You’re right, it’s my fault for missing the implication when you said. You meant to say you would never give false testimony, certainly not that anyone who would testify for a plaintiff was a whore:

“You are correct, I probably will never whore myself to a plaintif lawyer in a trial.”

The point of your “pledge” is to keep physicians from testifying for plaintiffs regardless of the merits of their case. Why do you need to take it, you wouldn’t do it anyway.

Choosing not to make a living in the courtroom is just that, a choice. A choice like deciding whether to go to law school or medical school, or whether become a psychiatrist or surgeon, or what charities to donate to or causes to be involved in. It is a choice not to seek out that type of employment, just like it is a choice for you not to defend an innocent physician. And then again who knows, I have never been asked so it has never been a personal burden. My life is full of charitable causes and burdens, going to court is currently not one of them.

Other physicians might like to do that sort of thing. So be it. I never said I would condemn them IF they are giving truthful testimony. That is the whole point of this original pledge is pledging to give testimony that is within the boundaries of realism and not leaning towards the obvious BOUGHT position.

You always reframe my statements so this conversation is over.

So you would rather be silent, even if you knew malpractice had been committed and the patient was suffering. Even if the only way this patient had a chance of paying their future medical bills, avoiding bankruptcy from their past medical bills, and achieving any kind of quality of life is if a good physician like yourself testifies for them.

Not only that, you’ll curse and condemn any physician who would testify for her. If that guy is a whore, what does that make you? Is your silence in the face of the patient’s suffering so deserving of praise that you can condemn him?

You are correct, I probably will never whore myself to a plaintif lawyer in a trial. I don’t need the money, the inconvenience, the time away from family, or any of it for professional gratification. If I wanted to spend time in a courtroom I would have went to law school. However, I would probably review cases for FREE in a PRElawsuit setting as part of a review board to review the merits of a case. That would be educational and interesting and hopefully be a quicker more transparent process for the plaintif and defendant.

Actually, as my earlier query to you indicated, there is a review. In fact, nearly every med mal lawyer I know has their case reviewed prior to filing, if there is time before the statute of limitations runs. And, with more states requiring a review and affidavit from a physician, some states even requiring that they be in the same field, there is undoubtedly a review.

Your perception and the reality are not the same. Although, since you won’t make yourself available even to review if the case has merit in the first place, who are you to bitch?

Some type of competent medical and legal review to determine if there is any grounds of merit before proceeding and determine who may be involved would be nice. Currently there is no review, bad outcome must mean negligence, file a meritlous claim, blanketly send a subpeona to every physcian whose name appears in the chart and waste the time of 20 physicians and their lawyers

I don’t think physicians realize what happens after their patients leave their office. Sure, you’ve treated their pain, maybe even resolved it. But I have to help them get the rest of their life back in order. I deal with the collections companies that were harrassing them while they were off work and couldn’t pay their bills, I deal with (if there was an at-fault party)that party’s insurer in getting them money for another vehicle, getting recovery for lost wage, and getting them money for past and future medical bills.

Many of you see a lawsuit award as a net deduction from society, when the truth is it’s merely allocation of financial hardship to the responsible party. The bulk of most tort awards goes towards medical bills – it is put right back into the system, or toward reimbursing insurers who paid medical bills. Lost wages, likewise, are put right back into society to replace money that would have been there but for the injury. The only thing that is truly a loss that you can’t say for certain (because you don’t know where it is going) is pain and suffering damages.

So if it was a waste of time, what would you propose be done differently? Caps on damages doesn’t change the number of lawyers or physicians there.

No, I am suggesting that because of a meritlous lawsuit 20 doctors had to waste their time and hire 20 lawyers because of a meritlous lawsuit. Crappy system. Job security for lawyers.

“In other words it is very common and because you have back pain doesn’t necessarily mean that it is someones fault” Who suggested that it was?

Then why would they be seeing you? Do you give massages or acupuncture?

Just because something is difficult to quantify doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. There is certainly value in the fact that one has to eat through a tube in their stomach for the foreseeable future because of a botched surgery, isn’t there? Who do you think is more qualified to quantify that? 12 people who heard the facts of the case or politicians responding solely to lobbying pressure? And who has the better lobbyists? Insurers or malpractice victims (if you don’t think ATLA lobbies for them).

“Every single physician had their own insurers and own counsel as well as the the hospitals. What a broken system, what a freaking colossal waste of time and money.”

So are you suggesting we ditch insurance? Each of those people has potentially different interests, why shouldn’t they have their own counsel?

You stated your involvement was minimal – perhaps you should lobby for laws in your state that allow you to submit an affidavit of non-involvement early in the case. If they proceed after this affidavit then you get your costs back? Some states have similar laws.

“In other words it is very common and because you have back pain doesn’t necessarily mean that it is someones fault.”

Who suggested that it was?