There are bad actors among any and all professions; doctors, clergy, business, police - any I mention you can recall stories from the mass media. To support one of the most erudite folks on SDN, my buddy
@WilcoWorld (he and I are both smart, but he is also educated), to deny this is hubris. I have a buddy that is now retired from the NYPD. For sergeant, an officer had to do 18 months of either narcotics (ugh - almost no one took that) or Internal Affairs. He told me that most of the complaints were absolute BS - closed right there, no investigation needed. An off the cuff estimate was "99%". But, he said, there were two that they did look into - one was cleared, but the other was a total POS, and needed to go.
What was it, the Archdiocese of Boston that was bankrupted by payouts, or was that the one where the Cardinal was kicked out of the priesthood and laicized for being a pedo?
And, it became enough that the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology made it unethical for a psychiatrist to ever have a relationship with a pt, ever, no matter how long a time interval (for color, I worked with an EP that met their spouse when the spouse was a trauma in the ED).
In short, it happens. To monolithically crap on docs that look into problem docs for plaintiffs is either the aforementioned hubris, or the "fallacy of anecdote" - "I've never seen it, so, it doesn't exist". But, what is the old saw? "The doc that gets sued is never the one you expected". And, 5/6 that go to trial are decided in favor of the doc. So, there's "jackpot justice", but, also, the bad outcome, whether from no motive errors, or actual bad people (Chris Duntch, Michael Swango).
If you've never been the victim of violent crime, or been to a crime scene, or witnessed malpractice, Gods bless you. However, to deny that it occurs is, and to insult those that investigate it, to paraphrase
@RustedFox , being an "ostrich".
