple of docs career’s (which is what may happen if the judgement stands and is not covered by insurance), based on scientific evidence that isn’t there(yet)is bullshit.

I don’t know if there was malpractice, but I think that I would have to go with the people who have actually seen the evidence v. anonymous commenters who read a newspaper article. Does that strike you as unreasonable?

And you’re right, the majority of CP cases have nothing to do with malpractice. How are you so sure this isn’t one of the minority?

“Your unrealist demands for such appear to be designed to cripple debate, and to deny the generally poor scientific groud that these cases typically rest upon.”

How can one debate the merits of a case they know nothing about? I’m simply asking how these commenters are so sure that the verdict was incorrect? If the newspaper reported that it was a defense verdict, and I said that was incorrect, wouldn’t you ask me what the basis for my conclusion is?

How do you know it wasn’t? Trials are often bifurcated. And I’m sorry it was emotional to see what one of your own did to a kid. It’s still a fact that’s what his life is like.

Those commenters who express doubt regarding the sutiability of the award do so based on the preponderence of evidence on cerebral palsy. You appear to believe that there was must have been malpractice, if there was such an award. Based on the preponderence of cases, there is skepticism that this case is exceptional.

It is highly unlikely that anyone commenting here will have detailed knowledge of the case. Your unrealist demands for such appear to be designed to cripple debate, and to deny the generally poor scientific groud that these cases typically rest upon. There are reasons John Edwards is mocked for channelling babies.

We REQUIRE blinding in studies of new drugs and devices. You lawyers acknowlege the value in this, don’t you? Why is the same not the case for determiniations of negligence?