Occasionally this blog provides me intellectual entertainment. Two weeks ago I blogged about the Vioxx settlement. An interesting perspective on the Vioxx damage award This rant has sparked one of the most spirited, entertaining and thoughtful debates ever seen on this blog.
Curious JD stands on one side. He consistently attacks physicians. He blames us for all evils of drug companies and the insurance industry. I find his arguments askew of the main discussion – a clever form of sophistry (but what did you really expect).
While I have read all his words, they run into each other and I am at a bit of a loss to understand if he really believes this pablum, or he just likes to argue. The issue that he fails to ever address (in my opinion) is how when best delivers justice to patients, physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. His training elevates the jury trial to an exalted state. Yet all lawyers know that juries rarely decide cases merely by understanding the relevant issues. In fact, most lawyers tend towards obfuscation when presenting complex cases. Rather than develop a logical argument, they would rather confuse everyone, and have the case decided on other issues, like how they dress, their eloquence (or in some parts of the country being “down home, aw shucks”.
What physicians want (and patients deserve) is a system which fairly judges the issues. I have written repeatedly about special health courts. Such courts would decrease lawyer fees (CuriousJD will despise this part) on both sides. Patients would likely more often receive renumeration – making malpractice less of a semi-random lottery, or more of a justice system.
Likewise, the Vioxx cases should receive the same analyses. We know from research what complications Vioxx might cause. Vioxx does not cause arrhythmias, yet a jury was convinced of the evil of Big Pharma, and then went crazy in developing a judgement.
I doubt that the jury system was developed to make sociopolitical statements, yet clever lawyers understand the dynamics of juries and can use that understanding to achieve victory for their clients. But, I do not believe that the average jurist has the sophistication to really understand the complexities discussed in such cases.
Lawyers will accuse me of arrogance or being an elitist. I counter by saying that I just would like to see justice. When the current system fails to provide justice, then I argue we must look for an alternative system.
As we say in the South – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – but it is broke and we must fix it.
In the other corner is one of my medical students – WL. I am obviously biased in his favor – but his arguments are thoughtful and reasoned. As a former lawyer he understands the sophistry, obfuscation and hyperbole. He dissects CuriousJD with precision.
But then, you should read the debates yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
