John Edwards & "Junk Science"

[rebecca]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39310

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

CNSNews.com first reported in January how Edwards won record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop the brain disorder cerebral palsy.

"There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, told the news agency.
"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein stated.

This is about the new running mate, not the cold reader. I didn't put it in politics because . . . I didn't. I just want to know people's feelings on this -- is he necessarily in the wrong because of these cases? Were his cases the few times when the doctor DID cause brain damage?

If he is elected, does this spell trouble for science and critical thinking?

Discuss.

Edited to add:

"I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence," Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you. ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Is John Edwards turning into John Edward?

 

[c0rbin]

The court room isn;t always the forum for good science. With a jury, the lawyers must sway with all of the tools they have, from common sense to intangible emotion.

I don't think science will suffer any more than it normally does in the hands of career politicians because of John Edwards.

John Edward, on the other hand...

 

[Benguin]

Isn't the problem more a structural one with US legal system?

As a lawyer it's not really for him to be incredibly scientific, that's what expert witnesses are for.

I've had a family member who had a court case fought over her, and a claim of damage during birth. The case lost (correctly, the condition she had was clearly primarily down to her suffering from Batten's disease).

Family members often feel a great sense of injustice over a handicapped child, and can be very open to the suggestion of medical failings being the root cause. Lawyers will always be there to represent them (correctly).

It's for the judiciary to make sure a balanced assessment is reached based on the facts.

 

[drkitten]

This is about the new running mate, not the cold reader. I didn't put it in politics because . . . I didn't. I just want to know people's feelings on this -- is he necessarily in the wrong because of these cases? Were his cases the few times when the doctor DID cause brain damage?

If he is elected, does this spell trouble for science and critical thinking?

I don't think it's as big an issue as it might be. It's not the attorney's job to decide whether or not the doctor was responsible in a medical malpractice case. That responsibility belongs to the judge and the jury. The attorney's job is to be the advocate for his client and to present the evidence for his client's side of the case in the best and most convincing manner possible. Similarly, the defense attorney has the responsibility for presenting the other side of the case in the most convincing manner possible. A court verdict isn't a scientific judgement, but a decision as to which side presented a more convincing set of evidence in a particular case/situation. A bad lawyer could manage to present The Truth in such a way that no one was convinced by it.

I'd say that the women in those cases deserve a chance to have their arguments made, as skillfully as possible. Ideally, of course, "the truth will out" and justice will be served. I can hardly criticize a lawyer for doing the job he was paid for to the best of his ability....

One thing that a good lawyer knows, better than many of the skeptics here seem to, is that logic, reason, and critical thinking are not necessarily the best way of convincing people.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

I don't think it's as big an issue as it might be. It's not the attorney's job to decide whether or not the doctor was responsible in a medical malpractice case. That responsibility belongs to the judge and the jury. The attorney's job is to be the advocate for his client and to present the evidence for his client's side of the case in the best and most convincing manner possible.

On the other hand, does a lawyer have the right to refuse cases if he disagrees with the client? Could John Edwards, after looking into some information about the case, and maybe talking to someone in the medical profession familiar with issues around Cerebral Palsy, decide "I don't want to represent this person because I don't think the doc is to blame, and a court case will end up punishing the innocent"?

Yes, people have the right to legal represention, and lawers have the right to practice law; however, we should still be able to question the Lawyer's choice of clients.

Note: I don't really know if John Edwards was "wrong" here, since I'm not that familiar with his case; nor do I currently have an opinion about whether he will be a better or worse leader than Bush or Cheney with some of their beliefs and opinions.

 

[rebecca]

Note: I don't really know if John Edwards was "wrong" here, since I'm not that familiar with his case; nor do I currently have an opinion about whether he will be a better or worse leader than Bush or Cheney with some of their beliefs and opinions.

That's why I didn't put it in politics .

But good point: can we hold someone morally responsible, even if he's just "doing his job?" What if he was going after doctors who were doing vaccinations, on the behalf of those who thought their children had been damaged by them? Is this a fair analogy, or is there more wiggle room when it comes to doctors causing mental retardation?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

On the other hand, does a lawyer have the right to refuse cases if he disagrees with the client? Could John Edwards, after looking into some information about the case, and maybe talking to someone in the medical profession familiar with issues around Cerebral Palsy, decide "I don't want to represent this person because I don't think the doc is to blame, and a court case will end up punishing the innocent"?

That's a very sticky issue in legal ethics. In general, a lawyer does have the right to refuse cases if he disagrees with them, but it's generally considered bad form. First, it's not the lawyer's job to judge the issue, but to present the case. Second, you're assuming a degree of power on the part of the attorney that even Mr. Edwards would disagree with. "A court case WILL end up punishing the innocent"? Nothing could be further from the truth. At least in theory, if the doctor is not to blame, then the court will issue a binding ruling to that effect, and further establish a precedent in support of similarly situated doctors.

A lawyer can still serve the cause of justice by presenting the most ironclad case possible for the wrong side,.... and losing. Unless the women he represented had no merit whatsoever in their arguments (which I can't believe to be the case, given that he won.... a truly meritless case should have been dismissed immediately), it's quite appropriate for him to present their side as forcefully as he can.

 

[anonimouse]

To be fair, there is a "test" that judges are supposed to use in determining whether scientific evidence is admissable. There has been some question of whether a more "relaxed standard" applies to civil cases, though, and the standard was developed after Edwards argued these cases:

http://www.pbnlaw.com/PressRoom/determining_standard.shtml

The Court explained that in order for scientific evidence to be "relevant" and "fit" the facts of a case, it must have a "valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry" so that it helps "the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue." Id. at 591; Fed. R. Evid. 702. In addition, the Court stated that in order to be reliable, the evidence must be grounded in sound scientific methodology. Daubert, supra, 509 U.S. at 589-90.

Personally, I wouldn't equate John Edwards working as an advocate for people who believed they were legitimately harmed by medical malpractice with the nutcase anti-vaccine lawyers who are trying to file massive class actions against drug companies.

The theory presented wasn't an unreasonable one at the time, and Edwards worked within the framework of the rules as they existed. He wouldn't have likely won a decade later, but one shouldn't necessarily assume that Edwards went into those trials believing that his case was based on "junk science".

Clearly in this case, the judge believed the scientific evidence presented was reasonably credible (if in dispute and obviously proven false later), but in virtually every anti-vaccine case, the "science" presented by the anti-vaxers is thrown out. That's where I think the difference lies.

 

[drkitten]

Clearly in this case, the judge believed the scientific evidence presented was reasonably credible (if in dispute and obviously proven false later), but in virtually every anti-vaccine case, the "science" presented by the anti-vaxers is thrown out. That's where I think the difference lies.

I think that's a key issue. "The judge believed the scientific evidence presented was reasonably credible." Given that the judge believed it, why should we expect clairvoyance of the trial lawyers?

 

[anonimouse]

I think that's a key issue. "The judge believed the scientific evidence presented was reasonably credible." Given that the judge believed it, why should we expect clairvoyance of the trial lawyers?

Absolutely. It would be one thing if Edwards proposed some discredited crackpot theory about what happened to these children and the judge allowed it without checking to see if it had any scientific merit. But at the time (and that's a key point) the theory Edwards presented wasn't totally out of left field.

Just because it's been proven to be inaccurate 20 years later doesn't mean that he's got any culpability, just as you wouldn't complain that sports titles won 50 years ago are illegitimate because the rules were different then.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

In general, a lawyer does have the right to refuse cases if he disagrees with them, but it's generally considered bad form.

Point taken... but, it brings up a couple of other questions:
- How many other Lawyers regularly refuse cases? You said its "bad form", but if a signifcant number of lawyers do it, then what's the problem?
- Did Edwards "seek out" cases to take to court? Or did he just take whatever cases were prevented. If he actively tried to find people to be clients, the case is weaker.

First, it's not the lawyer's job to judge the issue, but to present the case.

But, hypothetically, if someone comes to a laywer and says "I'm faking an injury and I'm suing someone over it", should the lawyer be morally obliged to refuse the case, or should they still take on the client even though they know that the client is "in the wrong"?

Similarly, if someone comes and says "I think vaccinations harmed my child" (and says so honestly), or "the doctor's actions caused Cerebral Palsy", and the lawyer knows the argument is wrong (even though the client believes it), is it moral to take the case?

Second, you're assuming a degree of power on the part of the attorney that even Mr. Edwards would disagree with.

Not at all... I know that if Edwards didn't take the case, some other lawyer would. He can't stop the legal proceedings (well, apart from maybe giving some "free advice to the complaintants). However, he can make a moral choice for himself.

"A court case WILL end up punishing the innocent"? Nothing could be further from the truth. At least in theory, if the doctor is not to blame, then the court will issue a binding ruling to that effect, and further establish a precedent in support of similarly situated doctors.

First of all, you're assuming that judges (and jurys) are able to judge medical claims. However, they are humans, and as such are failable, and can sometimes be swayed by emotion instead of facts.

Secondly, the innocent will suffer; doctors can either get wrongly convicted (i.e. get blamed for causing cerebral palsy even when not to blame), or even if found innocent, they have wasted time and money defending themselves.

I think that's a key issue. "The judge believed the scientific evidence presented was reasonably credible." Given that the judge believed it, why should we expect clairvoyance of the trial lawyers?

Ok, I might buy the fact that, many years ago, people did not know as much about cerebral palsy and misattributed it to doctors when it was not waranted. Does anyone have any references to back that up?

Of course, its also possible that the judge made a mistake in letting invalid scientific evidence in, or that he decided to allow the jury to decide what was credible or not.

(I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.)

 

[wjousts]

If he is elected, does this spell trouble for science and critical thinking?

Surely it could only be less trouble than if Bush remains in office? Just one report, there are many others!

Two scientists from President Bush's top advisory board on cutting- edge medical research published a detailed criticism Friday of the board's own reports, and said the board skewed scientific facts in service of a political and ideological cause.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

But, hypothetically, if someone comes to a laywer and says "I'm faking an injury and I'm suing someone over it", should the lawyer be morally obliged to refuse the case, or should they still take on the client even though they know that the client is "in the wrong"?

Similarly, if someone comes and says "I think vaccinations harmed my child" (and says so honestly), or "the doctor's actions caused Cerebral Palsy", and the lawyer knows the argument is wrong (even though the client believes it), is it moral to take the case?

I'm not sure that these two cases are as similar as you seem to feel. The first case is a clear attempt on the part of the would-be client to commit fraud, and to introduce any evidence on his behalf would be to suborn perjury. The lawyer is not only morally obliged not to take the case, but he's also ethically and indeed legally obliged to take the case -- to knowingly file such as case would be a disbarment offense.

In fact, barring attorney/client privilege, the lawyer could be called upon to testify to the client's attempt to commit a fraud as a fact. There's no room for vacillation, interpretation, hemming, or hawing, and the legal system would recognize this as such.

In the case of a vaccination issue, there's no way that a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, could "know" that the argument is wrong. The lawyer may have his personal belief, but that's not the same thing as knowledge. He neither has the personal experience to present as a "fact," nor the medical expertise to present an "opinion" that vaccines don't harm children.

He simply doesn't know. The question of whether a child was harmed by a vaccine is a factual issue, and as such should be decided by a jury, and as such it becomes his duty to present the question to the jury in such a way that they can answer it.

First of all, you're assuming that judges (and jurys) are able to judge medical claims. However, they are humans, and as such are failable, and can sometimes be swayed by emotion instead of facts.

Not at all. They are responsible for judging whether a particular statement rises to the level of expert opinion, which is not a question of truth, but more generally of the degree of support. The question they have to address is whether or not a particular opinion is admissible, which hinges (broadly) on whether or not there's scientific backing for it. In the case of a genuine scientific controversy, there will typically be scientific backing for all sides of an issue, but the role of the judge is limited to that of a gatekeeper, not a referee. Basically, they keep out the "the Kaiser is going to come and steal my string" sort of nut-cases, but questions of genuine disagreement are issues of fact, and as such presented to the jury.

Of course, the jury can also make an incorrect decision. But I find it rather odd to assume that a lawyer's snap decision about a question of scientific validity is presumed to be more likely to be correct than the deliberative decision of a jury that have been carefully presented all sides of a genuine controversy.

Of course, its also possible that the judge made a mistake in letting invalid scientific evidence in, or that he decided to allow the jury to decide what was credible or not.

The first is unlikely as it would probably have been reversed upon appeal. I'm not sure what you mean by the second -- if you mean, he allowed the jury to make the decision abouit what was admissible, then it's not just unlikely, but impossible. If you simply mean that he allowed both sides to present their evidence, and the jury decided which side they believed.... well, yeah, sure, that's the way it's supposed to work That's the jury's job, to decide issues of credence and fact. It's a lawyer's job to act as advocate for their client in presenting the evidence in the strongest light possible, so that the jury can make that decision.

 

[WildCat]

Birth Injury - Overview

 

[rebecca]

Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

Surely it could only be less trouble than if Bush remains in office? Just one report, there are many others!

Well, that's a whole other thread, but just to show that this thread has nothing to do with my personal political leanings, I give you The Junk Science of George W. Bush.

 

[BPSCG]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39310Is John Edwards turning into John Edward?

Ann Coulter is not my idea of an expert medical witness, but here's the money quote from today's column:

"Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As the New York Times reported: 'Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.'

More on Edwards's channeling:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'" ...

(Coulter again):
"And may we ask what the pre-born Jennifer Campbell thinks about war with Iraq? North Korea? Marginal tax rates? If Miss Cleo here is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the voters are entitled to know that. "

Entire column here.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

Ann Coulter is not my idea of an expert medical witness, but here's the money quote from today's column:

"Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As the New York Times reported: 'Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.'

And what exactly is your criticism? Are you criticising him for not being sophisticated enough to predict scientific developments 34 years in the future?

As for Ms. Coulter,.... she's got a political axe to grind. Not only is she not an expert medical witness, but she's not even an expert political witness or historian. She's a professional advertisement and talking head for the right wing of the Republican party. Her statements are intentionally slanted and should carry about as much weight as the advertisements by the Tobacco Institute about the health benefits of smoking, and for the same reason. (For the same reason, Fahrenheit 9/11 should be treated with skepticism regarding Mr. Moore's claim. It's not a left/right issue, it's a fact/propaganda issue.)

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

And what exactly is your criticism? Are you criticising him for not being sophisticated enough to predict scientific developments 34 years in the future?

Hardly. Edwards was 17 years old in 1970. The Jennifer Campbell case was in 1985.

As for Ms. Coulter,.... she's got a political axe to grind.

Ah, I see. So it's not sufficient that she have the facts right, but also have no strong opinions.

The issue is, it seems to me, had the idea that cerebral palsy was often caused by medical error been debunked by 1985?

If the answer is "no", then he gets a pass. Though the channeling business makes me want to puke.

Her statements are intentionally slanted and should carry about as much weight as the advertisements by the Tobacco Institute about the health benefits of smoking, and for the same reason.

Well, what parts of her column were inaccurate (apart from the obvious jokes - she does seem to have a lot of fun with what she writes)?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

]Ah, I see. So it's not sufficient that she have the facts right, but also have no strong opinions.

Well, what parts of her column were inaccurate (apart from the obvious jokes - she does seem to have a lot of fun with what she writes)?

Wrong end of the stick. I will not assume Ms. Coulter is accurate until proven otherwise. I assume her inaccuracy until someone else can provide independent support.

Basically, I don't believe she does a good job of fact-checking. It would certainly be sufficient for her to have her facts right, but it would also be surprising.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards & "Junk Science"

The issue is, it seems to me, had the idea that cerebral palsy was often caused by medical error been debunked by 1985?

That's not his (the lawyer's) call to make. That's the judge's. It's the judge's responsibility to determine whether a particular opinion qualifies as "scientifically valid" under the rules of evidence.

I take it, then, that your criticism is that Edwards was doing his own job instead of the trial judge's?