Re: Lawsuit questions need for Lipitor

Susan <nevermind@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> There's no better way to balance risks and benefits than the patient
>> discussing them with his doctors.
>
>Boy, do I disagree. The better way is to discuss with your doctor and
>*then* do a lot of research before undertaking any new treatment. Caveat
>emptor and all that.

Well yeah. I didn't mean the patient had to be a tabla rasa when entering
the doc's office.

>> So fix that, too.
>> --
>
>I'm not sure one can "fix" the other without creating an insurmountable
>obstacle to redress for those of meager means. Frankly, contingency fees
>are a disincentive against meritless claims. Not a complete
>innoculation, certainly, but an impediment.

There are effectively no impediment at all when awards are astronomical.
Most lawyers would work their butts off for a few tens of millions, even if
the chance of success is 1%.

But I also think there is a failure to handle scientific information
properly. Also, science deals in probabilities in ways that lawyers don't.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
.