Notes From the Cave

Thinking About Medical Malpractice

Let me start by reminding you all that I was trained as a lawyer. So, my point of view may be a little slanted. However, I no longer practice, and never had a trial practice. So, please don't accuse me of being one of "them."

We have heard a lot from the Bush campaign about the need to make wholesale changes in medical malpractice litigation, to stop those greedy lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits, which are being blamed as a major cause for exploding health costs.

Do any of you on this forum have any statistics to back up this claim? Let's assume that all medical malpractice lawsuits were banned. If that could happen, what would be the impact on medical costs?

The entire public discussion about medical malpractice has bothered me for some time. It seems to demonize lawyers, while saying nothing about those who cause the problem: the doctors and medical personnel who provide the services that cause the harm to people, which lead to the lawsuits.

For every medical malpractice lawsuit, there needs to be somebody who was allegedly medically harmed by a care provider. And, for every medical malpractice lawsuit, there must be a care provider who allegedly provided negligent services. Otherwise, there could be no lawsuit.

That being the case, why isn't there more public debate about the level of care being provided in this country today? Why isn't there more anger at the amount of shoddy health care being provided?

What to Do About "Junk Science"

As one of those who focused on the social sciences in school instead of the physical sciences, I never developed any deep understanding or appreciation for true scientific investigation. Like most of us, I naively trusted that when there was a consensus of respected scientists on an issue, that position must be right; and consequently, those who disagreed (including other groups of scientists), must have had some agenda or sponsor "pushing" that point of view.

Well, there are a number of items I have come across lately that are making me readdress this point of view. This investigation has been quite eye-opening, to say the least.

This all started when I attended a lecture by my friend, Stephen Turner, the author of Liberal Democracy 3.0. The premise of his book is that public debate is being severely limited, particularly when it comes to issues which rely upon scientific study. Many of the decisions on important issues of the day are now being made by experts because the issues are too complicated for the common man to debate, or even understand.

Then, I read a very interesting speech presented in January 2003 by author Michael Crichton. In the speech, Crichton expressed his concerns about the concept of "consensus science" and how it often has very little to do with real science. (More in post continuation)