Sued

During an otherwise normal workday, I was served a subpoena.  I was being sued for malpractice.  The trial itself took place eight years later and lasted for two weeks. The ordeal ended with the jury deliberating for 20-minutes, finding me and my two co-defendants free of any liability.  All allegations of neglect and malpractice were dismissed.

When it was done, my lawyers and the plaintiff’s lawyers shook hands, smiled, laughed, and joked as-if this had all been a grand sports event.  No hard feelings.  For me, it had been no game.  To this day I detest the plaintiff’s attorneys who knew they had a weak case, who hoped for a quick out-of-court settlement, and who, in court, had twisted and distorted facts in an attempt to win the game, at any cost.

My initial reaction in the aftermath of the trial was to deny any significant psychological sequela.  I was prepared to return to work and carry on as-if nothing had changed.  But work did change, subtly.  I became a little more obsessive with each of my written notes.  I became a little more cautious with patients, second-guessing my decisions, wondering in the back of my head, who might be next to sue.  I began to enjoy work less and less.  And while the lawsuit was not the only factor in my retirement, it was a significant factor.

Malpractice and medical neglect occur.  Patients need protection and redress of grievances.  But sometimes bad outcomes occur despite good medical care.  Given the nature of the work, healthcare providers also need protection.  There must be a better way.  The lawsuit hung over my head for eight years.  I estimate that the total cost of the legal defense was in excess of one-million dollars.  Not added into the cost were the many hours of lost clinical productivity. In the meantime, until and unless there is a better system, we all bear the significant burden of cost in an already cost-burdened health care system.

I think about being on the witness stand.  Remembering my lawyer’s advice, I tried to not be provoked to anger.  Under the plaintiff attorney’s accusatory and seemingly mocking attack, I mostly recall feeling numb.  At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney stooped to a bit of courtroom theatrics yelling at me, “Dr. Boxer, are you prepared here and now to apologize to this family!”  The judge quickly interrupted the proceeding, instructed me not to answer, scolded the attorney and called for a brief recess.

Even to this day, I repeat the answer I wish I could have made.  “Yes, I am sorry that bad illnesses happen to children.  I am sorry that, due to a serious illness, your child had many years of hardship and suffering. I am sorry that good doctors and good nurses who devote their lives to the care of sick children must defend their competence and integrity in these adversarial arenas. That said, I am, in good conscience, unapologetic about the care I gave your child eight years ago.”

Debate

“Deliberation and debate are the way you stir the soul of our democracy.” (Jesse Jackson, 1941--)

I used to judge High School debates.  I did so when my son, and later my grandson, were debaters.  As a judge, I recognized some very particular characteristics and skills shared by all of the really accomplished debaters.

A good debater was a good researcher, prepared with the facts. In my son’s time, debaters carried large and sometimes multiple boxes filled with articles and information, sorted and filed, pertaining to all aspects of the debate question.  Good debaters understood the value of thorough documentation. By the time my grandson was in debate, file boxes were no longer needed. Instead, files were downloaded onto much easier to carry personal computers.

A good debater was a good critical thinker able to use facts effectively, as building blocks to a logically constructed argument.  Reasoning, backed by solid information, sustained their case.  A good debater could distinguish logic from fallacy.  Perhaps the worst, and certainly the most offensive, of the fallacious arguments was the Ad hominem argument. Only an unskilled and unprepared debater resorted to personal attack and insult.

A good debater was a good communicator and an effective persuader.  A good debater spoke clearly, made good eye contact, used humor judiciously, and mixed raw data with illustrative stories and examples.  I would describe a good debater’s demeanor as calm and confident, assertive but not aggressive.

A good debater not only had to speak . . . a good debater had to listen.  An opponent’s argument had to be heard and understood.  A good debater then had to follow-up with an effective rebuttal.  A good rebuttal often required the debater to be a quick and flexible thinker, able to adjust to new and unexpected twists and turns.

A good debater, going into a meet, had to be prepared to argue either side of the debate question, both the affirmative and the negative.  Debate questions were typically complex, requiring the debater to examine the question from multiple perspectives.  I suppose that a good debater even learned to appreciate that, in life, the most difficult questions often lack definitive answers.

Those who learn debate learn invaluable skills. Personally, I believe that debate should be part of the required High School curriculum.  Debate teaches skills of critical thinking along with skills of good communication. All students could benefit.

I think that many students would be shocked to find out that debate, as taught in High School, is something vastly different than “debate” as practiced and modelled on T.V. by our public servants.  When Trump and Biden were running their campaigns, we did not see a debate.  We witnessed a spectacle.

I recently heard in the news that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has challenged Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to debate the Green New Deal.  I doubt this debate, or spectacle, will occur.  But should it happen, I would love to come out of retirement and judge once more. I know the characteristics and skills necessary for a good debate. But do they?