Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Kitsune
    ... the doctor in question never should have been sued in the first place. The patient's eyesight was in jepordy because of another doctor not him, and the patient didn't follow his instructions, which may have saved his eyesight. It was case of the lawyer and his client trying to get more money.
    Sounds like legal malpractice - or don't you get that? The non-negligent doctor should have had a better lawyer but apparently didn't. It's hard to know about these things without ALL of the relevant details.

    But here's the thing: are you suggesting that a person purposefully lost their vision just so that they could then take their chances on a lawsuit? Can you see how that doesn't really pass the "smell test"?

    BTW, it's not just a matter of writing a prescription and "bye-bye." If the doctor misrepresented proper care and procedures to the patient he may still be partially responsible for what happened. I can't say from this distance, I lack the relevant details.

    You make it sound like anyone can step into a courtroom and win millions for completely frivolous reasons and that's not really how it works.

    Comment


    • #92
      *sigh* You really are hard to talk to, Kitsune. FACTS ARE FACTS! I love how you take so much time to look for ads for places where people might be able to get help, and then call the fact that sites are willing to offer that info a bias. Whatever. Deny facts and believe what you want to believe.

      And, I definitely did NOT miss your point; you missed mine.
      Originally posted by Kitsune
      ...the doctor in question never should have been sued in the first place.
      No shit. Only the first doctor was to blame. Show me a case where Edwards the "ambulance chaser" sued the wrong guy. Point me to a source. But make sure it doesn't have any ads for Eye Surgery anywhere!

      Originally posted by Kitsune
      I know a guy at work who found a spider in his fuit pie, so now he's going to sue the company. He didn't even eat the pie; all Hostess should owe him is another pie. But he's already talking about retiring and how he's going to get 82,000.
      Your examples are tiresome. I can make up some examples, if you like, that counter yours. It's very easy. How about using actual, verifiable stories. The personal anecdotes do nothing to convince.
      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

      Comment


      • #93
        It doesn't matter what reasons the patient had for not following the doctor's advice, he didn't follow it, and the doctor shouldn't be held responsible for that. The fact of the matter is that a doctor was named in a suit because a lawyer thought he could get more money for himself and his client, not because the doctor was responsible for the injuries.

        Comment


        • #94
          Yes, Kitsune, but what about the responsibilty of the FIRST doctor? Are you saying he shouldn't have been held responsible for botching the surgery!? I think you're conveniently ignoring some issues here so that your set of beliefs are not compromised.

          You lumped Edwards into the category of "ambulance chaser." So, I ask again: Can you show me a case where Edwards the "ambulance chaser" sued the wrong guy? Point me to a source. But, again, make sure it doesn't have any ads for Eye Surgery anywhere.

          Originally posted by Foozle
          You make it sound like anyone can step into a courtroom and win millions for completely frivolous reasons and that's not really how it works.
          Yeah, what he said!
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #95
            I don't necessarily want to respond to individual posts, but..

            I feel compelled to remind people that trial lawyers don't mystically make juries award lots of money to people. While the system may be broken, trial lawyers aren't solely responsible for the breakage.

            As this relates to Edwards, even if he was once an "ambulance chaser," what makes his opportunism any different than Cheney's opportunism with Haliburton? Both have taken advantage of systems that let a select few people make lots of money off of the misery of others. The difference is that Cheney chased bigger ambulances.

            Comment


            • #96
              I don't have any problems with doctors being held accountable for mistakes. The first doctor settled out of court. You already posted the article for me.
              http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040...-1949r.htm

              I would like to mention that there a lot of stories an articles out there, and just because something is posted on the internet or for that matter in the Washington Times, doesn't make it fact. I think Bill can back me up on this, that it would a very poor debater who didn't bring into question the validity of evidence supporting the other point of view.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Kitsune
                ...just because something is posted on the internet or for that matter in the Washington Times, doesn't make it fact. I think Bill can back me up on this, that it would a very poor debater who didn't bring into question the validity of evidence supporting the other point of view.
                Okay. So, point me in the direction of evidence supporting the other point of view. The Washington Times article I linked to stated only hearsay and conjecture, not evidence (as you yourself implied).

                Sorry, but I will continue to support my points with links for you to read (regardless of whether you accept them), while you supply me with nothing but personal narratives. I'm sharp enough to realize you crystalize the Paul Simon lyric you quoted the other day...

                {edit: changed the quote from Bill to Kitsune for accuracy... sorry about that, Bill.}
                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Bill
                  none of what I wrote about incorporating information was intended personally
                  Thanks for clearing that up. As a matter of fact, I can understand your frustrations if I'm beginning to understand them. Quite generally (though more in other places than in this forum), I often feel that some very relevant facts and arguments are ignored totally by many debaters even when thrown in their face, and that that makes listening to them much less interesting. If that's what you mean, I totally agree -- including that it's a problem found anywhere in the political spectrum.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  why is it so hard to accept the premise that the war was entered into following the prescribed process under the Constitution?
                  I don't know the Constitution or US legislation in general well enough to tell if the war is legal in the US or not. I'm quite prepared to believe you in that it probably was. Another matter, of course, is whether the war was illegal internationally; particularly in UN perspective.

                  This is something that interests me a lot (and you and I have already touched upon the subject in another thread, I know), because I don't know the answer to that, and I think it's very important. I'm certainly not convinced that it MAY NOT have been illegal -- the more so as Kofi Annan the other day stated in an interview on the BBC that the Iraq war WAS illegal. Annan could be wrong, of course, but his voice is surely not an insignificant one in that discussion.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that there is a strong possibility that what is good for the country is NOT good for you in particular?? But this notion that "I have a personal belief, and it therefore must be right on a global scale" is nonsense, but no one is willing to admit that. For example, tax cuts would directly put money in my pocket, bvut I believe would strongly hurt this country.
                  I'll readily admit that, so now we're at least two. Actually, I think we could well get a lot of others with us on this one.

                  Originally posted by Bill
                  No offense to you Jagged, but I don't see a lot of Bush bashers making that kind of analysis. I see - and this is anecdotal, and therefore essentially useless, but - people who have a special interest, say, Federal recognition of gay marriages, wanting to further an agenda and using any means necessary. "Bush lies!", "War in Iraq feeds big corporations!!", reagrdless of, and sometimes in spite of, the veracity of those statements.
                  This is actually another case where I don't see much difference from different camps, political or otherwise. There're people all over the place who put their own interests and navel-picking over the common good.

                  [EDIT:

                  Here are a couple of links about the legitimacy of the Iraq war:

                  General discussion:
                  http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

                  US reaction to Annan's comments:
                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3664234.stm

                  END EDIT]
                  "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    [quote="Doc"]
                    Originally posted by Bill

                    While I agree with Bill that the idea that Bush lies has nothing to do with gay marriages
                    That ought to be obvious, and we can throw in the subject of the legitimacy of the Iraq war to lump together three subjects that do not pertain to each other in any way. However, all three of them are relevant to Bush's worth as a president. It's a problem if a leader repeatedly lies to his people about political issues, it's a problem if a society doesn't treat its minorities fairly, and it's a problem if the Iraq war was illegal.
                    "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                    Comment


                    • Well that rules out anyone running. I nominate that we throw them all out and start over with new candidates.

                      [quote="Jagged"]
                      Originally posted by Doc
                      Originally posted by Bill

                      While I agree with Bill that the idea that Bush lies has nothing to do with gay marriages
                      That ought to be obvious, and we can throw in the subject of the legitimacy of the Iraq war to lump together three subjects that do not pertain to each other in any way. However, all three of them are relevant to Bush's worth as a president. It's a problem if a leader repeatedly lies to his people about political issues, it's a problem if a society doesn't treat its minorities fairly, and it's a problem if the Iraq war was illegal.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kitsune
                        Well that rules out anyone running. I nominate that we throw them all out and start over with new candidates.
                        That might not be a bad idea if it were practically feasible. What's the point of that? I hope you're not saying that since neither candiate is perfect for the next election, people might as well go for the worst one?
                        "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                        Comment


                        • "If you're a lawyer than you know that courts already have remedies for frivolous cases and don't require tort reform on any basis."

                          Haha, you are clearly NOT a lawyer if you think that is an effective safeguard. Read any article about the recent wave of asbestos suits. I have helpfully included one here, since it seems we're too slack to do our own research (but we'll pollute the ether with our opinions nonetheless): http://www.fortune.com/fortune/artic...371294,00.html Lead paragraph: "Asbestos lawyers are pitting plaintiffs who aren't sick against companies that never made the stuff--and extracting billions for themselves."

                          "Need more be said? Doubtless you will have something more to say anyway."

                          Any time I am countering disinformation and bias I will have something to say.

                          "Strange, a lawyer that has to work for living protecting the interests of those that don't. Are they your clients? Or do you mistakenly identify with them because you own some stock?" This doesn't make sense. It appears to be English, but beyond that... if you are talking to me, I clean contaminated property for redevelopment. What a scumbag, eh??

                          How exactly do you own stock in another lawyer? Or their firm (they aren't, for the most part, corporations but partnerships.)?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X