|
Mors Rattus posted:Wait, so it's bad for the law to take into account medical or scientific entities because they are political and politicized...but lawyers and politicians aren't? Or am I entirely misreading your statement there? You shouldn't take an organization's word at face value just because they represent experts in a field, because the interests of that organization don't necessarily coincide with the individual expert's opinion or the welfare of society in general. For example, Obamacare harms the money making opportunities of doctors, so a doctor's organization might lobby to overturn it, even though (for society) it is objectively an improvement on the previous system.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
That makes significantly more sense than my reading, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:That makes significantly more sense than my reading, thanks. As a good example, the AMA has had some problematic effects on the development of health care in this country. Institutional groups also tend to favor their older and more established members. That doesn't mean they don't have valuable contributions to the discussion, but with a view to their bias. I like groups like the ACLU because their bias is in their charter, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:As a good example, the AMA has had some problematic effects on the development of health care in this country. Institutional groups also tend to favor their older and more established members. That doesn't mean they don't have valuable contributions to the discussion, but with a view to their bias. I like groups like the ACLU because their bias is in their charter, as it were. Exactly. The AMA viciously lobbied against Medicare back in the day (quickly taking Reagan's side) and later fought to defeat Clinton's healthcare proposal. They also vocally supported the war on drugs in order to fight the devil weed so that they could put a stop to the marijuana overdoses that kill so many of our nation's children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
The best example to prove that you shouldn't just ask doctors what they think about medical-related policy is to look into what they think about medical malpractice liability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The best example to prove that you shouldn't just ask doctors what they think about medical-related policy is to look into what they think about medical malpractice liability. When it comes to trusting a doctor's diagnosis they are all quite adamant that medicine is a science. When they gently caress up suddenly medicine is an art that lesser beings just aren't equipped to judge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
When I was in law school, my brother, who is a doctor, told me if a jury found against him in a medmal case he would find the jurors and shoot them. I'm not entirely sure he was joking. He also told me if I went into medmal he'd break off contact with me. Should have done it he's a turbo rear end in a top hat would have been an easy out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Xae posted:When it comes to trusting a doctor's diagnosis they are all quite adamant that medicine is a science. Science includes failures and statistics. If a procedure has a 97% success rate you're getting sued for malpractice that 3% of the time. Or so doctors think anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Hell, my mother's a doctor and rants about poo poo like that frequently. But I handled juuuust enough birth injury cases where the doc really did screw the pooch to go "yeah, no, keep that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Xae posted:When it comes to trusting a doctor's diagnosis they are all quite adamant that medicine is a science. I could write for pages on this- and am, for my dissertation. The science-medicine-art knowledge-skill-craft trifecta is a total mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
One of my favourite pop facts is that "evidence based medicine" is a subfield of medicine, and it was established in the late 1980s. Not to say the rest of medicine is entirely without evidence, but to quote a friend it usually seems more 'evidence-inspired' than evidence based.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:One of my favourite pop facts is that "evidence based medicine" is a subfield of medicine, and it was established in the late 1980s. Not to say the rest of medicine is entirely without evidence, but to quote a friend it usually seems more 'evidence-inspired' than evidence based. Evidence-based medicine is also a whole separate burning ball of toxic waste discussion in medicine. Seriously, be careful who you say it to- it's simultaneously much more and much less than what it sounds like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Evidence-based medicine is also a whole separate burning ball of toxic waste discussion in medicine. Seriously, be careful who you say it to- it's simultaneously much more and much less than what it sounds like. If I say this phrase around certain spell components could I accidentally summon an Old God?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Evidence-based medicine is also a whole separate burning ball of toxic waste discussion in medicine. Seriously, be careful who you say it to- it's simultaneously much more and much less than what it sounds like. This is pretty much true only if you're talking to old fogies in medicine or charlatans; otherwise, there's problems with evidence-based medicine (under-researched minorities, for example) but it's the gold standard. This is kind of a derail though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:If I say this phrase around certain spell components could I accidentally summon an Old God? :: sees magic floating in the air :: Noooooooo....
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Hell, my mother's a doctor and rants about poo poo like that frequently. But I handled juuuust enough birth injury cases where the doc really did screw the pooch to go "yeah, no, keep that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads". Medical malpractice insurance (which is in turn a thing because court cases) led directly to massive improvements in anesthesiology practice, and a significant reduction in the complication/death rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Medical malpractice insurance (which is in turn a thing because court cases) led directly to massive improvements in anesthesiology practice, and a significant reduction in the complication/death rate. JCO has also put a lot of effort into anesthesiology including intraoperative awareness so there's been a big emphasis on the field in the last 15-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:JCO has also put a lot of effort into anesthesiology including intraoperative awareness so there's been a big emphasis on the field in the last 15-20 years. JCO?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
The Joint Commission. They're the dudes that accredit hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
This has been the most interesting and informative derail I've ever seen. I didn't know any of that very important medical poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:This has been the most interesting and informative derail I've ever seen. I didn't know any of that very important medical poo poo. I encourage you to find out more. Medical malpractice is really a fascinating subject. Controversial as poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
One thing that pisses a lot of doctors off is that if doctors a,b and c see a patient at a hospital and doctor c does something wrong doctors a, b and c as well as the hospital will be named in the lawsuit. If the hospital settles for a nuisance amount, the insurance premiums of doctors a and b are hit the same as Doctor c. Doctors A and B now speak of the evils of lawyers to everyone that listens for good reason - they did nothing wrong after all. (Doctor c says the same poo poo because he's a Doctor too but actually deserved it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One thing that pisses a lot of doctors off is that if doctors a,b and c see a patient at a hospital and doctor c does something wrong doctors a, b and c as well as the hospital will be named in the lawsuit. If the hospital settles for a nuisance amount, the insurance premiums of doctors a and b are hit the same as Doctor c. That sounds like a reasonable response, but it kinda depends on the context. If you can easily differentiate what A, B, and C did, then yeah that sounds like a problem, and they should do a better job determining liability. If it's not easily determined who caused the problem (i.e., the Problem of Many Hands) then it's reasonable to penalize all of them, even if all of them insist their innocence. Really though the solution in either case is probably removing individual liability and letting the hospital deal with it, while also keeping a list of which doctors have been involved in litigious actions (and to what frequency).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
The nice thing about letting the hospital deal with it is that it would be a strong impetus to stop being collegial and deny privileges to doctors who tend to generate never events.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
I'm hoping that the court shits all over "rational speculation" which is such stupid garbage that I want to take a tack hammer to the head of whoever on the 5th thought that was a good phrase to drop into an opinion
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I'm hoping that the court shits all over "rational speculation" which is such stupid garbage that I want to take a tack hammer to the head of whoever on the 5th thought that was a good phrase to drop into an opinion Guessing from the geography of the 5th I'd say that's the whole court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I'm hoping that the court shits all over "rational speculation" which is such stupid garbage that I want to take a tack hammer to the head of whoever on the 5th thought that was a good phrase to drop into an opinion Had to go find an article for this. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/03/31/last-weeks-hb-2-decision-sets-dangerous-path-challenging-anti-abortion-laws/ Nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Apart from the fact that he votes against everything I care about, what's Alito's jurisprudence like? Is he a good reasoner, or is it "this is my conclusion, here are some random facts I made up"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Apart from the fact that he votes against everything I care about, what's Alito's jurisprudence like? Scalia without the occasional sympathy for a criminal defendant. ...as far as reasoning, by the time a case hits the Supreme Court, there's at least 1 brief (usually 4 or 5 plus 1 lower court opinion), that have the best reasoning possible for a particular conclusion, so when combined with clerks it isn't too hard to have at least a competently reasoned opinion for either side. ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Apart from the fact that he votes against everything I care about, what's Alito's jurisprudence like? Is he a good reasoner, or is it "this is my conclusion, here are some random facts I made up"? Scalia, love him or hate him, was an ideological leader. It may have been a crazy and extreme ideology, and he may have been inconsistent, but he had ambitions, which meant he sometimes had decisions were outside of conservative policy preferences. It also meant he would informally try to convince his colleagues to go along with him. Thomas is an idealogue. He doesn't worry about who follows him, because if they don't they're corrupted by the elite and aren't worth engaging with. When Thomas surprises you, it's because he found a way to be more conservative than you ever thought possible. Alito is a tool. He doesn't have an ideology, just following what his side would like the most. His decisions are unimaginative and unengaging, and you can predict what he's going to say from reading the brief of the case below.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
One full ruling and two summary per curiams today. The full ruling was Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, which deals with the federal court's requirement that there be diversity of citizenship among the parties for a federal case to be heard. Americold is a "real estate investment trust" organized under Maryland law. Since it isn't a corporation, the court unanimously ruled that for diversity purposes they should be judged by where their members and shareholders live. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1382_d18f.pdf V.L. v. E.L., the court unanimously reversed Alabama, which had refused to recognize a same-sex couple's adoption agreement from Georgia. This is part of Alabama's last tantrum against Windsor/Obergefell. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-648_d18e.pdf Wearry v. Cain, the court rules 6-2 and gives postconviction relief to a death row inmate on grounds of failure to disclose material evidence. Alito and Thomas dissent. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf (There's also a dissent to denial of cert. Thomas, joined by Alito, dissents from the denial of American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, a 9th Circuit case that held Seattle public transit advertising was a limited public forum, and therefore they could apply content-based ad restrictions. This is Pam Geller's group, and she has a habit of taking out bus ads calling Palestinians savages monsters and horsefuckers-- well, maybe not the last one-- and then suing if the transit agency balks. This is buried at the bottom of the orders list. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030716zor_5h26.pdf)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Alito and Thomas dissent. These words actually put a smile on my face. It's so nice to not have to be as worried about the SCOTUS and how badly they'll gently caress it up for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:
Pretty sure similar stuff has come up here in Boston; do you perhaps know how far that has gotten in the Courts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Pretty sure similar stuff has come up here in Boston; do you perhaps know how far that has gotten in the Courts? She does this all over the country. The first time they appeared in NYC they won and the ads were run; the second time the MTA activated the nuclear option and banned all political messages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:These words actually put a smile on my face. It's so nice to not have to be as worried about the SCOTUS and how badly they'll gently caress it up for everyone else. Can you picture a time, in the relatively near future, when the word "In a 5-4 decision" makes you smile, rather than cringe? I know I can't yet. Seems completely impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Wearry v. Cain, the court rules 6-2 and gives postconviction relief to a death row inmate on grounds of failure to disclose material evidence. Alito and Thomas dissent. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf Interestingly, this is a per curiam decision (an unsigned decision by the majority) which is unusual for a decision like this. I think Scalia wrote this opinion before he died and it was just made a per curiam decision rather than someone else taking credit. It also repeatedly slams the dissent which is a pretty Scalia thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:(There's also a dissent to denial of cert. Thomas, joined by Alito, dissents from the denial of American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, a 9th Circuit case that held Seattle public transit advertising was a limited public forum, and therefore they could apply content-based ad restrictions. This is Pam Geller's group, and she has a habit of taking out bus ads calling Palestinians savages monsters and horsefuckers-- well, maybe not the last one-- and then suing if the transit agency balks. This is buried at the bottom of the orders list. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030716zor_5h26.pdf) Can someone explain why the court would deny cert in this case? Thomas does a really good job of laying out the fact that there's a circuit split.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Can someone explain why the court would deny cert in this case? Thomas does a really good job of laying out the fact that there's a circuit split. Who knows? Court can deny cert for whatever they want. They don't have an obligation to resolve every circuit split that arises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
They also denied Apple's appeal in the ebook price fixing case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Teddybear posted:Who knows? Court can deny cert for whatever they want. They don't have an obligation to resolve every circuit split that arises. Which side wins this way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 18:18
|
|