Why Medical Malpractice Is Off Limits, A WSJ Opinion article

Let me know before you do -- I want to come watch.

I'll bring bail money.

Call me too, I have a few cat eyes I'll donate for that show.

No one contests that "some things are an accident," nor that some accidents do not involve negligence.

The question is whether when someone does something that IS negligent, are you entitled to be compensated. You seem to think that we should all just accept the consequences of someone else's negligence so that no one has to be truly responsible for their actions. Taking an example that assumes negligence and trying to say "but if it was an accident...." amounts to flogging a strawman. So for purposes of the exercise, the burn happened when a trucker ran a redlight and ran into your car with your 6-year old in the backseat buckled in her carseat, and Morton kicked you -- accidentally -- when he was practicing his kicking form in a crowded line at the bank.

Is Mort responsible for his actions or is he not? What about the trucker?

You continue to use the "n" word. If a doctor commits an error and fails to use standard of care, then it's an obvious case of negligence. But let's be honest here. It's well documented that plenty of lawyers even argue what standard of care really is. John Edwards argued that C-sections prevent cerebral palsy. I'm sure he went back and followed up with jurors to tell them that CP rates have not fallen as c-sections have become more common, right?

You say "plenty." I say that lawyers who make simplistic arguments like Edwards made in front of juries spend a lot of money to not make very much. It's just a stupid statement and so easily refuted as to be laughable. Now, in certain cases, not being available to call a section (or worse, not calling it) when necessary IS below the standard of care. But a lot more goes into it than "do a c-section, prevent a birth injury." You know that, and frankly, you and I know that Edwards knows that.

I've been involved in cases where the argument was made that the doctor failed to TIMELY call a c-section (usually VBAC cases involving induction and subsequent uterine rupture, but others as well). I've never been involved in nor heard of one from my colleagues where the argument was made that not doing a c-section, in and of itself, was the cause of a birth injury. Everyone knows VBACs are within the standard of care (depending on number of prior uterine scars), and everyone knows that a c-section is not appropriate in most cases and in fact they are over-utilized at present. But if a birth injury occurred in an actionable case, it's usually a case where everyone agrees that a c-section should have been done, and the only question is timing (i.e., a rupture or abruption). And in the cases I was involved in, it was pretty obvious to everyone what happened. Yes, we argued about it during the litigation, but in the end, those cases settled because both sides knew what was going to happen if the case proceeded to trial.

I know citing Edwards' statement helps your argument, but lets be honest. He's a politician now. He can say things to the general public to try and win support for his political agenda that he could never get by with saying to a jury. Having worked a fair number of those cases, I can tell you it would be patently stupid to say something like that to a jury. It's just a ridiculous argument.