U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2012, 09:17 PM
 
Location: plano
6,013 posts, read 7,567,732 times
Reputation: 5076

Advertisements

Doctors fix things, they make your health better...this is a value added service to the patient and their family and longer better life some could argue adds value to the country. A trial lawyer simply divides the wealth or spoils between parties.... no real value added just settles the score. I believe trial lawyers nature of work give lawyers a bad name....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2012, 09:55 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 19,659,004 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
And you have no basis for your 100/1 ratio. My opinion that there are 100 solid cases for every 3 frivolous ones is as solid as yours.



Tell me that after your whole family is killed because a semi-trailer truck driver falls asleep and drives over the top of their car.

This is a case I was actually involved in.
That's why I said not ALL cases are sue-worthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
1. They are the experts on my pain??? My insurance company and myself were paying for services. I told them that I needed medication for the pain I was in. The doctors denied what I needed based on their own thoughts.

If I want to sue somebody for having a faulty escalator that caused harm to me, a lawyer will take my case. The lawyer doesn't say, "You should have taken the stairs, therefore I will not take your case." Even if the lawyer thinks I'm to blame for the incident, and they take my money, they will do what I want them to (within legal guidelines).

Doctors make judgments based on their education/experience, but it is filtered through their own experience and personal feelings on the situation.


How about this (true story):

I have a sister. Back when she was younger she had a problem. She couldn't talk. She was 2 years old, and all she could do was scream.

3 years old? Only scream.

4 years old? Only scream.

5 years old? Only scream.

Between ages 3 and 4 my mother took my sister to the doctor. My mother thought my sister was "tongue tied". My sister couldn't stick her tongue out of her mouth, not even past her teeth... couldn't lick an ice cream cone, etc. The doctor berated her and told her there was no such thing as being "tongue tied". He told her, essentially, that she (my sister) was just "retarded". My mother left the office in tears.

Because my sister could only scream (scream for: the bathroom, for food, for being tired, for being too warm/cold, etc.) my mom taught my sister sign language so she wouldn't have to scream every time she wanted something. My sister picked up many signs, and used them effectively.

When I was 7 years old I needed my tonsils out. We went to a special doctor that would do the surgery for me. My mom and sister came along for my consultation.

While in this doctor's office, my sister wanted/needed various things and communicated them to my mom through sign language. The doctor remarked how it was great that my mom taught my deaf sister sign language. My mother informed him that she was not deaf, but just didn't speak.

This doctor asked to take a look at my sister and quickly came to the realization that my sister was, in fact, "tongue tied". He said he would schedule an operation for her to have her tongue "clipped" (that part that connects to the bottom of your mouth) after my tonsil surgery was done.

Two (2) weeks after my sister's surgery, she was starting to talk. She currently speaks perfectly fine. If my mother would have listened to the first doctor and his "experience/education", my sister my very well have been a (screaming) mute to this day.


Moral of the story?: Doctors use/do what they think is best given their own BIAS. Lawyers will do what their clients want, within the law, whether they personally agree with your legal troubles or not.



2. Do you know what ethics are??? Look up the terms, "Deontological", "Teleological", and "Golden Mean", then tell me lawyers don't have ethics.




Also, I have a few more stories of how doctors did what "they think is best", and didn't even take into consideration what the patients wanted, and turned out to be totally wrong. I can provide those stories upon request.
Anecdotal. On the whole, doctors help rather than hurt. I'm not saying they don't mistakes or misdiagnose/treat, but what the patient wants is often not what they need to be healthy. If patients had all the answers, they wouldn't need doctors.

Tell me how someone who defends an obviously guilty child molester or murderer has ethics or morals. You can provide whatever wordplay you choose, but it doesn't make then any less scummy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2012, 10:08 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 30,495,011 times
Reputation: 28989
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
That's why I said not ALL cases are sue-worthy.


Anecdotal. On the whole, doctors help rather than hurt. I'm not saying they don't mistakes or misdiagnose/treat, but what the patient wants is often not what they need to be healthy. If patients had all the answers, they wouldn't need doctors.

Tell me how someone who defends an obviously guilty child molester or murderer has ethics or morals. You can provide whatever wordplay you choose, but it doesn't make then any less scummy.
No one is "obviously" guilty until they confess and/or the jury has ruled. That's a core principle of our form of jurisprudence, as is everyone's right to an adequate defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2012, 11:45 PM
 
8,414 posts, read 8,676,859 times
Reputation: 26212
Quote:
That's why I said not ALL cases are sue-worthy.
A helluva lot more than 1 out of 100 are "sue-worthy"....not that you have any credentials at all to judge what that term means.


Quote:
Anecdotal. On the whole, doctors help rather than hurt. I'm not saying they don't mistakes or misdiagnose/treat, but what the patient wants is often not what they need to be healthy. If patients had all the answers, they wouldn't need doctors.

Tell me how someone who defends an obviously guilty child molester or murderer has ethics or morals. You can provide whatever wordplay you choose, but it doesn't make then any less scummy.
Anecdoctal huh? Beats the heck out of one unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion after another which is all you seem to do on here. I've never seen you cite an article, cite statistics, or do anything other than run off at the mouth.

Your other tactic is to take one extreme case and try to construct an argument based upon it. The problem is the world isn't based on the sort of black and white extreme examples and positions you regularly take. Its generally based on things that fall in between. Its why most of your points are quite irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Location: The State Line
2,213 posts, read 3,035,706 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
No one is "obviously" guilty until they confess and/or the jury has ruled. That's a core principle of our form of jurisprudence, as is everyone's right to an adequate defense.
That's right: This is America, after all. Let's keep in mind that people can turn out to be wrongfully accused; therefore, not all defendants in criminal court turn out to be criminals.

Also, keep in mind, criminal lawyers don't necessarily have to personally believe their client is innocent, especially in cases which the defendant cannot afford their own, and is provided one by the government. Regardless, they have a job/duty to plead on their client's behalf to a fair trial, whether or not we actually think s/he deserve one.

While a doctor may prescribe me mess to make me better if I'm ill, that doesn't necessarily mean s/he personally cares about my personal well-being. I am easily just a number of many patients s/he has to cure, treat, or diagnose in a day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,536,257 times
Reputation: 1486
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
That's why I said not ALL cases are sue-worthy.


(1)Anecdotal. On the whole, doctors help rather than hurt. I'm not saying they don't mistakes or misdiagnose/treat, but what the patient wants is often not what they need to be healthy. If patients had all the answers, they wouldn't need doctors.

(2)Tell me how someone who defends an obviously guilty child molester or murderer has ethics or morals. You can provide whatever wordplay you choose, but it doesn't make then any less scummy.


1. On the whole, it could be said, that lawyers help rather than hurt as well.

When a child molester has a heart attack, what does a doctor do? Try to SAVE their life.
When a gang member is caught in a shoot out and is shot, what does a doctor do? Try to SAVE their life.
When a wife beater beats his wife so hard that he breaks his hand, what does a doctor do? Try to FIX their hand.
When a murderer falls ill, what does a doctor do? Tries to make them BETTER.

Where's the outrage and hate towards doctors who fix up obviously bad people and save their lives, just so those people can continue to be bad and do bad things in the world?

The lawyer works towards getting those people out of society, while doctors work to keep them alive in society.


2. You obviously didn't look up "Deontological", "Teleological", and the "Golden Mean". Also, you do know that "morals" and "ethics" aren't the same thing, right? They are related, but not the same thing.

Last edited by A2DAC1985; 10-17-2012 at 11:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:51 AM
 
1,372 posts, read 1,740,685 times
Reputation: 1649
I had a driving instructor who used to be a lawyer. I asked him why he left the profession. He said that not many lawyers are in heaven. Ouch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:53 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,266,007 times
Reputation: 3100
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
But the lawyer works for their client, yes?
No. Lawyers work for themselves or their firm. They take on client's cases, if they want to. Doctor's don't have the luxury of picking and choosing clients/patients all the time (depending on where they work).

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Albeit doctors take an oath TO DO NO HARM, they aren't bound to keeping the situation from declining.

But a lawyer? A lawyer actually (assuming they are good) works for their client, no matter the circumstances.
Lawyers will do what will give them the best chance of winning. Winning = $$$. But a doctor (assuming their good) works in the best interest of their patient. A patient can deny medical treatment at any time or seek a second opinion. We can't assume only the lawyer is good and the doctor is not, regardless of the example(s) used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
If I commit a crime and I want to say I did the crime because I was "crazy", the lawyer will work that for me. A doctor? A doctor doesn't seek to get the results their clients desire. They have their own opinions as to whether or not I am "crazy" or "sane".
A lawyer makes his/her decision(s) based on the law. They pick and choose the law(s) that will best win the case they are serving. The same is similar with doctors. If I go in with a back problem. The doctor makes a recommendation based on the medical experience of years of study and research. If I tell him/her that won't work, (or hasn't), they seek another way to heal. And, although there are bad apple doctors, by and large, the largest majority won't outright lie for their client the way lawyers will (or, for better terms, manipulate and interpret the laws).

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Doctors decide what kind of pain tolerance you have and treat you according to their perceptions of your pain.
A lawyer argues for you based on their interpretations of the laws, on the laws THEY think apply to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
A doctor does what THEY think is best for you.

A lawyer does what they think is best for their client.
A doctor does what is best for the patient.

A lawyer does whatever makes them the most money or is best for their career.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:50 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 19,659,004 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
No one is "obviously" guilty until they confess and/or the jury has ruled. That's a core principle of our form of jurisprudence, as is everyone's right to an adequate defense.
Many people are obviously guilty. Jared Loughner (Phoenix shooter) and the Batman movie shooter a few months ago are a couple well known cases where the guilt of the perp isn't questioned. There are many lesser known cases as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
A helluva lot more than 1 out of 100 are "sue-worthy"....not that you have any credentials at all to judge what that term means.




Anecdoctal huh? Beats the heck out of one unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion after another which is all you seem to do on here. I've never seen you cite an article, cite statistics, or do anything other than run off at the mouth.

Your other tactic is to take one extreme case and try to construct an argument based upon it. The problem is the world isn't based on the sort of black and white extreme examples and positions you regularly take. Its generally based on things that fall in between. Its why most of your points are quite irrelevant.
When did you become an expert on me? Maybe you need a hobby.

No, I'm not going to argue with you or your assumptions about me. You've decided I'm irrelevant. I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
No. Lawyers work for themselves or their firm. They take on client's cases, if they want to. Doctor's don't have the luxury of picking and choosing clients/patients all the time (depending on where they work).



Lawyers will do what will give them the best chance of winning. Winning = $$$. But a doctor (assuming their good) works in the best interest of their patient. A patient can deny medical treatment at any time or seek a second opinion. We can't assume only the lawyer is good and the doctor is not, regardless of the example(s) used.



A lawyer makes his/her decision(s) based on the law. They pick and choose the law(s) that will best win the case they are serving. The same is similar with doctors. If I go in with a back problem. The doctor makes a recommendation based on the medical experience of years of study and research. If I tell him/her that won't work, (or hasn't), they seek another way to heal. And, although there are bad apple doctors, by and large, the largest majority won't outright lie for their client the way lawyers will (or, for better terms, manipulate and interpret the laws).



A lawyer argues for you based on their interpretations of the laws, on the laws THEY think apply to you.



A doctor does what is best for the patient.

A lawyer does whatever makes them the most money or is best for their career.
This^.

I have no doubt that some of those who are vigorously defending the practice of law are lawyers. Some of them make that obvious by, rather than pointing out where they may be right, simply attack the other posters. Anything for the win, whether it's right or wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:59 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 19,659,004 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post

The lawyer works towards getting those people out of society, while doctors work to keep them alive in society.
WHAT??? Criminal lawyers work to keep their clients out of prison, regardless of how many heinous crimes they may have committed. That's what they (you?) do. How can those lawyers sleep at night, knowing they tried (or succeeded) to keep a killer out of jail?

You can talk all about various sources to support your claims, but the fact is I could not look at myself in the mirror if I defended a rapist or murderer, especially for money.

Your other points have been addressed in previous posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top