Four Trials
Recently I also finished reading John Edwards “tell all” book Four Trials. This one was from the Seattle Public Library rather than Audible.
This was a book published back in 2004 (as he was running for Vice-President), so of course the style and tone were conducive to making him look Vice-presidential. But that’s not why I was interested in reading it. I was interested in reading it because it promised to give me some insight into his trial-lawyer — and more importantly, medical-malpractice trial lawyer — days.
Yes, that’s right. He was previously a medical malpractice trial lawyer… a point that has not escaped Jodi’s notice at various times. In fact, around the doctor-folk, it seems like this is the key piece of relevant information about this candidate. And that it inherantly renders him disqualified for the office.
So, I set out to read (admittedly in his own, likely biased perspective) about what he did as a medical malpractice trial lawyer.
Short version: He sees himself as a protector of the helpless/underprivileged. He considers what he’s doing as good work. He chose to use only examples of his trial work that make him (and his clients) look good.
Now, that last one should not be a shocker. Even if his client was badness-incarnate, I doubt he would have written it that way. He needs to show himself defending the little guy. That’s his schtick, even as a candidate.
But let’s take a step back and consider for a moment… maybe he really *IS* that guy. Maybe he really *DOES* seek out clients who are helpless/underprivileged. Maybe his clients really *DO* deserve multi-million $$ settlements. From the way the stories are laid out in the book, these are all true points.
Of the 4 trials, two were medical malpractice related. (observation: he didn’t do *ONLY* medical malpractice litigation). In both trials he describes, it seems like pretty clear-cut malpractice: one patient strongly overmedicated with a dangerous drug until he went into a coma, the other patient delivered naturally (vs C-section) well after indications proved it was unsafe.
So, I guess I really don’t have a solid conclusion. I didn’t really expect to find out that he’s a filthy bastard from the book he wrote about himself. But I also didn’t expect to find out that he never even was a malpractice attorney (and it was all just a nasty rumor). What I found out was somewhere in the middle: He did sue doctors, but maybe some of them deserved it. Ugh. I hate saying that, but it’s probably true. Nobody’s perfect.
Jodi said,
February 16, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Umm, let’s be fair here. My colleagues may feel his making money from suing physicians disqualifies him from office, but I’ll remind you that I did vote for him when I supported Kerry in 2004, so obviously I don’t think that. However, I do find it frustrating that malpractice attorneys choose to earn a living through prosecuting individuals who have sacrificed many years of their lives in pursuit of making life better for others.
Evan said,
February 16, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Fine fine. I accept your apology.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that… at least from his, admittedly biased perspective… he’s doing good and helping the little people. He didn’t make doctors out to be big $$ targets, justifying the work. Instead, he made his clients out to be desperately in need of help, etc.
Michael Townes Watson said,
February 17, 2007 at 5:20 am
The common perception, expressed by Jodi, is that there is something inherently bad about “earning a living through prosecuting individuals who have sacrificed many years of their lives in pursuit of making life better for others.” This notion fails to take into account that a malpractice case can not be successful unless there is competent evidence that the injured victim was hurt by one of these individuals who failed to follow the proper procedures. In other words, they were negligent. Harvard doctors completed a study last year, and found that most malpractice cases that resulted in payments to victims occurred as a result of true negligence that caused serious injury to the victims. Are those victims supposed to seek assistance from the doctor’s or hospital’s insurance company without the assistance of a lawyer? Those insurance companies are not known for their compassion. Instead, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers who seek to defeat the victim’s claim. More than half of all payments made to victims occur as a result of the conduct of only 5% of the doctors (the ones most responsible for error). So who are the bad guys? Is is the lawyers who make their living working for the injured, or the most negligent 5% of the medical profession and their insurance companies? Michael Townes Watson, author of America’s Tunnel Vision–How Insurance Companies’ Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law..
Jodi said,
February 17, 2007 at 8:46 am
Michael Townes Watson writes: “This notion fails to take into account that a malpractice case can not be successful unless there is competent evidence that the injured victim was hurt by one of these individuals who failed to follow the proper procedures.” I disagree with this.
While the vast majority of cases at trial that are found in favor of plaintiffs may be the result of true negligence, there is no mention made of the multiple cases settled out of court, largely in part because the insurance companies and administration force a settlement rather than risk going to trial. I know many physicians who have either made honest mistakes (misdiagnosis, for example, but hardly what I would call negligence – and we are forced to make plenty of judgment calls daily that could always turn out to be wrong) and have had to settle with patients because of outside pressures, when I honestly believe they were striving to provide good care. When I make a mistake, I have made it a point to admit it to the patient or his/her family, as it is cathartic for me and they always seem to appreciate the honesty. However, most of my colleagues are terrified to admit fault to patients for fear that it will haunt them down the road in the legal system.