As for defensive medicine, surely someone like you can see the silliness of using unquantifiable terms to dictate public policy.

You really have no idea what is causing the increase in C-sections, just as you have no idea what an “acceptable” level would be. Until you can define that, you’re really not offering much meaningful.

And really, any discussion of “victims” in the medical malpractice context has to start with the patients. Second, you can argue the insurers, who actually are paying the money. Then we get to the physicians.

In fact, I doubt you even know the number of CP lawsuits v. the number of CP kids. Does anyone? And yet you’re issuing blanket condemnations?

It appears you’ve not got any bar to cross before reaching your conclusions, which is even less than what you accuse the juries in Edwards’ case of having.

I merely stated that you can’t show causation if you ignore the primary victims (i.e. the docs). In other words, Morris set the evidence bar absurdly high.

That’s the first step toward acknowledging the truth!

I’m delighted to see that you know “the truth.” Perhaps you’d like to share.

Unless you’ve got some belief that physicians are entitled to low insurance and insurers are entitled to profits no matter what. In that case, why not just get immunity.

But glad you admit that you couldn’t show causation. That’s the first step toward acknowledging the truth!

I see those metacarpals are still in olympic condition. I’m not sure it’s possible, if you discount the statements of the docs doing the procedures, to show direct causality. But the increase was caused by something, and I don’t think there’s a credible explanation that does not include the role of trial lawyers like Edwards.

By the way, here’s a good write-up on the connection between malpractice caps and lower insurance rates.

“Although there is no credible scientific data showing that the incidence of cerebral palsy is in any way affected by the C-section choice, Edwards was very successful in convincing juries to punish physicians for not taking that option.”

I agree that if true this is a great point: no credible evidence for causation => no case. Now let us apply the same standard to your argument.

Where is the credible scientific evidence that malpractice concerns generally [and the more amazing claim - John Edwards specifically] caused c-section rates to increase?

And no - for the 167th time - the plural of anecdote is not data and just because your docotor buddy (or a doctor buddy of your doctor buddy) says something is “the cause” of his behavior DOES NOT make it “credible scientific data.”

If you are going to make a claim about causality - whether you are John Edwards or Kevin M.D. - you need to offer evidence to support it.

To cite the lack of “credible scientific data” in part of a broader argument that lacks “credible scientific data” is beyond the realm of sad irony. I know that they do not teach formal logic in med school, but jeebus. C’mon boys . . . CAUSALITY . . . show me CAUSALITY.