There was a comment a few back that asked if I would trade my life for one in a wheelchair for $26M. I would have to ask – what’s the rest? Am I just wheelchair bound or do I drool and wet myself?
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t. I think the figure was pulled out of thin air as a symphathy number, but I don’t envy the jury having to figure it out.
On the doctor’s side, sometimes things happen. And just because the baby has problems does not make it malpractice. There does need to be a better system of reviewing these things. I just don’t know what it is.
Willy, what’s wrong with sodomy? I know it’s still illegal in most jurisdictions, but what is really wrong with it? I think most people enjoy a little bit of sodomy every now and then. In fact, from what I read, many women can not have an orgasm without it.
Your condition would be the same as those stated in the article. But based on your answer, that would be no. We need to compare apples to apples to have an intelligent debate over what is right.
In regards to your last paragraph:
On the doctor’s side, sometimes things happen. And just because the baby has problems does not make it malpractice. There does need to be a better system of reviewing these things. I just don’t know what it is.
I really don’t know if there is a fix to our system. As long as you have plantiff “*****” doctors and defense “*****” doctors the jury will never know. They must form their own opinion mostly on stuff that is so far over their head they lean towards the one they like the most. Unfortunately this may be appearance or how they carry themselves or they may dislike the opposing attorneys tactics at trial. Unfortunately these types of items have real world implication in our judicial system and the truth gets lost.
My personal opinion is this. The doctors were already pushing the truck up hill based on their actions or lack thereof. Not sure if the cerebal pulsey is related but if it could be, then shame on the insurance companies for not settling. If his condition is directly related to what happened at birth, the jurors failed at their task because the monetary amount does not justify the rights and priveledges that have been taken away from this innocent boy.
Now see Abu, that’s just the kind of statement that gets people turned against you. I’m not religious so don’t care who it comes from; if you tell me your Holy Being, or their designate, is going to strike me down for something it just puts me off.
You’d think with the charged atmosphere we already have in America people would have learned to tone down the “God will kill you for your sins” talk. It’s bad enough I have to put up with it from the Christ followers; I really hate having others gang up.
I find that I agree with a lotof your positions when it comes to insurance, jury awards etc…, however when it comes to your social positions like religion and homosexuality, we diverge drastically. I am religious (Christian) and I don’t believe that my God (Christ) will strike you down during this life, for your beliefs or actions. That kind of belief comes from the Muslim religion. As far as your comments about sodomy, I have no problem with it between consenting husbands and wives. I do have a problem with it between two males.
What I don’t understand, Shield, is the difference between the two. I’m a heterosexual male who has experienced no homosexual acts nor had any homosexual urgings, and I like heterosexual sodomy as much as the next person; but I don’t get the cafeteria religion thing. The Abrahamic faiths all say that sodomy is bad – so what’s the difference? The Bible doesn’t say homosexual sodomy is bad but heterosexual sodomy is good, it just says sodomy is bad. The Bible also says hypocrisy is bad.
There was a book released recently, I wish I could remember the title, documenting the life of a man who spent a year following every rule in the Bible. Both testaments. This meant he wore no blended fabrics, only wore white, attempted to stone an adulterer, ate no shrimp, prayed when he was supposed to, the whole nine yards. He found it a very enlightening experience and impossible to sustain in modern times. There were rules he could not follow. Either there were legal barriers (such as stoning the adulterer) or other things in the way. He had to take it cafeteria-style. His wife hated the project. Now if people don’t follow parts of their religion because it’s impossible to I can understand that – no stoning. But just because you feel it’s okay makes it pointless to express those opinions as a religious belief. It cheapens the religion. Were it a religious belief it would cross all barriers.
And just because you don’t say God will strike me down does not mean all Christ-followers are of the same mentality. Not all Muslims say Allah or Mohammed will wreak nasty vengeance either. Christ-followers (I use that term because it includes Catholics, Protestents and all others) are just as guilty as Muslims when it comes to spewing the “God will smite thee” talk. In general. As a group. There are exceptions.
I don’t do this to bait people; when it comes to religion I honestly seek a deeper understanding of what drives people to an organization, a faith, a system, that promotes and demands hypocrisy. My own beliefs are in tune with my opinions. I seek to understand.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
There was a comment a few back that asked if I would trade my life for one in a wheelchair for $26M. I would have to ask – what’s the rest? Am I just wheelchair bound or do I drool and wet myself?
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t. I think the figure was pulled out of thin air as a symphathy number, but I don’t envy the jury having to figure it out.
On the doctor’s side, sometimes things happen. And just because the baby has problems does not make it malpractice. There does need to be a better system of reviewing these things. I just don’t know what it is.
Willy, what’s wrong with sodomy? I know it’s still illegal in most jurisdictions, but what is really wrong with it? I think most people enjoy a little bit of sodomy every now and then. In fact, from what I read, many women can not have an orgasm without it.
Your condition would be the same as those stated in the article. But based on your answer, that would be no. We need to compare apples to apples to have an intelligent debate over what is right.
In regards to your last paragraph:
On the doctor’s side, sometimes things happen. And just because the baby has problems does not make it malpractice. There does need to be a better system of reviewing these things. I just don’t know what it is.
I really don’t know if there is a fix to our system. As long as you have plantiff “*****” doctors and defense “*****” doctors the jury will never know. They must form their own opinion mostly on stuff that is so far over their head they lean towards the one they like the most. Unfortunately this may be appearance or how they carry themselves or they may dislike the opposing attorneys tactics at trial. Unfortunately these types of items have real world implication in our judicial system and the truth gets lost.
My personal opinion is this. The doctors were already pushing the truck up hill based on their actions or lack thereof. Not sure if the cerebal pulsey is related but if it could be, then shame on the insurance companies for not settling. If his condition is directly related to what happened at birth, the jurors failed at their task because the monetary amount does not justify the rights and priveledges that have been taken away from this innocent boy.
My wife Fatima and I agree. The wrath of Mohammed will strike down the heathen with fury. Allah Akbar
Now see Abu, that’s just the kind of statement that gets people turned against you. I’m not religious so don’t care who it comes from; if you tell me your Holy Being, or their designate, is going to strike me down for something it just puts me off.
You’d think with the charged atmosphere we already have in America people would have learned to tone down the “God will kill you for your sins” talk. It’s bad enough I have to put up with it from the Christ followers; I really hate having others gang up.
lastbat,
I find that I agree with a lotof your positions when it comes to insurance, jury awards etc…, however when it comes to your social positions like religion and homosexuality, we diverge drastically. I am religious (Christian) and I don’t believe that my God (Christ) will strike you down during this life, for your beliefs or actions. That kind of belief comes from the Muslim religion. As far as your comments about sodomy, I have no problem with it between consenting husbands and wives. I do have a problem with it between two males.
Well you are a hypocrite and a bigot and that’s fine but keep it to yourself as I don’t like your discriminatory and hate mongering religious agenda.
What I don’t understand, Shield, is the difference between the two. I’m a heterosexual male who has experienced no homosexual acts nor had any homosexual urgings, and I like heterosexual sodomy as much as the next person; but I don’t get the cafeteria religion thing. The Abrahamic faiths all say that sodomy is bad – so what’s the difference? The Bible doesn’t say homosexual sodomy is bad but heterosexual sodomy is good, it just says sodomy is bad. The Bible also says hypocrisy is bad.
There was a book released recently, I wish I could remember the title, documenting the life of a man who spent a year following every rule in the Bible. Both testaments. This meant he wore no blended fabrics, only wore white, attempted to stone an adulterer, ate no shrimp, prayed when he was supposed to, the whole nine yards. He found it a very enlightening experience and impossible to sustain in modern times. There were rules he could not follow. Either there were legal barriers (such as stoning the adulterer) or other things in the way. He had to take it cafeteria-style. His wife hated the project. Now if people don’t follow parts of their religion because it’s impossible to I can understand that – no stoning. But just because you feel it’s okay makes it pointless to express those opinions as a religious belief. It cheapens the religion. Were it a religious belief it would cross all barriers.
And just because you don’t say God will strike me down does not mean all Christ-followers are of the same mentality. Not all Muslims say Allah or Mohammed will wreak nasty vengeance either. Christ-followers (I use that term because it includes Catholics, Protestents and all others) are just as guilty as Muslims when it comes to spewing the “God will smite thee” talk. In general. As a group. There are exceptions.
I don’t do this to bait people; when it comes to religion I honestly seek a deeper understanding of what drives people to an organization, a faith, a system, that promotes and demands hypocrisy. My own beliefs are in tune with my opinions. I seek to understand.
The book is “The Year of Living Biblically” by A. J. Jacobs. You can read the Newsweek Interview with the author at http://www.newsweek.com/id/41178.
Haven’t gone through all the commens yet so someone may have beat me to this, but, sure sounds like an Edwards case to me!