Pre-Law student in my class said...

I assume she was joking?



If not, this just underscores the problem.

 

Give me a break.

Judd

 

I think he is looking for a kit kat bar ....

chocolate

 

I think the break I am looking for is the recognition that this young pre-law student was being funny - and possibly trying to get the goat of the OP. For one thing, EVERYBODY who is considering law school knows that personal injury law is the "bottom of the barrel" for law graduates. NOBODY seriously goes to law school hoping to become a personal injury attorney. Sure, there are a few people who make big $$$ as personal injury plaintiff's attorneys. But the VAST MAJORITY of them are among the lowedt paid of all attorneys. Of course MANY people go into law school hoping to be "litigators" or trial lawyers. But when these people dream at night, they dream of criminal law and civil rights litigation. Nobody's dreaming of insurance defense.

Yes, lawyers "lick their chops" at somebody elses missfortune!!! Your comments about how doctors don't "hope" for thier patients to get cancer in order to treat them is shallow and ultimately unhelpful. First of all, doctors are just like lawyers. They ABSOLUTELY depend on the missfortune of others in order to make a living (well this is 100% true of doctors - only a subset of lawyers depend on the missfortune of others to make a living). But you point is obvious enough. Doctors don't "want" their patients to get sick - and OBVIOUSLY lawyer sit around all day "hoping" that somebody has been injured by a doctor. This is just another attempt to dehumanize attorneys - to make them as anti-altruistic as possible.

Lawyers are people, just like doctors are. You need temper this dehumanizing bias - it makes you look like an idiot.

There are two realities that seem lost on you. First, neither doctors nor med mal attorneys "hope" that their clients or patients get sick in order to make a fast buck. BUT BOTH of the them "require" this none the less in order to earn a living. Secondly, a cure for cancer would just as surely put oncologists out of work as a cure for death would put estate planners out of work. THAT this somehow translates into doctors supporting a cure for cancer but lawyers surely not is baseless in fact and motivated by pure prejudice - a sense that lawyers are somehow sub-human as a species. It's ridiculous.

Judd

 

I do like kit kat bars (but not the Big Kat - the ratio of chocolate to wafer is too large).

Judd

 

I think you may have a rose-tinted outlook on the "altruism" of being a doctor. My experience suggests that there are as many "bad actors" in medicine as there are in law. Which is to say that there are plenty of physicians who are motived by little else than greed (just as there are attorneys who are similarly motivated). For an interesting analogue to the so-called "abulance chaser" consider the BOOM of MRI centers opening up around the country. Arguably (this is certainly the position of the official radiology organization) these MRI centers are unnecessary "profit centers" designed to capitalize the fears of hapless patients. Another example are the spikes of "self-referal" radiology studies ordered by non-radiologists who have been buying of radiological capital (machines) like its going out of style. Why? Because these machines are "profit centers" for these physicians and have an extremely tenuous nexus to the healthcare needs of the patients.

I anticipate your response will be that these represent just another example of CYA medicine prompted by the tort crisis. But that does NOT explain the standalone MRI centers who cater to self-referred patients - they fill a "market demand" and NOTHING ELSE. And in the case of doctor self-referal studies who own their own machines, the UNIVERSAL opinion among the radiology establishment is that theses studies are poorly performed and even more poorly read. Where's the medical necessity in that?

What about the OB/GYN in Florida and West Virginia who sees his income go from $300,000 to $200,000 a year because his insurance premiums are $100,000 a year now. These doctors LEAVE already uderserved markets (thereby leaving patients out in the cold) rather than earn a mere $200,000 a year (or $150,000 or whatever).

Don't talk to me about "greed" and "altruism". These are complicated issues and the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are motivated by exactly the same things. Sometimes altruism. . .sometimes professional satisfaction. . .sometimes money. It's the same for everybody.

Judd

 

Is pregnancy the "misfortune of others". I guess it is if you are a guy. Hmm. Same for menopause. So much for making a point that all medical practice is not based on misfortune.
I hope this rage works out real well for you!

 

Why would I be expected to make this claim. Lawyers are not in the healthcare field. They practice law. I was not aware that the "worth" of a plaintiff's attorney to society was grounded in his concern for the healthcare needs of patients. That's what doctors do, right. Lawyers, on the other hand, are interested in the securing the "legal interests" of their clients, NOT thier medical medical interests. Why you think this is an unsatisfactory situation, I can't imagine. How about this: Would YOU claim that doctors are concerned about the legal interests of thier patients? I'm assuming not. Why, because doctors practice medicine and lawyers practice law. These are seperate fields.

Nor could ANY claim be made that the tort system is "designed" to or "intended" to increase good patient care. And why should it. It's purpose is to protect the interests of injured patients, and that's it. Lawers are REQUIRED by the code of professional responsibility and the rules of professional conduct to be a "zelous advocate" for the legal interests of his client. And this is the way it should be. Doctors, on the other hand, have similar obligations to advocate for the health of their patients. As it should be.

As far the altruism of doctors, look - I think we are in agreement here. As you say, there is plenty of "fat" in the specialties to go around. let's just agree that lawyers AND doctors make more money than just about anybody else, and that BOTH vigorously defend these incomes as best they can.

Judd

 

Oh, that's not the point and you know it. Of course not ALL medicine depends on the missfortune of others (nor is this true for lawyers either). I think you understand my point. Basing this on my "maleness" demonstrates that you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are plenty of male or general neutral medical areas that also fall outside the statement such as elective vasectomies, plastic surgery, etc.

In any event, it is laughable that I am the one being accused of "rage". On these forums it is the lawyers NOT the doctors who are repeatedly and vigorously villified by young doctors and premeds. Lawyers don't go around calling doctors "blood sucking bottom dwellers" and other such "rage" induced epitaphs (sp).

Judd

 

I think he was jabbing at the callousness of her comment. Depraved indifference if you will. Law and Order is good for something...

 

I pray you are wrong and lawyers are compelled by more than the self-interest of their profession. If you are right, we are in a far worse situation than I had previously thought...

 

BTW, all these extra things you and your wife had to do? Worthwhile or no? Do you think they enhanced, had no effect upon, or diminished the probability that your medical outcome would be a good one? be honest now.

hitting the sack now.

Judd

 

Good point.

 

judd, this whole discussion about lawyers is ridiculous. I am sorry to say that your analogy about doctors being lawyers is ludicrous to say the least. I don't understand why you are taking such an offense to such a true fact about lawyers (yes they are self-serving and if anything half the time they screw the system up....just look at all the ridculous law suits that ONLY occur in US......give me a [email protected]#@ing break!) If you are a "pre-law", then I dont understand what you are doing in a pre-med forum poking fun at medical doctors whle knowing that your "audience" are physicians or aspiring doctors....you are obviously not asking for much respect and sympathy if you ask my opinion. I am sorry to sound mean but it just makes me so mad when it seems like lawyers have made common sense and certain aspects basic to every society/profession disappear. Having lived in Europe, the law system of US to say the least is an eye-opener and a ridiculous reminder of what it will be like over there if too much power is given to lawyers....and by this of course I am not putting every lawyer in this category. As mentioned there are lawyers who do their job and do so with much dignity and there are those who abuse their power and the justice system!!

 

That's not what i said. I said that lawyers were compelled by the legal interests of thier clients, not the self interest of thier profession. ??????

Judd

 

You guys are hiding the ball. I said the legal interest of the client comes first, not the self interest of the profession. The goal is to protect and prosecute legal interests not to line pockets. But, as always, lawyers make a living too.

Judd

 

Not sure what to do with this.

Judd

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think that your situation provides much support for it (as you seem to suggest yourself). It wasn't as if your wife had an "elective" C-section, but rather it appears she had an emergency one, with your baby having spent a considerable amount of time in the NICU. It seems to me that, at least in your situation, the C-Section was almost certainly NOT CYA medicine and that appeared to be genuine indications of its necessity.

That said, neither of us can know for sure.

But what I can say is that there is a reason that the number of c-sections is risen and is on the rise, and that the tort system might only be the most "proximate" cause of this rise. And in this instance (that is, with respect to OB and C-sections) a case can be made that the tort atmosphere has increased the standard of care in OB. Certainly unless one suggests that the increase in C-sections is the result of a doctor's wish to merely "shedule" a birth (which is hardly the fault of lawyers), an increased incidence of C-section is probably accompanied with a decreased incidence of morbidity and mortality. That is, after all, the surest way to avoid a lawsuit, no? And certainly in your case (given the outcome) I doubt highly that you would have objected to this C-section.

In any event, I have no idea whether C-sections do or do not decrease morbidity and mortality. I am sure studies have been done.

Judd