Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
It isn't very different as need is an integral element of assessing loss. The question remains why a right should exist where there is fault? The arguments above appear to be based largely on the need to compensate for loss.
Liability in negligence is not necessarily effective in raising standards. It can actually undermine healthcare by discouraging the use of new techniques.
Liability in negligence is not necessarily effective in raising standards. It can actually undermine healthcare by discouraging the use of new techniques.
julian64 said:
Well I guess for sheer number of words typed that deserves a reply. I called him an idiot because he suggested doctors could be monitored in the same way pilots are. The stupidity of the remark was that doctors are far more closely monitered than pilots and have been for the longest period of time. In fact to say it means you understand nothing of the system you are commenting on. That makes him an idiot.
It had nothing to do with children born with birth defects or other mindless frothing at the mouth spouted on this thread. Children who deserve to be supported through their illnesses.
I really shouldn't be arguing the case for the NHS, I should just agree with you lot. The upshot will be the percentage of money spent on needless compo claims will rocket further, service will deteriorate because money destined for services is being spent on lawyers (this is already happening, hence my comment about my medical insurance payments), and eventually the system will be unfit for purpose and we will all go private.
Dcotors and Lawyers will become similar to the USA. Job jobbed.
In fact the only people who will be likely to suffer are the self same children with lifelong illness whos parents will quickly discover just how fast private medicne and Lawyers can swollow their compo claim money.
I congratulate you on your bedside manner - you really are a charmer.It had nothing to do with children born with birth defects or other mindless frothing at the mouth spouted on this thread. Children who deserve to be supported through their illnesses.
I really shouldn't be arguing the case for the NHS, I should just agree with you lot. The upshot will be the percentage of money spent on needless compo claims will rocket further, service will deteriorate because money destined for services is being spent on lawyers (this is already happening, hence my comment about my medical insurance payments), and eventually the system will be unfit for purpose and we will all go private.
Dcotors and Lawyers will become similar to the USA. Job jobbed.
In fact the only people who will be likely to suffer are the self same children with lifelong illness whos parents will quickly discover just how fast private medicne and Lawyers can swollow their compo claim money.
The point about monitoring is that it only works if it results in concrete action to remedy poor performance - this is where the CAA does rather better than the CQC. One-quarter of NHS hospitals are rated as providing poor care; in other words, they have been monitored (incredibly closely in your view) and are still crap. If one-quarter of airline pilots were rated as poor, the whole industry would go bust as people would stop flying. Unfortunately, no-one has a choice as to whether they fall ill.
So, despite the close monitoring, there is still sub-standard practice in one whole quarter of English hospitals. That is why patients who have suffered as a consequence need the right to seek redress, which is what this whole thread is about. There is an argument as to how it's done, and nobody wants to see medical budgets swallowed up by legal costs, but the idea that the NHS should be allowed to sail on without outside interference is just ludicrous; it is a public service for which we all pay, and should be held accountable for its performance.
What's clear from your posts is that you resent any interference in what you do and have no regard at all for those (accountants or others) who are all working to the same goal - to achieve the best possible patient care with the funds available. That sort of "silo" mentality is not really tenable these days and does not reflect well on you.
Feel free to now respond with some more puerile name-calling.
Bluebarge said:
I congratulate you on your bedside manner - you really are a charmer.
The point about monitoring is that it only works if it results in concrete action to remedy poor performance - this is where the CAA does rather better than the CQC. One-quarter of NHS hospitals are rated as providing poor care; in other words, they have been monitored (incredibly closely in your view) and are still crap. If one-quarter of airline pilots were rated as poor, the whole industry would go bust as people would stop flying. Unfortunately, no-one has a choice as to whether they fall ill.
So, despite the close monitoring, there is still sub-standard practice in one whole quarter of English hospitals. That is why patients who have suffered as a consequence need the right to seek redress, which is what this whole thread is about. There is an argument as to how it's done, and nobody wants to see medical budgets swallowed up by legal costs, but the idea that the NHS should be allowed to sail on without outside interference is just ludicrous; it is a public service for which we all pay, and should be held accountable for its performance.
What's clear from your posts is that you resent any interference in what you do and have no regard at all for those (accountants or others) who are all working to the same goal - to achieve the best possible patient care with the funds available. That sort of "silo" mentality is not really tenable these days and does not reflect well on you.
Feel free to now respond with some more puerile name-calling.
This is not your bedside, and I really am a charmer.The point about monitoring is that it only works if it results in concrete action to remedy poor performance - this is where the CAA does rather better than the CQC. One-quarter of NHS hospitals are rated as providing poor care; in other words, they have been monitored (incredibly closely in your view) and are still crap. If one-quarter of airline pilots were rated as poor, the whole industry would go bust as people would stop flying. Unfortunately, no-one has a choice as to whether they fall ill.
So, despite the close monitoring, there is still sub-standard practice in one whole quarter of English hospitals. That is why patients who have suffered as a consequence need the right to seek redress, which is what this whole thread is about. There is an argument as to how it's done, and nobody wants to see medical budgets swallowed up by legal costs, but the idea that the NHS should be allowed to sail on without outside interference is just ludicrous; it is a public service for which we all pay, and should be held accountable for its performance.
What's clear from your posts is that you resent any interference in what you do and have no regard at all for those (accountants or others) who are all working to the same goal - to achieve the best possible patient care with the funds available. That sort of "silo" mentality is not really tenable these days and does not reflect well on you.
Feel free to now respond with some more puerile name-calling.
I have very little, if no regard for accountants, or lawyers ability to help the sick or injured. Accountants do not improve services and neither do 'no win no fee' lawyers. The less taxpayer money spend on either of them the better. If I have learned anything from watching successive governments, its that they don't seem to have a clue how to respond to the problem. They seem like leaves in the wind suggesting solutions to daily mail generated problems, and the general attitudes shown on here.
I am not an advocate of no interference as doctors make very poor business managers, and have amply demonstrated that they aren't the best at self policing. In fact I don't think there is a good model of a policing system made from the rank and file of the profession its policing. My solution is otherwise but somewhat at a tangent to this thread.
But back to the op, Being proud to be a lawyer, is the same as being proud in any profession. Its the ability to look your children in the eye when you go home and convince yourself you've made the world a better place for them in some, even miniscule way.
Re read the op first post and ask youself why you would be posting on here to protect the example the op gives.
Osinjak said:
But for some reason, this logical thinking is removed when it comes to the NHS and anyone who seeks 'compensation' ... etc
Because the NHS is not selling a service to customers for a start. Thinking of it in those terms is completely unhelpful because it misrepresents the motivations of the participants in the system and therefore leads you to misidentify the rewards and punishments that might be used to modify the behaviour of the NHS and its staff.ATG said:
Osinjak said:
But for some reason, this logical thinking is removed when it comes to the NHS and anyone who seeks 'compensation' ... etc
Because the NHS is not selling a service to customers for a start. Thinking of it in those terms is completely unhelpful because it misrepresents the motivations of the participants in the system and therefore leads you to misidentify the rewards and punishments that might be used to modify the behaviour of the NHS and its staff.ATG said:
Osinjak said:
But for some reason, this logical thinking is removed when it comes to the NHS and anyone who seeks 'compensation' ... etc
Because the NHS is not selling a service to customers for a start. Thinking of it in those terms is completely unhelpful because it misrepresents the motivations of the participants in the system and therefore leads you to misidentify the rewards and punishments that might be used to modify the behaviour of the NHS and its staff.Granted, you and I don't access healthcare in the same way that we buy a car, that would be a peculiar way of going to see our GPs but what I don't quite understand is the illogical reasoning of how the NHS is a sacrosanct institution that must be protected at all costs, even if some of those within it are causing harm to the very people they are supposed to be looking after. The flawed thinking is that it's free, it isn't, it's paid for just like anything else in life and to be slightly reductionist about it, you're paying for a service as a consumer and you're entitled to seek redress (whatever form that might take) if it goes wrong. Of course, we don't think like that but to use the argument that it's free therefore it absolves of the right to seek compensation (an apology or otherwise) is again, flawed.
Lastly, with the advent of CCGs, the argument about NHS not selling services could be debated. The Govt, in its wisdom, is creating an internal market for healthcare and CCGs will purchase their healthcare from the most cost-effective organisation. In effect, hospitals (for example) are competing with each other to provide clinical services and are 'selling' their services. One could debate that point to death!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-2802914...
It's disgraceful that the bereaved parents had to do the Regulators job for them. I can't say I was impressed with what Dame Judy Mellor said to John Humphrys on Today.
It's disgraceful that the bereaved parents had to do the Regulators job for them. I can't say I was impressed with what Dame Judy Mellor said to John Humphrys on Today.
Breadvan72 said:
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Quite. They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
La Liga said:
Breadvan72 said:
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Quite. They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
La Liga said:
Breadvan72 said:
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Quite. They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
La Liga said:
Quite.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
But that's no different from what the police do if they get anything juicy is it? Look at the taped 999 call about the bloke wanting to complain about a prostitute or the woman calling up because the man in the Ice Cream van won't give her more Sprinkles on her 99.The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
This for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRB_gYOxJE
That was made to be about the importance of safety kit. I think that was in 2010 hence the St George's Cross pinned to his back. At least him and his safety kit performed better than Rooney, Lampard, Gerard and the rest of the Ingerland team in Brazil.
I'm sure the police cite one off incidences to justify their stance on certain situations or events. They may even do it here on PH and on other Internet forums.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 26th June 10:50
REALIST123 said:
Rare and extreme? Really? If that were the case I doubt very much that we would see so many ambulance chasing law firms advertising.
Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
The legal profession covers a vast range of areas with most people not doing the above. The Mail wishes to tar the legal profession and "lawyers" with the same brush. It appears to have worked.Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
carinaman said:
But that's no different from what the police do if they get anything juicy is it? Look at the taped 999 call about the bloke wanting to complain about a prostitute or the woman calling up because the man in the Ice Cream van won't give her more Sprinkles on her 99.
Not quite. The extreme part isn't the underlying message like the Mail's implication and agenda is i.e. 'this rare example shows that all lawyers are bad'. The 'sprinkles' is an extreme scenario of silliness, but what does is the fundamental component to that example and the point it's making? It's that the 999 system is misused, which it is. On a daily basis. So it's not a rarity.
But even if it were, the question of 'impact' can change the justification. Even if 999 misuse were very rare and this 'sprinkles' incident used in the same way like you're drawing the comparisons, the risk and impact of a rare, misused call could be 'life and death', so could be justified in that manner.
I just resurrected the thread this morning as the parents of that four year had to do the job of the NHS Regulator and Dame Judy Mellor sounds like Dame Anne Owers of the IPCC, the soft tones seem to have a hint of acceptance of failure and liberal helpings of palm oil.
Then on You and Yours on Radio 4 they mentioned Lawyers now suing other Lawyers for getting insufficient compensation for their victims for their injuries. It seems some of the Lawyers operate like over the horizon car insurance firm desk drivers.
I am not sure about using the footage of that chap flying through the air to make it about motorcycle kit. It probably saved him, but I think people are supposed to do the lifesaver over the shoulder glance before they change lanes. It's a bit like car drivers that start indicating once they've started changing lanes.
That Philpot bloke from Derby that multiple father that killed a few of his kids with fire. That he was flirting with a female police officer at a hospital was a particularly juicy morsel of evidence to feed the press and demonise him. It's like the personal life of Rebekah Brooks coming out in trial, like the stuff coming out about Nigella. In some ways the police and judiciary operate like the press. The public disgrace in some cases is much worse any judicial sentence. It's not as far down the scale as men that are found not guilty of rape or face wrongful or malicious complaints of rape.
Then on You and Yours on Radio 4 they mentioned Lawyers now suing other Lawyers for getting insufficient compensation for their victims for their injuries. It seems some of the Lawyers operate like over the horizon car insurance firm desk drivers.
I am not sure about using the footage of that chap flying through the air to make it about motorcycle kit. It probably saved him, but I think people are supposed to do the lifesaver over the shoulder glance before they change lanes. It's a bit like car drivers that start indicating once they've started changing lanes.
That Philpot bloke from Derby that multiple father that killed a few of his kids with fire. That he was flirting with a female police officer at a hospital was a particularly juicy morsel of evidence to feed the press and demonise him. It's like the personal life of Rebekah Brooks coming out in trial, like the stuff coming out about Nigella. In some ways the police and judiciary operate like the press. The public disgrace in some cases is much worse any judicial sentence. It's not as far down the scale as men that are found not guilty of rape or face wrongful or malicious complaints of rape.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 26th June 14:17
Osinjak said:
ATG said:
Osinjak said:
But for some reason, this logical thinking is removed when it comes to the NHS and anyone who seeks 'compensation' ... etc
Because the NHS is not selling a service to customers for a start. Thinking of it in those terms is completely unhelpful because it misrepresents the motivations of the participants in the system and therefore leads you to misidentify the rewards and punishments that might be used to modify the behaviour of the NHS and its staff.Granted, you and I don't access healthcare in the same way that we buy a car, that would be a peculiar way of going to see our GPs but what I don't quite understand is the illogical reasoning of how the NHS is a sacrosanct institution that must be protected at all costs, ...
My concern is that there is a tendency amongst many right-leaning people (and that's my political persuasion) to take a hopelessly simplistic view of the applicability of market mechanisms and will distort their view of almost any system until they can say "open it up to the market". Healthcare is a great example of this. There is no effective market here to be set free; the basic mechanics of price determination are fundamentally broken in the demand and supply of healthcare, regardless of whether the provider is in the public or private sector. The patient is not a "rational economic agent" in the usual sense when they need to receive care. Their demand is not usefully elastic. You don't decide you'll have both legs amputated because there's a cut-price (geddit?)deal on. And private sector medicine is almost always intermediated through insurance which in itself is a great way of dislocating market forces (see cost of repair and car insurance).
Even when people don't create flimsy pseudo-markets, there's also a great tendency to try to sound "businessy" and use the language of free markets to describe system inappropriately. For example, IT depts in both private and state organisations often call their users "customers" and this is almost always unhelpful because it misrepresents the relationships that actually exist. In a true market there are multiple potential providers in competition with each other to secure a customer's business, and the customer is in competition with all of the providers. It is an inherently adversarial system; that's what makes it work. If a system doesn't have that type of competition at its heart, then we shouldn't expect free market competition to deliver efficiency, and pretending that we are in a free market by labelling people "customers" just helps us dodge the really difficult questions about achieving efficiency in the absence of true market forces.
Anyway, to bring this somewhat back on topic, one more example of the misapplication of free market ideas. The Law Society used to prohibit firms of solicitors from advertising. You get yourself listed in the phone book and Yellow Pages, but that was it. I've forgotten if it was the Thatcher or the Major government, but one of the two decided that this was "anti-competitive" and that solicitors must be allowed to advertise. Lo and behold, posters immediately started going up in A&E departments as the least reputable or most desperate practitioners took advantage. I doubt very much that many clients really started ringing around checking prices and moving between firms because they'd seen an advert in the local rag; you get better service from a solicitor if you have a long-standing relationship with them; they know your business. Unless you're an idiot, you choose a solicitor by recommendation, not from a bloody advert. So advertising led to ambulance chasing and delivered bugger all in terms of efficiency ... and that was entirely predictable.
When I started at the Bar in the mid 1980s it was considered rather bad form even to have a business card, and touting of all forms was frowned upon. Of course, people did network (that word was not yet in use) in informal ways, and even then there were occasional beauty parades, but it was all very low key. Nowadays my chambers employs a team of professional marketing staff, and I am on constant three line whips to turn up to assorted schmoozefests (Attending these, I feel that I might as well hang a sign from my neck saying "will work for canapés"). Our marketing, however, is directed at solicitors and in-house lawyers, and we don't have billboards or adverts in local media. I agree that allowing pretty much unlimited advertising was a bad idea, as was allowing conditional fee agreements (and now even worse, US style contingency fees in which the lawyer takes a stake in the action).
Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th June 09:05
carinaman said:
But that's no different from what the police do if they get anything juicy is it? Look at the taped 999 call about the bloke wanting to complain about a prostitute or the woman calling up because the man in the Ice Cream van won't give her more Sprinkles on her 99.
You think silly 999 calls are unusual? If only. There was a check completed as to the ration of emergency to non-emergency calls to our control room. Pointless exercise of course as there is no control over the callers. The bit that was important, I think, is those who thought better of it and then the situation became critical. From fireworks in next-door's garden on 5 November, to kids throwing snowballs, with one landing near the caller's front door, it is all part of the job. I objected to a press release on them in my day as they are easy enough to deal with. Lift up the phone, listen for less than 20 secs, clear the line.
All the ridicule does is put real callers off. If you are stupid enough to phone about spoons being stolen from a snowman, all the pleas to good sense will fall of deaf, or at least uncomprehending ears.
The legal profession is mixed ability and mixed morals. It is the same with many other professions. The 'one bad apple' comment may or may not be right but you cannot blame those totally unconnected with one incident.
However, what I will say is that every profession needs an independent complaints commission at least as aggressive at the IPCC.
kers who made the cup of tea with boiling water will be more careful next time.Jasandjules said:
NicD said:
I doubt I would think of suing, but until that situation, cannot be sure.
I think that is a fair comment.I know MANY people who have criticised this or that law, until the time comes when they need to sue.....
In the same way every lawyer is an arse, until they are needed.
Fair play to Breadvan et al for continuing to provide free legal advice to PHer's. Its a thankless task on top of which your profession is regularly slated to boot. To give PH pro bono advice in such circumstances is remarkable and something I stopped a long, long time ago particularly after one total prick behaved in a manner that to this day makes me violent when I even think back to the events.
In response to the OP, the fact Rapid Solicitors operate within the broad spectrum of law makes no odds at all as to whether I am proud of my profession. In the same way that the Libor scandal didn't effect whether I was proud of the Barclays shares I own. Every profession has it's share of bad apples and good ones too. I like to think I fall into the latter category but the fact some fall into the former doesn't make me think the profession as a whole is one to be ashamed of.
Edited by Shnozz on Saturday 28th June 17:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff