Kat and Ken,
OK, now I'm going to argue the other side, just for fun!
By placing a cap of say, $250,000 on damages, it makes it very difficult
for people who have been victims of malpractice affecting a minor, or
even some people with disabilities. This happens because monetary
damages are usually based on lost earning potential, and it's difficult
to judge what a child's earning potential is. If a kid gets hurt at
sixteen through medical negligence, who knows if he would have ended up
flipping burgers at McDonald's or if he would have become a
neurosurgeon?
By the same token Kat, before you and I became established in our
careers, if someone had attempted to guess our earning potential, that
figure would probably have been quite low.
Kendall
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis
-----Original Message-----
From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Breaking News - Heart attack victim wins $4.5 million in
case against Vioxx-maker Merck
i'm with kat.
--- Kathleen Salkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But ... but ... these sort of suits are a major
> factor in our
> increasing medical bills. I think there ought to be
> a low cap on the
> awards given by juries.
>
> Kat
>
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|