Cancer patient sues doctors who removed genitals (Penis)- DID NOT HAVE CANCER!

Associated Press ^ | 08/07/03 | Staff Writer

[Chancellor Palpatine]

.

[VRWCmember]

Mayor: Is this true?
Venkman: Yes sir, it's true. This man has no d*ck.

[gov_bean_ counter]

So now is he living a "pointless" life?

[VRWCmember]

So now is he living a "pointless" life?

At least one without his special purpose.

[bedolido]

guess he could get a strap-on

[VRWCmember]

guess he could get a strap-on

Does Trent Lott have a spare one he could loan out? Lord knows the senate gop hasn't used a real one in years.

[bedolido]

maybe he could get in touch (so to speak) with these doctors for help...'

[PALACE ATHENA]

Always ask for second opinion!!!

[NeoCaveman]

the A.M move this to Gen Int... NOT FAIR!!!

Welcome to cheesville.

[Mamzelle]

Looks like there's still insurance to compensate this injured patient--Texas recently passed tort reform. By shepherding this resource, I hope that the state will keep coverage alive for the injured. That's what the insurance system is for.

But the lawyers won't be getting a windfall in the non-econ department with this suit. It's the lawyers who have lost--not the patients of Texas...

[PALACE ATHENA]

How ironic, he is suing for not consulting him. Let's see..last time I took my car to a mechanic I wasn't consulted either about certain repairs. What goes around...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Why hell, its not like theres any economic loss associated with a severed unit. Why should this bloodsucker try to collect for missing his penis?

[Mamzelle]

For one thing, the pain and suffering has not been eliminated, only limited. If he sued without his lawyers, he could keep the whole $350,000--but, unfortunately, he's got a lawyer.

You seem to take a lot of notice of genital cases. The premise being--there's not enough money out there to compensate for this man's loss. Ergo, the sky's the limit? Quantifying this sort of loss is impossible, but I remain to assert that the best possible outcome is to keep the insurance alive for injured patients, rather than provide capricious, emotion-driven bonanzas that will kill insurance for all injured patients.

I've just endured a long conversation with a lawyer who wouldn't address what I regard as the most important issue in the malpractice debate--won't you please give it a whirl?

What would happen to this guy if there would have been no insurance at all? This is no chimera--I can point you to a new trend emerging in "going bare."

Would you have taken his case if there had been no insurance, and you had reason to believe that efforts had been made to make assets very hard to obtain?

Lawyers who care about the little guy ought to steward the insurance, plain and simple. And even if they only care about their hefty share of the settlement, they still ought to steward the insurance.

[bedolido]

Ping

[mhking]

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[wysiwyg]

I would say that the doctor went of half-cocked... That'd be about half too much, though.

[bedolido]

lol... There was a song in the late 70's or early 80's called "Short People (have no reason to live)"

[wysiwyg]

Doh! of=off

[wysiwyg]

That would be Randy Newman's Short People.

[wysiwyg]

They took my dork, Charlie!