Lawfare in Japan

Lawyer gotcha on paperwork bullshit charges. Maybe, Japanese prosecutors are also feminists. Political correctness is worse in Japan than in the US.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/nissan-chair-ghosn-dismissed-held-on-misconduct-charges/ar-BBPRPJc?ocid=ientp

Machines Should Not Emulate Living Functions

Cars do not move on legs. Airplanes do not flap wings. It is for that reason they are 100 times or even a thousand times better than living beings.

This robot imitates a person. It even looks like a person with legs, arms, and hands. Go back to the drawing board. It should be a cheaper robot specific to installation of gypsum boards. It should carry 10 of them up front. Move them into place, and punch nails into the studs. The framing studs should be standardized to accommodate it. Things that do a lot of tasks do none well. For example an amphibious car does neither task well.

Better yet, such work should be done at a specialized factory. I once watched a condo being built. They would slide an entire long narrow floor into place on sleds. Each floor took a couple of days to install.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-humanoid-robot-prototype-hrp-5p-capable.html

Negligent Resuscitation Resulting in Pain and in Cost

https://www.abqjournal.com/1247179/woman-sues-hospital-for-resuscitating-her-ex-patient-alleges-her-dnr-directive-was-ignored-after-drug-allergy-caused-her-to-have-a-cardiac-arrest-2.html

Lawyer Profession Myths and Intentional Falsehoods Falsehoods

 Adversarial System is a good way to find the truth. It originated in the Disputation Method of Scholasticism. It was cool in 1275 AD. Today it is ridiculously invalid. It is a joke given modern knowledge. It lacks even the most basic measurement of validity. The disputation method  is a Catholic Church methodology.  Its content violates  the Establishment Clause. Scholasticism was an attempt to prove the existence of God through the study of nature. That aim was given up in 1300, when Occam debunked it. Faith validates the existence of God. It becomes a competitive game, like basketball. It depends on the skill of the lawyer on each side. That skill easily overwhelms the facts and promotes the reliance on procedure. It does guarantee nice incomes for 3 lawyers, the plaintiff, the defense, and the judge in the middle. 

The jury is a good lie detector. The jury is a detector of likability and of feelings. Even lie detectors measuring physiological reactions to lying have been banned. They have no validity except for entertainment purposes, like on the Maury Show. The feelings of jurors, who know nothing about complicated technical subjects, will decide based on feelings, like pity for the plaintiff.  The jury was a great advance in the year 1000 AD. It replaced the wisdom of the crowd for the feelings, biases, and self interests of the judge. 

Letter to Defense Lawyer in Suicide Malpractice

Please, transmit this message to Mr. James Kjar.

I am a psychiatrist in Pennsylvania. I am interested in your case. I cannot serve as an expert witness. However, I can help you be more effective in  using your defense expert witness. 

1)  As a matter of policy, these lawsuits deter doctors from helping the most needy and dangerous patients;

2)  they  violate Frye;

3)  Lorazepam is often used to calm intensely suicidal patients;  people who get agitated do so on first use (like we have five drinks, most of us want to sleep, a few of us want to fight);

4) unforeseen intervening causes should be put in evidence, this element of torts is often neglected by the defense;

5) for a thousand years, the intentional act of the suicide victim broke any chain of causation between negligence and the death. Hanging is not a medical procedure. The current legal view, of suing doctors for the intentional act of another, is quite wrong headed and not scientific:

6) most suicides are not caused by medications, but by relationship problems. Families cannot face that, and try to scapegoat the doctor;

7) if the victim had broken a law, a tort settlement should not reward law breaking;

8) demand 5 records of patients of the expert similar to the victim. If he does not have 5, he is not an expert. If he does, and any benzodiazepine was used, he should be disqualified, as a liar in his expert report. If he is anti-medication partisan, he should be disqualified as not representing the mainstream of care today. Hold the plaintiff expert witness accountable for any false testimony, including any statements about their resume. An example of false testimony is that a record was reviewed, when it was not.  If a false statement is found, move to dismiss the case, and to charge all legal costs to the personal assets of the expert. To deter. 

There would be no charge to you, if you want any brief record reviewed, including toxicology or expert reports. 

David Behar, MD