Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits [Archive]

Don Klipstein

07-25-2004, 08:46 PM

In article <2mjaqcFl0cc3U1@uni-berlin.de>, Rick wrote:"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k%WMc.14093$f4.9673@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... "Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.c om... >>Until, of course, you go in for liposuction and they remove and >>discard your spleen. Then you'll want the baddest-*** lawyer you >>can find, natch. When you go in for an operation, you are required to sigh a consent form stating that you have been advised of the risks involved in surgery and you agree to accept these risks. Translation: anything they do to you is ok, legal and good. Malpractice is thus legalized.This isn't the first time Bush has moved to gut our legal rightsand consumer protections. "Frivilous lawsuits" is yet anotherright-wing hot button topic, intended to play on people'semotions and capitalize on their ignorance. E.g. read howBush financed his Texas gubernatorial campaigns on thebacks of medical malpractice victims:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/
?/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32997-2000Feb9Note the last paragraph:"The trial lawyers contend that all the talk about "junk lawsuits"obscures the tort reformers' real goal: reducing corporate liability.And while huge punitive damage awards make big headlines,said Hartley Hampton, president of the Texas Trial LawyersAssociation, there are very few of them. In the year before thereforms, he said, "more people froze to death in Texas thanactually collected punitive damages."Rick

Not that I disagree with Rick much,

but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of the
significant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more on
healthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare.

In my USA "state" (province) of Pennsylvania, there is major debate on
this issue. Nobody is proposing any limits or new constraints against
suing and collecting for actual damages. The debate has been confined to
"non-economic damages" such as pain-and-suffering.

In Pennsylvania, the sides have been polarized between "all" vs.
"nothing". As in a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages or no cap at all.
The Philadelphia Daily News appararently did not go far by proposing a
"middle ground", namely $250,000 adjusted for inflation from the time when
California got their $250,000 cap on non-economic damages - approx.
$900,000 to maybe closer to $1 million now.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In all fairness, I must mention some other facts:

1. Careful doctors in Pennsylvania pay as much for malpractice
insurance as bad lousy careless doctors do.

2. I saw some statistics on malpractice suits in Pennsylvania,
specifically as in terms of percentages of doctors losing a malpractice
claim never, once and more-than-once.
From this, it appears to me that about half of all malpractice claims in
Pennsylvania occurred because they were in counties that have a
disproportionate share of malpractice claims, were against doctors in
professions that suffer a disproportionate share of malpractice claims, or
were expected and predictable from knowing how random probabilities work.

This means that as much as half of PA's malpractice claims exist
legitimately and these could be reduced if bad doctors have to clean up
their act or else pay more for malpractice insurance or find a different
line of work.
This also means that maybe half of Pennsylvania's med-mal lawsuits are
not a result of bad doctors - some are random while many are examples of
need for "tort reform".

3. Pennsylvania's counties vary wildly in jury generosity. Philadelphia
is famously hard on doctors and physicians that are defendants, while only
a couple counties to the west a doctor that fails to order an MRI or a CT
scan and scan analysis by a neurologist on a pea-size "white spot" in the
brain of a car crash victim successfully defends against a lawsuit after
the next day the "pea-size spot" is bigger than a golf ball and causes
brain damage that disables a phi-beta-kappa! (If I remember this
correctly).

Pennsylvania did implement a reform that reduces jury-shopping by county
by plaintiffs, although this was recent enough that pretty soon (not yet)
this will have whatever effect this will have.

----------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind that taxes on businesses are taxes on the individuals that
own them, the individuals that work for them, their customers and their
suppliers.

The owners/shareholders are all too often your and my IRA and your/my
401K plan.

If you want a heavy tax on "corporate fat cats", then tax them through
targeted individual taxes rather than through corporate/business taxes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Mitchell Holman

07-25-2004, 09:31 PM

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrncg8vk9.42f.don@manx.misty.com:
In article <2mjaqcFl0cc3U1@uni-berlin.de>, Rick wrote:"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:k%WMc.14093$f4.9673@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... "Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.c om... > >>Until, of course, you go in for liposuction and they remove and > >>discard your spleen. Then you'll want the baddest-*** lawyer you > >>can find, natch. > > When you go in for an operation, you are required to sigh a consent > form stating that you have been advised of the risks involved in > surgery and you agree to accept these risks. Translation: anything they do to you is ok, legal and good. Malpractice is thus legalized.This isn't the first time Bush has moved to gut our legal rightsand consumer protections. "Frivilous lawsuits" is yet anotherright-wing hot button topic, intended to play on people'semotions and capitalize on their ignorance. E.g. read howBush financed his Texas gubernatorial campaigns on thebacks of medical malpractice victims:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ ?/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32997-2000Feb9Note the last paragraph:"The trial lawyers contend that all the talk about "junk lawsuits"obscures the tort reformers' real goal: reducing corporate liability.And while huge punitive damage awards make big headlines,said Hartley Hampton, president of the Texas Trial LawyersAssociation, there are very few of them. In the year before thereforms, he said, "more people froze to death in Texas thanactually collected punitive damages."Rick Not that I disagree with Rick much, but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of the significant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more on healthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare. In my USA "state" (province) of Pennsylvania, there is major debate on this issue. Nobody is proposing any limits or new constraints against suing and collecting for actual damages. The debate has been confined to "non-economic damages" such as pain-and-suffering.

Here in Texas the public has passed into
law every "tort reform" law the insurance
industry has written. But do you think
insurance rates have dropped in the slightest?

Not a chance..........

Guest

07-25-2004, 10:14 PM

In article <dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The problem is, very few people want to take responsibility for their own decisions anymore and there are lots of hungry lawyers and Liberal judges who see to it that this problem thrives and flourishes in our great nation.

So, do I understand you to be saying that you consider it a personal
failing when you go in for liposuction and they remove and discard your
spleen? And thus, who needs a lawyer for their own personal failing?

Guest

07-25-2004, 10:18 PM

In article <slrncg8vk9.42f.don@manx.misty.com>,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
I saw some statistics on malpractice suits in Pennsylvania, specifically as in terms of percentages of doctors losing a malpractice claim never, once and more-than-once. From this, it appears to me that about half of all malpractice claims in Pennsylvania occurred because they were in counties that have a disproportionate share of malpractice claims, were against doctors in professions that suffer a disproportionate share of malpractice claims, or were expected and predictable from knowing how random probabilities work. This means that as much as half of PA's malpractice claims exist legitimately and these could be reduced if bad doctors have to clean up their act or else pay more for malpractice insurance or find a different line of work. This also means that maybe half of Pennsylvania's med-mal lawsuits are not a result of bad doctors - some are random while many are examples of need for "tort reform".

I am curious as to how many of the suits you would adjudge examples of
the need for tort reform were actually awarded damages?

Al Klein

07-25-2004, 10:40 PM

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:46:18 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) said in alt.politics.bush:
Not that I disagree with Rick much, but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of thesignificant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more onhealthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare.

The proximate cause isn't the ability to sue a doctor who makes a
mistake, it's the ability of doctors who are so incompetent that they
make mistakes to continue practicing.

Archmedes

07-25-2004, 11:10 PM

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance..........

Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other
right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly
overblown.

Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or
they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do.

Rick

George Conklin

07-26-2004, 04:24 AM

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrncg8vk9.42f.don@manx.misty.com... In article <2mjaqcFl0cc3U1@uni-berlin.de>, Rick wrote:"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:k%WMc.14093$f4.9673@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... "Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.c om... > >>Until, of course, you go in for liposuction and they remove and > >>discard your spleen. Then you'll want the baddest-*** lawyer you > >>can find, natch. > > When you go in for an operation, you are required to sigh a consent
form > stating that you have been advised of the risks involved in surgery
and > you agree to accept these risks. Translation: anything they do to you is ok, legal and good. Malpractice is thus legalized.This isn't the first time Bush has moved to gut our legal rightsand consumer protections. "Frivilous lawsuits" is yet anotherright-wing hot button topic, intended to play on people'semotions and capitalize on their ignorance. E.g. read howBush financed his Texas gubernatorial campaigns on thebacks of medical malpractice victims:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ ?/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32997-2000Feb9Note the last paragraph:"The trial lawyers contend that all the talk about "junk lawsuits"obscures the tort reformers' real goal: reducing corporate liability.And while huge punitive damage awards make big headlines,said Hartley Hampton, president of the Texas Trial LawyersAssociation, there are very few of them. In the year before thereforms, he said, "more people froze to death in Texas thanactually collected punitive damages."Rick Not that I disagree with Rick much, but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of the significant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more on healthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare.

You may "see" that but it is untrue. When TPM started, there were
insurance experts here who debunked that far right-wing view. Overall, the
medical-industrial complex spends no more on insurance than a private person
does, in percentage terms. A few fields have high rates. That is a market
problem, because physicians are using a business model of 1900 whereby each
physicians purchases insurance as a private individual. It is like having
factory workers each buying product liabilty insurance as an individual.

George Conklin

07-26-2004, 04:25 AM

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news:slrncg8vk9.42f.don@manx.misty.com: In article <2mjaqcFl0cc3U1@uni-berlin.de>, Rick wrote:"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:k%WMc.14093$f4.9673@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...>> "Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message> news:dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.c om...> > >>Until, of course, you go in for liposuction and they remove and> > >>discard your spleen. Then you'll want the baddest-*** lawyer you> > >>can find, natch.> >> > When you go in for an operation, you are required to sigh a consent> > form stating that you have been advised of the risks involved in> > surgery and you agree to accept these risks.>> Translation: anything they do to you is ok, legal and good.> Malpractice is thus legalized.This isn't the first time Bush has moved to gut our legal rightsand consumer protections. "Frivilous lawsuits" is yet anotherright-wing hot button topic, intended to play on people'semotions and capitalize on their ignorance. E.g. read howBush financed his Texas gubernatorial campaigns on thebacks of medical malpractice victims:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ ?/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32997-2000Feb9Note the last paragraph:"The trial lawyers contend that all the talk about "junk lawsuits"obscures the tort reformers' real goal: reducing corporate liability.And while huge punitive damage awards make big headlines,said Hartley Hampton, president of the Texas Trial LawyersAssociation, there are very few of them. In the year before thereforms, he said, "more people froze to death in Texas thanactually collected punitive damages."Rick Not that I disagree with Rick much, but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of the significant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more on healthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare. In my USA "state" (province) of Pennsylvania, there is major debate on this issue. Nobody is proposing any limits or new constraints against suing and collecting for actual damages. The debate has been confined to "non-economic damages" such as pain-and-suffering. Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance..........
Because the medical-industrial complex spends no more on insurance in
percentage terms than we as individuals do in our own private life.

Larry Bud

07-26-2004, 04:47 AM

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance.......... Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly overblown. Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do.

That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury
decisions are based on evidence?

Name the evidence in the silcone breast lawsuits.

jls

07-26-2004, 05:18 AM

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om... "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance.......... Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly overblown. Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury decisions are based on evidence? Name the evidence in the silcone breast lawsuits.

Name a lawsuit in which a plaintiff recovered without evidence. Give
details. You won't, of course.

Roger

07-26-2004, 05:46 AM

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance.......... Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly overblown.

They're not overblown. They're happening TO THEM. That makes them important
matters of state.
Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. Rick

Mitchell Holman

07-26-2004, 06:33 AM

larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in
news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om:
"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... Here in Texas the public has passed into law every "tort reform" law the insurance industry has written. But do you think insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? Not a chance.......... Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly overblown. Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury decisions are based on evidence?

Actually they are. But if you don't
like the jury system, what is your alternative?

07-26-2004, 04:28 PM

In article <dzVMc.20401$c67.3257@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
"Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Until, of course, you go in for liposuction and they remove and discardyour spleen. Then you'll want the baddest-*** lawyer you can find, natch. When you go in for an operation, you are required to sigh a consent form stating that you have been advised of the risks involved in surgery and you agree to accept these risks. The problem is, very few people want to take responsibility for their own decisions anymore and there are lots of hungry lawyers and Liberal judges who see to it that this problem thrives and flourishes in our great nation.

Of course, but none of those consent agreements covers negligence.
None of those consent agreements should shield doctors, pharmaceutical
companies, or medical device manufacturers from legal action if they
commit a negligent act.

dahmd

07-26-2004, 07:26 PM

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... > Here in Texas the public has passed into > law every "tort reform" law the insurance > industry has written. But do you think > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? > > Not a chance.......... Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly overblown. Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative?

Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical
malpractice cases. It's like you or I trying to judge whether it was an
O-ring or a booster flange or a left gangley sprocket that caused a shuttle
crash. Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives
*objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the courts
(not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providing care
for an injured person over the course of their expected life. Make payments
for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sum payments.
Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are
spending their award on appropriate care. Remove the contingency fees and
let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else. Cap punitive awards
at a reasonable amount. Allow the judges to distribute appropriate
punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that
negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation or license
revocation is indicated. This would be a fair system. It provides justice
to patients who have been harmed, protection for physicians from frivolous
or without-merit claims, and allows lawers to make a good living without
raping the system. Why would anyone disagree?

Ashley
D. Ashley Hill, MD

jls

07-26-2004, 07:39 PM

jls

07-26-2004, 08:21 PM

Mitchell Holman

07-26-2004, 10:17 PM

"dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
news:y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>...> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77...> > Here in Texas the public has passed into> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance> > industry has written. But do you think> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest?> >> > Not a chance..........>> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is> vastly overblown.>> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative? Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases.

That's what medical experts are for.

Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives *objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the courts (not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providing care for an injured person over the course of their expected life. Make payments for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sum payments. Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are spending their award on appropriate care.

Should we make insurance companies "prove"
that they aren't raising premiums just to cover
their investment losses?

Remove the contingency fees and let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else.

Does mean all doctors should work for hourly
rates and not get kickbacks from HMO's and drug
companies they invest in?

Cap punitive awards at a reasonable amount.

How about capping doctors fees at a reasonable amount?

Allow the judges to distribute appropriate punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation or license revocation is indicated.

So you want judges to punish doctors but not
juries? So much for the rant against "judicial
activism"...........

This would be a fair system. It provides justice to patients who have been harmed, protection for physicians from frivolous or without-merit claims, and allows lawers to make a good living without raping the system. Why would anyone disagree?

Funny you accuse lawyers of "raping the system"
but have no complaints against doctors who make
careers out of testifying for insurance companies.

How very even handed........

George Conklin

07-27-2004, 04:36 AM

"dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>...> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77...> > Here in Texas the public has passed into> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance> > industry has written. But do you think> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest?> >> > Not a chance..........>> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is
vastly> overblown.>> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative? Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases.

This is what everyone says about their own case, be it malpractice, auto
accidents, homicides or whatever. The comment is always the same.

It's like you or I trying to judge whether it was an O-ring or a booster flange or a left gangley sprocket that caused a
shuttle crash. Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that
receives *objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the
courts (not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providing care for an injured person over the course of their expected life. Make
payments for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sum
payments.

When TPM was young, there were many insurance experts here. Since 99% of
injuries go uncompensated, and errors results from at least 44,000 deaths a
year, and according to the Economist, maybe twice that, what you are
proposing would dramatically RAISE the cost of malpractice. Or are you
saying that if a perosn dies, then he/she gets zero?

Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are spending their award on appropriate care.

The vast majority get nothing anyway. Nothing from nothing equals
nothing.

Remove the contingency fees and let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else.

What? Fee-for-service is the mantra in medicine. Besides, you know as
well as the rest of us that without contingency fees no lawyer would ever
take a case. That would pretty well be the end of it, the goal, right?

Cap punitive awards at a reasonable amount. Allow the judges to distribute appropriate punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation or license revocation is indicated. This would be a fair system.

As long as the system keeps mistakes secret so that doctors in theory
will report mistakes, nothing will ever change.

It provides justice to patients who have been harmed, protection for physicians from frivolous or without-merit claims, and allows lawers to make a good living without raping the system. Why would anyone disagree? Ashley D. Ashley Hill, MD

Well, what you are proposing would raise malpractice costs greatly. In
Texas, where physicians got what they wanted on reform, malpractice rates
did not go down.

George Conklin

07-27-2004, 04:38 AM

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NbjNc.5046$Mp1.915@bignews4.bellsouth.net... "dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... >> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... >> > Here in Texas the public has passed into >> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance >> > industry has written. But do you think >> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? >> > >> > Not a chance.......... >> >> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like
other >> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly >> overblown. >> >> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or >> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. > > That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury > decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative? Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases. Oh, but YES they are. All the parties in a medical malpractice case are entitled to bring in expert medical testimony. Hypothetical questions
may be asked and the experts can give their opinions. Who are you trying to kid? Do you think American juries are stupid? They are not, and often they return verdicts for the defense.

Any deviant hates juries and states the same thing. But when judges
rule, they hate that too. Juries are better than the so-called expert
judges.

George Conklin

07-27-2004, 04:39 AM

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:9PjNc.18553$QO.3439@bignews5.bellsouth.net... "dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com... "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... >> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... >> > Here in Texas the public has passed into >> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance >> > industry has written. But do you think >> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? >> > >> > Not a chance.......... >> >> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like
other >> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is vastly >> overblown. >> >> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or >> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. > > That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury > decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative? Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases. It's like you or I trying to judge whether it was an O-ring or a booster flange or a left gangley sprocket that caused a shuttle crash. Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives *objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the courts (not lawyers) Ah, so you want to do away with advocates and advocacy. You would like
to eliminate forensics and debate. Do you fear lawyers, or just dislike
them? Let me ask you this: How are you going to do away with the jury when our Constitution guarantees a jury trial, at least in federal courts, in all suits at common law, pursuant to the 7th Amendment? Here's what the 7th says: AMENDMENT VII. Right of trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. This amendment has not yet been applied to the states by incorporation,
but I don't know of any state which does not guarantee its citizens due
process of law by jury trial in negligence suits. Do you?

Many hospitals today make a patient sign a waiver form that they will
take everything to arbitration. Duke University uses this form. That gets
rid of judges, juries and patient rights all at the same time.

Herman Rubin

08-01-2004, 08:47 AM

In article <bearclaw-7EEC29.00001929072004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
<bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:In article <ce8pj3$1fau@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
Here is one which I consider improper awards. There is a hormone which is known to reduce miscarriages in cows. Many years ago, it was used to treat women prone to miscarriages. It produced major effects in their daughters, including cancer and infertility. In the lawsuits, it was claimed that the tendency to miscarry was also not reduced, and substantial judgments were made against the company.
Well, okay, to me it sure sounds like appropriate grounds for a suit.Surely you're not advocating allowing company to market cow medicine tohuman women without sufficient testing to show efficacy and risk?Profit before people?

Is the company "marketing" it for a SMALL amount of their
business? Or is it merely making it available to those
doctors who think it is a good idea?

This is the way it should be done; this is what we know;
use it at your risk. Who is going to pay for the millions
for a test of what becomes a new drug? Not the company.
Nor can the company prohibit its use for people; the FDA
can try, but will not succeed. Are YOU willing to tell
women who have had miscarriages that they cannot try this
because of unknown possible dangers later?

It would take a few years for testing, and there is no
way that any test protocol would find out that the
fenale offspring would be prone to cancer and reproductive
problems decades later.
Now, who is at fault? The drug was already on the market for cows, and the company certainly was not making a mint from the few women who used it. Is there any way they could have known how well it would work on people, or that bad effects would result decades later?

Without knowing the specifics of the case, it's difficult to judge.However, all the information provided in the second quoted paragraph iskind of beside the point if negligence--or worse--was proven by theplaintiff. That may have been where the jury landed in the end.

In cases like this, jurors assume that someone must have been
at fault, and that medicine knows far more than it does.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

jls

08-01-2004, 09:45 AM

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:cej3aa$6noo@odds.stat.purdue.edu... In article <bearclaw-7EEC29.00001929072004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>, <bearclaw@cruller.invalid> wrote:In article <ce8pj3$1fau@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote: Here is one which I consider improper awards. There is a hormone which is known to reduce miscarriages in cows. Many years ago, it was used to treat women prone to miscarriages. It produced major effects in their daughters, including cancer and infertility. In the lawsuits, it was claimed that the tendency to miscarry was also not reduced, and substantial judgments were made against the company.Well, okay, to me it sure sounds like appropriate grounds for a suit.Surely you're not advocating allowing company to market cow medicine tohuman women without sufficient testing to show efficacy and risk?Profit before people? Is the company "marketing" it for a SMALL amount of their business? Or is it merely making it available to those doctors who think it is a good idea? This is the way it should be done; this is what we know; use it at your risk. Who is going to pay for the millions for a test of what becomes a new drug? Not the company. Nor can the company prohibit its use for people; the FDA can try, but will not succeed. Are YOU willing to tell women who have had miscarriages that they cannot try this because of unknown possible dangers later? It would take a few years for testing, and there is no way that any test protocol would find out that the fenale offspring would be prone to cancer and reproductive problems decades later. Now, who is at fault? The drug was already on the market for cows, and the company certainly was not making a mint from the few women who used it. Is there any way they could have known how well it would work on people, or that bad effects would result decades later?Without knowing the specifics of the case, it's difficult to judge.However, all the information provided in the second quoted paragraph iskind of beside the point if negligence--or worse--was proven by theplaintiff. That may have been where the jury landed in the end. In cases like this [the diethylstilbestrol case?], jurors assume that
someone must have been at fault,

No they do not, and you are trying to second-guess the minds of jurors, all
of which makes you look foolish and Purdue look foolish. Boys, they need
to put a muzzle on the likes of you if they wish to maintain their prestige.

Despite what any ignorant buffoon might say, jurors are instructed by the
trial judge at the end of the evidence NOT to assume anything, to put
together what they have learned from hearing the evidence (and the law
arising on the evidence) and decide whether the plaintiff has tipped the
scales.

If you don't like that, condemn Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson who
incorporated the English common law into our Constitutional form of
government. Or move to Pakistan.

and that medicine knows far more than it does.

And this doesn't make any sense at all. What is "it"? If "it" is the
jury, then you are saying that the jury concedes to whatever medicine wishes
to do, including administer unsafe diethylstilbestrol to women.

By the way, I remember the controversy over this drug when it was being
given to women before all the damage began to show up. It was condemned in
knowledgeable quarters long before the children of women who took it found
out they had been maimed.
-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Jonathan Smith

08-01-2004, 12:03 PM

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote in message news:<bearclaw-94798E.22374729072004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>... In article <fbcaefd.0407291229.21251a@posting.google.com>, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote: If I am not mistaken, Herman is refering to DES (diethylsstilbestrol). This is a case from the 1950's. After the Kefauver Harris Ammendments to the FD&C Act in 1963, the regulatory threshold for FDA approval was significantly changed. Thanks for the information. It sounds like an interesting read. The argument is that the FDA approved labeling is sufficient to indemnify the manufacturer from liability in the event of an adverse event. This makes sense and the underlying rationale is supported in case law. Personally, I would have a lot more faith in that system if the FDA weren't so reliant on corporate data

Are you familiar with the NDA submission and approval process? Perhaps
you have an alternative?
and funding,

Which is a tax - paid on filing not on approval. You pay for your
drivers license, right? OK - same concept, just a lot more money and
a harder test.
and if the industry whistleblowers didn't ring so darned truthful.

There has been one case recently and it had nothing to do with data -
it had everything to do with promotion. Every data point collected
prior to approval, and every safety data point collected
post-approval, are filed with the FDA.
But that's just me.

It is not just you - it is a whole list of you's who know little more
than what Sidney Wolf can spin out in a 30 second sound bite.
Unfortunately, it is all too often that the deep pocket is attacked. The result is that either the deep pocket absorbs (passes through) the cost of liability or gets out of the business entirely. Which is it you prefer? I prefer that the shoe that fits be worn.

And in the absence of any worngdoing, the shoe should not be forced on
the foot just because the foot happens to have deep pockets.
If

IF - that is the critical aspect, now isn't it.
corporate behavior is damaging enough, then yes, the company should be shut down IMHO, damages paid and its principles prosecuted if appropriate. I do not believe that companies which act in good faith be subject to unfair burdens.

By submitting the appropriate regulatory documents and passing the FDA
threshold, what more do you want?
I think juries are a good--perhaps the best, the least corruptible--way of sorting it all out.

Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers.
Good luck.
In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil salesmen. My $.02.

If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I
suggest that you avoid them entirely.

js

Herman Rubin

08-01-2004, 12:33 PM

In article <spZNc.15168$DZ.934236@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
dahmd <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in messagenews:ce8rn2$2j02@odds.stat.purdue.edu... In article <y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, dahmd <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16. ..> larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in> news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om:
> > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message> > news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>...> >> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message> >> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77...> >> > Here in Texas the public has passed into> >> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance> >> > industry has written. But do you think> >> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest?
> >> > Not a chance..........
> >> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other> >> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions isvastly> >> overblown.
> >> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or> >> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do.
> > That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury> > decisions are based on evidence?

> Actually they are. But if you don't> like the jury system, what is your alternative?

<> >Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical
<> >malpractice cases. It's like you or I trying to judge whether it was an
<> >O-ring or a booster flange or a left gangley sprocket that caused ashuttle
<> >crash.

<> I believe an educated layman could evaluate the evidence.

<> Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives
<> >*objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by thecourts
<> >(not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providingcare
<> >for an injured person over the course of their expected life.

<> We have more complicated considerations. Since there are
<> many other probabilistic considerations than expected life,
<> and for an injured person, an award for expected life can
<> be woefully inadequate, more is needed. The judges are
<> also not capable of understanding the probabilistic
<> problems involved; indeed, someone like me would have to
<> use computers to evaluate the various alternatives which
<> would be proposed.

<> I believe that in the Simpson case, the defense deliberately
<> did not use their statistics expert, because the prosecution
<> expert made outlandish statements. With the more reasonable
<> conservative explanation, it might well have carried weight.

<> Make payments
<> >for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sumpayments.
<> >Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are
<> >spending their award on appropriate care. Remove the contingency feesand
<> >let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else. Cap punitiveawards
<> >at a reasonable amount.

<> This is one very bad feature of the present juries. If they
<> decide that a manufacturing decision saved the company 6 billion
<> dollars, they would award anyone injured from it that full
<> amount, even if the decision saved 100 lives.

<> Allow the judges to distribute appropriate
<> >punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that
<> >negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation orlicense
<> >revocation is indicated. This would be a fair system. It providesjustice
<> >to patients who have been harmed, protection for physicians fromfrivolous
<> >or without-merit claims, and allows lawers to make a good living without
<> >raping the system. Why would anyone disagree?

<> >Ashley
<> >D. Ashley Hill, MD

<> Other than the comments I have made, I agree. But the
<> medical profession has to cooperate here, and make it clear
<> that there are things not known, and that in many cases
<> there are a large number of random causes and effects,
<> mostly not controllable. We MUST think in terms of the
<> choices, and probabilities, and understand that there is
<> no one correct decision for all.

<> The present consent forms are atrocious, and few doctors
<> come close to presenting the probabilities of the quite
<> numerous alternatives. But without that, there is no
<> way the patient can make an intelligent choice.

Thanks for the comments. Over the years I have read your posts and quiteoften have agreed with your statements that, for example, "educated laymencould evaluate the evidence" and that educated patients can make informeddecisions if informed consent is presented appropriately. I think that youoverestimate the ability of the "average" person to evaluate thecomplexities of a medical malpractice case. Most people don't have youranalytical thought process and desire for factual evidence and statisticalprobabilities. You have said here many times that our educational system isinadequate. I agree: most average citizens do not have much scientificeducation. Many people cannot answer simple science questions. Why wouldwe assume they will be able to assess DNA evidence in a murder trial, ordetermine whether a patient in septic shock and renal failure should havehad a full dose of gentamycin due to a raging infection, or a partial dosedue to kidney failure?
I could cite dozens of cases where juries were presented with unopposedexpert opinion that a physician did nothing wrong. But, the jurors decidedthat the patient "deserved something" because they have to live with adeficit, therefore they awarded the patient millions of dollars. One thatcomes to mind is a case where a child developed laryngeal condlyoma (warts)after a vaginal delivery. There is absolutely no evidence that c/sectionwill prevent this, and the major ob/gyn organizations have stated repeatedlythat c/sections are not indicated for patients with genital warts. Inaddition, there are a number of babies with laryngeal papillomatosis whowere born to women by cesearean, and the virus causing this has beenisolated in amniotic fluid, showing that it can be infectious well beforedelivery. Despite this, juries have awarded verdicts against doctors fornot performing c/sections. You would have to perform millions of c/sectionsto prevent a case of laryngeal papillomatosis. Still, juries ignore thisand proceed bases on emotion. THIS is why I believe the current system isso dysfunctional. Take the emotions out of law and put decisions in thehands of people trained to be objective. Thanks,
AshleyD. Ashley Hill, MD

No, I do not overestimate the ability of the "average"
person; the present public schools make it difficult even
for the bright to become really educated, and the "new
math" debacle showed clearly the inability of the teachers
to be able to understand conceptual material.

There is another reason, and the government and also the
schools have added to this; the idea that ONLY experts
can make decisions, and that all "certified" experts are
qualified to do so. The medical profession has not done
anything to discourage this, and much to reinforce it.
This is one reason why juries will award such damages;
the experts are supposed to be able to prevent such cases
from occurring. The expert involved did not, and thus
must bear responsibility.

The public schools are effectively non-remediable until the
current experts are completely removed, and it is worse
than that. Furthermore, most people have become serfs,
which means they expect the government to take care of them,
and do not feel they must make decisions themselves. Also,
they expect miracles; you and I know that we cannot provide
for all the medical care which we would want for ourselves;
the resources and knowledge are not there. But we keep
seeing statements such as, "If they can put a man on the
moon, why can't they cure cancer?"

Should people this ignorant decide on those who will run
anything? We cannot perform miracles, but we can learn
more about how the universe operates, and use this for
our benefit.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

jls

08-01-2004, 01:10 PM

"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries
are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck.

Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate
shills scared ****eless of juries. In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js

Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the
result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it
knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause
harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the
company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles
like you, doesn't it?

08-01-2004, 02:55 PM

In article <ce8j8g$350q@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <i269g09ka39tdnvc2ht0dmr4p8p8ajsii5@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.net> wrote:On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:46:18 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (DonKlipstein) said in alt.politics.bush: Not that I disagree with Rick much, but I see medical malpractice lawsuits as a major problem and one of thesignificant USA-specific factors as to why the USA spends so much more onhealthcare than do the countries with nationalized healthcare.The proximate cause isn't the ability to sue a doctor who makes amistake, it's the ability of doctors who are so incompetent that theymake mistakes to continue practicing. A major problem is that of people who believe that any bad result MUST BE due to incompetence or error. I believe that some other countries have laws which result in major financial consequences to the losers of lawsuits filed because of things like this, and others such as "political" considerations. Here, ecofreaks have stopped projects by a plethora of lawsuits which they have lost, and did not have to pay any damages.

In some jurisdictions, frivolous law suits can get the litigants
in trouble in the United States.

08-01-2004, 05:10 PM

In article <y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
"dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote: Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases. It's like you or I trying to judge whether it was an O-ring or a booster flange or a left gangley sprocket that caused a shuttle crash. Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives *objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the courts (not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providing care for an injured person over the course of their expected life. Make payments for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sum payments. Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are spending their award on appropriate care. Remove the contingency fees and let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else. Cap punitive awards at a reasonable amount. Allow the judges to distribute appropriate punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation or license revocation is indicated. This would be a fair system. It provides justice to patients who have been harmed, protection for physicians from frivolous or without-merit claims, and allows lawers to make a good living without raping the system. Why would anyone disagree? Ashley D. Ashley Hill, MD

I agree that the jury system is terribly flawed. I know someone who's a
judge in Pennsylvania and I asked him about it. All I got was a shrug.
The best kind of judicial reform would be to do away with the jury
system for civil cases and instead, set up an arbitration system with
experts from a variety of fields who are paid by the state, not the
plaintiffs or defendants. Doing away with jury trials for civil cases
would go much further than restricting individuals' tort rights.

I am also not convinced that medical doctors are suffering due to
malpractice insurance. I have a friend who's a pediatrician in
Pennsylvania. He's doing extremely well. This guy is in his middle
thirties, single, lives in a huge house that he bought new about three
years ago. This fellow travels all over the states and Europe, and he
eats out many nights each month even though he has a fancy gourmet
kitchen. One of my dad's long-time clients is an ob/gyn in Pennsylvania.
This guy lives quite well too. He lives in a Philadelphia suburb in a
huge house that even has an indoor pool, huge recreation room, four huge
bedrooms, and a gourmet kitchen. Every three years, he leases a fancy
luxury car, typically a Mercedes. He's not suffering either from the
malpractice insurance situation in Pennsylvania and he's in one of those
medical fields that is viewed as high risk. I have been to both doctors'
houses several times.

08-01-2004, 05:12 PM

In article <Xns953332084597ta2eenew@204.127.199.17>,
Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote:
"dahmd" <dahmd@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:y3jNc.4186$wM.1552@twister.tampabay.rr.com: "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns95325743ADECDta2eenew@63.240.76.16... larrybud2002@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in news:5db363e0.0407260347.77b36586@posting.google.c om: > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:<2mjli0Fng36uU1@uni-berlin.de>... >> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9531EF72A6D84ta2eenew@216.148.227.77... >> > Here in Texas the public has passed into >> > law every "tort reform" law the insurance >> > industry has written. But do you think >> > insurance rates have dropped in the slightest? >> > >> > Not a chance.......... >> >> Of course not, since the "problem" of frivilous lawsuits, like other >> right-wing hot button issues such as partial birth abortions is >> vastly overblown. >> >> Plaintiffs either have sufficient evidence to prove malpractice or >> they don't, and in the vast majority of cases they do. > > That's a pretty naive view of the world. Do you really think jury > decisions are based on evidence? Actually they are. But if you don't like the jury system, what is your alternative? Glad you asked. Juries are not competent to judge complex medical malpractice cases. That's what medical experts are for. Instead of using juries, we should use a 3-judge panel that receives *objective* input from unbiased, blinded medical experts hired by the courts (not lawyers) and actuaries who provide data on the cost of providing care for an injured person over the course of their expected life. Make payments for as long as the person lives, but not longer, and deny lump-sum payments. Make patients (or caregivers) who have won cases prove that they are spending their award on appropriate care. Should we make insurance companies "prove" that they aren't raising premiums just to cover their investment losses? Remove the contingency fees and let lawyers work for an hourly wage like everyone else. Does mean all doctors should work for hourly rates and not get kickbacks from HMO's and drug companies they invest in? Cap punitive awards at a reasonable amount. How about capping doctors fees at a reasonable amount? Allow the judges to distribute appropriate punishment to those physicians or hospitals that make mistakes, so that negligent physicians and hospitals do not escape if remediation or license revocation is indicated. So you want judges to punish doctors but not juries? So much for the rant against "judicial activism"...........

Only if they cry poor because of high claims rates.

Guest

08-01-2004, 10:33 PM

In article <fbcaefd.0408011103.6813e454@posting.google.com>,
jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
It is not just you - it is a whole list of you's who know little more than what Sidney Wolf can spin out in a 30 second sound bite.

Heh. It took me a while to realize who you were talking about.

Your dismissive tone is hardly warranted. Public Citizen is 180 degrees
opposed to at least some of your views, yes. But they are not motivated
by profit, nor are they operating in the dark, and the organization's
effort at disseminating good information to people possibly at risk
from bad drugs is highly commendable, at least to me. Were that there
were many more like Wolf. When government, whether by design or
neglect, fails to protect its constituency (which is another way of
saying, when government sanctions the victimization of its citizens),
groups such as Public Citizen are a godsend.

Are groups like Public Citizen perfect? No, of course not. But they
sure are a lot more informative than corporate sales pitches. People
informed by Public Citizen have questions--good questions, on matters
of significance--when they go see their doctor. People who go see their
doctor asking for a drug they saw on a thirty-second TV
commercial...those are the ones begging trouble.

Wolf spends considerably more than 30 seconds explaining the risk
presented to patients by drug marketers. That thirty-second soundbite
stuff is what the pharmaceutical companies pull in their saturation
advertising efforts, not consumer activists informing the public.

For those who don't know who Sidney Wolf is, check out Public Citizen
and decide for yourselves:

<http://www.citizen.org/>

Guest

08-01-2004, 10:39 PM

In article <fbcaefd.0408011103.6813e454@posting.google.com>,
jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
By submitting the appropriate regulatory documents and passing the FDA threshold, what more do you want?

As with Wolf, I would prefer an agency considerably more independent
from the companies it allegedly regulates. Right now, as ordained by the
invisible hand, the inmates seem to be in control of the asylum.

Arthur L. Rubin

08-02-2004, 08:23 AM

jls wrote: "Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message news:cej3aa$6noo@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In cases like this [the diethylstilbestrol case?], jurors assume that someone must have been at fault, No they do not, and you are trying to second-guess the minds of jurors, all of which makes you look foolish and Purdue look foolish. Boys, they need to put a muzzle on the likes of you if they wish to maintain their prestige. Despite what any ignorant buffoon might say, jurors are instructed by the trial judge at the end of the evidence NOT to assume anything, to put together what they have learned from hearing the evidence (and the law arising on the evidence) and decide whether the plaintiff has tipped the scales.

That's true, as to the instructions. Jurors don't follow instructions,
AND are also allowed to use "common sense", as THEY consider it.

If they believe (as a matter of "common sense") they someone must have
been at fault, the judge's instructions won't affect that believe.

Jonathan Smith

08-05-2004, 11:34 AM

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles like you, doesn't it?

The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be
reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the
assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk. EVERY manufacturer of
every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these
risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the
APPROVED product label.

Misusing tort law by ambulance chasing Edwardians is disgusting.

js

Jonathan Smith

08-05-2004, 12:06 PM

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote in message news:<bearclaw-CC5E4B.22334301082004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>... In article <fbcaefd.0408011103.6813e454@posting.google.com>, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote: It is not just you - it is a whole list of you's who know little more than what Sidney Wolf can spin out in a 30 second sound bite. Heh. It took me a while to realize who you were talking about. Your dismissive tone is hardly warranted.

You are an idiot - is that better?
Public Citizen is 180 degrees opposed to at least some of your views, yes. But they are not motivated by profit,

No? Where do you think they get their money?
nor are they operating in the dark,

They are operating from a political position that needs to be
supported regardless of the information.
and the organization's effort at disseminating good information to people possibly at risk from bad drugs is highly commendable, at least to me. Were that there were many more like Wolf. When government, whether by design or neglect, fails to protect its constituency (which is another way of saying, when government sanctions the victimization of its citizens), groups such as Public Citizen are a godsend.

Irrational fear is NOT a godsend. Partial information, fearmongering,
scare tactics, lies, innuendo, and bias do not serve the public good.
Are groups like Public Citizen perfect? No, of course not. But they sure are a lot more informative than corporate sales pitches.

The discussion was FDA oversight.
People informed by Public Citizen have questions--good questions, on matters of significance--when they go see their doctor. People who go see their doctor asking for a drug they saw on a thirty-second TV commercial...those are the ones begging trouble.

That is why these products require a prescription.
Wolf spends considerably more than 30 seconds explaining the risk presented to patients by drug marketers. That thirty-second soundbite stuff is what the pharmaceutical companies pull in their saturation advertising efforts, not consumer activists informing the public.

Have you ever listened to an advert for a drug on TV? What's the bit
about all the side effects and limitations? Have you ever heard
McDonalds or Firestone, or other manufacturers tell you about all the
reasons NOT to use their product?
For those who don't know who Sidney Wolf is, check out Public Citizen and decide for yourselves:
<http://www.citizen.org/>

Here is something recently posted by Sid:

"This letter requests an immediate criminal investigation of
AstraZeneca for illegally delaying the submission to the FDA of 23
reports of serious adverse reactions in the U.S. to its
cholesterol-lowering drug rosuvastatin (CRESTOR) for as long as 97
days beyond the allowable 15-day legal limit for reporting such
reactions. Included in this large number of violations were 19 U.S.
cases of the often life-threatening destruction of muscle tissue known
as rhabdomyolysis and 4 U.S. cases of primary kidney failure or
insufficiency in patients not having rhabdomyolysis. Twenty of these
23 patients had to be hospitalized. These intentional reporting delays
by AstraZeneca, while temporarily succeeding in making their drug
appear safer than it actually is, have unquestionably impaired FDA's
ability to promptly assess the safety of this uniquely dangerous
drug."

And that is outright bull**** - even the FDA says so.

"FDA spokeswoman Laura Bradbard tells WebMD that the agency is
reviewing the petition, and continuously monitors adverse events
linked to the medications it approves. The drug's labeling contains
warnings about the potential for muscle and kidney problems, but in
its August approval the agency concluded that it is safe for use at
doses up to 40 milligrams."

"Bradbard says no evidence has emerged since Crestor's approval to
indicate that it is less safe than previously believed. FDA approval
was delayed for about a year after the agency expressed concerns about
side effects associated with 80-milligram doses."

And een more to the point, Sidney cites the 39 yo women's death due to
Crestor as his lead example of how bad the drug is...

His petition claims that "a 39- year-old woman, taking only 20
milligrams a day [of CRESTOR], died of rhabdomyolysis and renal
insufficiency."

An autopsy ultimately determined that the 39-year-old woman died from
myocardial infarction with no evidence of rhabdomyolysis and that her
death had nothing to do with CRESTOR.

She DIED of an MI that could perhaps been avoided had she taken the
drug earlier - not because of the drug.

Stupid human tricks...

Want more?

js

Jonathan Smith

08-05-2004, 12:07 PM

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote in message news:<bearclaw-317A14.22395801082004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>... In article <fbcaefd.0408011103.6813e454@posting.google.com>, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote: By submitting the appropriate regulatory documents and passing the FDA threshold, what more do you want? As with Wolf, I would prefer an agency considerably more independent from the companies it allegedly regulates. Right now, as ordained by the invisible hand, the inmates seem to be in control of the asylum.

Do you honestly believe that the FDA and the industry sleep together?

Tell you what - next time you are in DC, go to one of the Advisory
Committee meetings and then tell me again.

js

jls

08-05-2004, 01:58 PM

"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbcaefd.0408051034.66c719c0@posting.google.co m... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]>
Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. > In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this > thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil > salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which
it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to
cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly
reptiles like you, doesn't it? The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk. EVERY manufacturer of every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the APPROVED product label.

I see you do not understand the law of torts. See a good tort law casebook
for details, which most likely your diminutive mind would never grasp. Misusing tort law by ambulance chasing Edwardians is disgusting. js

Ah, to the soapbox on the town square with our little amateur shill and his
barbed strawman. One in ten for sure would ally himself with the cause.

fresh~horses

08-05-2004, 03:48 PM

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote in message news:<bearclaw-94798E.22374729072004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>...

Bearclaw "Jonathan Smith" is a Pfizer employee.

Fresh~Horses
(Zee)

In article <fbcaefd.0407291229.21251a@posting.google.com>, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote: If I am not mistaken, Herman is refering to DES (diethylsstilbestrol). This is a case from the 1950's. After the Kefauver Harris Ammendments to the FD&C Act in 1963, the regulatory threshold for FDA approval was significantly changed. Thanks for the information. It sounds like an interesting read. The argument is that the FDA approved labeling is sufficient to indemnify the manufacturer from liability in the event of an adverse event. This makes sense and the underlying rationale is supported in case law. Personally, I would have a lot more faith in that system if the FDA weren't so reliant on corporate data and funding, and if the industry whistleblowers didn't ring so darned truthful. But that's just me. Unfortunately, it is all too often that the deep pocket is attacked. The result is that either the deep pocket absorbs (passes through) the cost of liability or gets out of the business entirely. Which is it you prefer? I prefer that the shoe that fits be worn. If corporate behavior is damaging enough, then yes, the company should be shut down IMHO, damages paid and its principles prosecuted if appropriate. I do not believe that companies which act in good faith be subject to unfair burdens. I think juries are a good--perhaps the best, the least corruptible--way of sorting it all out. In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil salesmen. My $.02.

fresh~horses

08-05-2004, 03:52 PM

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...

JLS: "Jonathan Smith" works for Pfizer.

Fresh~Horses
(Zee)

"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles like you, doesn't it?

fresh~horses

08-05-2004, 04:09 PM

jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<fbcaefd.0408051034.66c719c0@posting.google.com>... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. > In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this > thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil > salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js

Pharmaceuticals are partly paid for by taxes. Indirectly we could even
say Jonathan, that your salary is paid for by the taxpayer.

Fresh~Horses
(Zee)

Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles like you, doesn't it? The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk.

Benefit outweighs the risk...and was that the case for Lipitor,
Pfizer's statin?

Fresh~Horses
(Zee)

EVERY manufacturer of every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the APPROVED product label. Misusing tort law by ambulance chasing Edwardians is disgusting. js

fresh~horses

08-05-2004, 04:45 PM

jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<fbcaefd.0408051034.66c719c0@posting.google.com>... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. > In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this > thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil > salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles like you, doesn't it? The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk. EVERY manufacturer of every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the APPROVED product label.

Tell that to those disabled by Lipitor, Pfizer's statin.

Dear reader: Jonathan Smith works for Pfizer.

Fresh~Horses
(Zee)

Misusing tort law by ambulance chasing Edwardians is disgusting. js

jls

08-05-2004, 05:33 PM

"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:abf8de5b.0408051452.76cdc215@posting.google.c om... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... JLS: "Jonathan Smith" works for Pfizer. Fresh~Horses (Zee)

Thanks for confirming suspicions that he was shilling for the industry.
Such a poor shill, though. I wonder if they pay him or if the transparent
twit is here on his own. "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]>
Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. > In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this > thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil > salesmen. My $.02. If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I suggest that you avoid them entirely. js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which
it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to
cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly
reptiles like you, doesn't it?

fresh~horses

08-05-2004, 11:28 PM

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<_hAQc.2656$ow.115@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message news:abf8de5b.0408051452.76cdc215@posting.google.c om... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... JLS: "Jonathan Smith" works for Pfizer. Fresh~Horses (Zee) Thanks for confirming suspicions that he was shilling for the industry. Such a poor shill, though. I wonder if they pay him or if the transparent twit is here on his own.

Whether he is paid to sit and troll usenet to push Pfizer's agenda or
he does it while they are paying him to do something else (which he's
not then doing) Pfizer is paying him.

And ultimately we're paying for him. Everytime we buy one of Pfizer's
over-hyped, over-marketed, over-priced but under-researched drugs,
administrative, marketing and promotional costs are tagged on.

To be fair JLS, Jonathan Smith has occasionally within the past six
months used a computer *not* owned by Pfizer.

Fresh~Horses
(zee)

"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries are made up of people like you and manipulated by lawyers. > Good luck. Ah, just another of oodles of anonymous insurance company or corporate shills scared ****eless of juries. > > > In pharmaceuticals particularly, all other courses mentioned in this > > thread seem to re-invite the influence of all levels of snakeoil > > salesmen. My $.02. > > If you are skeptical of the quality of pharmaceuticals, mught I > suggest that you avoid them entirely. > > js Nope, but if the medicine or drug causes harm, then it may have been the result of a tort. If a company releases to the market a product which it knows, or with reasonable diligence should have known, was likely to cause harm and it harms someone then the jury can pass the expense on to the company under the law of tort. That law just frosts little scaly reptiles like you, doesn't it?

Herman Rubin

08-06-2004, 12:23 PM

In article <abf8de5b.0408051545.3f2348ce@posting.google.com>,
fresh~horses <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote:jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<fbcaefd.0408051034.66c719c0@posting.google.com>... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries

......................
The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk. EVERY manufacturer of every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the APPROVED product label.

Tell that to those disabled by Lipitor, Pfizer's statin.
Dear reader: Jonathan Smith works for Pfizer.

I work for no drug company, and I have criticized them for
their misdeeds. I also have criticized the recent massive
support of giving statins on suspicion, and have posted
against it.

Nevertheless, I still support giving statins to many of those
who have been urged to take them, IF the whole condition is
taken into account. Lipitor is not among the worst, and the
fact that it can cause harmful and even disabling results is
clearly stated in the information provided to the FDA, and
included in each insert. Every drug has risks and benefits,
and it should be the individual, using all the information
available, who makes the decision.

If the doctors do not make the patients aware of the dangers,
do not blame the companies who have stated them clearly.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

fresh~horses

08-06-2004, 08:38 PM

hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in message news:<cf0lr7$5v04@odds.stat.purdue.edu>... In article <abf8de5b.0408051545.3f2348ce@posting.google.com>, fresh~horses <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote:jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<fbcaefd.0408051034.66c719c0@posting.google.com>... " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J3cPc.10482$g_5.5286@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... > "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message [...]> Juries ...................... The problem is, EVERY drug released to market is REQUIRED to be reviewed for benefit/risk by a government agency (FDA) where the assessment that the benefit outweighs the risk. EVERY manufacturer of every drug KNOWS that their product can and DOES have risks and these risks are CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, and COMPREHENSIVELY described in the APPROVED product label.Tell that to those disabled by Lipitor, Pfizer's statin.Dear reader: Jonathan Smith works for Pfizer. I work for no drug company, and I have criticized them for their misdeeds. I also have criticized the recent massive support of giving statins on suspicion, and have posted against it. Nevertheless, I still support giving statins to many of those who have been urged to take them, IF the whole condition is taken into account. Lipitor is not among the worst, and the fact that it can cause harmful and even disabling results is clearly stated in the information provided to the FDA, and included in each insert. Every drug has risks and benefits, and it should be the individual, using all the information available, who makes the decision. If the doctors do not make the patients aware of the dangers, do not blame the companies who have stated them clearly.

"Lipitor is not among the worst."

That depends if you've had your life changed and untreatable and
incurable disability caused by it. Then it's among the worst.

"The fact that it can cause harmful and even disabling results is
clearly stated in the information provided to the FDA.."

Are you sure about that Dr. Rubin? It is supposed to be. Was that true
for Paxil and the SSRIs? Apparently not. Who then witheld the negative
information: pharma from FDA, or FDA from the consumer?

Public Citizen now asserts Astra Zeneca withheld very serious side
effect information about Crestor which was to have been reported
within 15 days. The information regarding rhabdomyolysis and myositis
was not reported until the quarterly report allowed less serious
problems.

"Every drug has it's risks and benefits and it should be the
individual..."

I believe that is called hindsight Dr. Rubin. Are you sure the patient
should be even better informed than the physicians, who were
apparently *not* properly informed, and the pharma reps who were
apparently *not* informed. Either they were not properly informed, or
they didn't properly inform the patient in their haste to meet their
sales quota and write a prescription.

"...information...included in each insert."

The drug inserts have been amended several times since Lipitor went on
the market. You have after market lab rats like me to thank for the
information that is *now* in the inserts. And are you sure
*everything* about the drugs you are taking is out front, and you know
it? Is there a chance something may have been withheld from you? Some
negative information suppressed by the pharma and therefore
unavailable to you? Stay tuned.

Every drug has risks and benefits, and it should be the individual, using all the information available, who makes the decision.

That's right. All the information available. Five years ago when I and
Sharon Hope's husband began with Lipitor, all the information
available was not what it is now.

If I am to be as informed or better informed than my physician, then
what do I need him for? One learns what one can. It is normal that one
enters the phyician's office with some degree of trust (for me now
none whatsoever...).

I was virtually harrassed into taking statins. Most lately, I have
been written off by an endocrinologist in a letter clearly meant to be
legal disclaimer.

It said in essence: I have told you what you must take and do, you
have refused it, therefore when you die it is not my fault and I am
not legally liable. And furthermore, I am not treating you for your
high cholesterol, but a shill for statin pharma, because I will not
consider any other course of treatment for you but statins or a drug
so new on the market that it does not now qualify for Dr. Rubin's
exacting standard; to whit:

Every drug has risks and benefits, and it should be the individual, using all the information available, who makes the decision.

Fresh~Horses
Zee