I can't believe that anyone who is satisfied with Flea as a pediatrician will jump ship because of this. That would be cutting off one's nose despite one's face.
Yes he was unwise, even stupid in what he did on his blog. But nowhere was it proven he was an inferior pediatrician in this case and I didn't think the article suggested that. It's unfortunate that the truth of the case never came out.
That said, I believe your second suggestion to him was good. I hope he follows it and begins to regain his life for his sake and his family's.
 

Why was it stupid of Flea to blog? Do you have any proof that the blog damaged him in any way?

Yes, the case settled, but that was a decision by Flea's insurance company and does not

necessarily mean that the case was damaged by the blog. The insurance company may also have required him to take the blog down.

I just read a little of Flea's blog, and I don't see what is so bad. He seems like a good pediatrician to me.
 

I think the "real danger" in the perception of the insurance companies wasn't this case, but what would happen if information on the jury selection process got introduced as evidence and was subjected to examination.

That might have had implications on jury selection in future litigation.
 

Lawyers generally resist the urge to speculate as to why decisions are made when there is no basis to reach a reasoned conclusion.

No one as yet knows why the Fleas case settled. If it makes you feel bette to jump to baseless conclusions, that's okay. It's of no real consequence to anyone, and is simply self-indulgent. Was it Flea's blogging? Was the trial going poorly? Was it a combination? We don't know. We can expect that the case did not settle with Flea's input and approval, but we do not know what motivated him.

We certainly know that Flea's live-blogging was fraught with problems, exposing his thoughts to public scrutiny and providing extraordinary fodder with which to attack his credibility and expose his efforts to cleanse himself.

Fleas discussion of who he perceived to be his target juror could have been effectively used to impugn him, and offend the siting jury, if it was permitted by the court. If I had to guess, the question of whether plaintiff's counsel would be allowed to ask questions about it depended on what his direct testimony was, the judge's inclinations and how artful the attorney was in forming relevant questions. Perhaps the thought was to settle rather than find out whether the judge would allow the questions, as it would be too late afterward if the questions were permitted.

The point is that engaging in rank speculation may be a fun game for kibbutzers, or may fill some gestalt or cathartic needs, but ultimately means nothing.

The case has settled. The Flea will live with the consequences, whether the consequences are appropriate or not, and the trial is over. It has been quite an amazing ride.

SHG
 

Scott,

I think your comment that no one could have predicted how Flea's blog would have affected the case is telling.

It tells me that the outcome of the legal process is inherently unpredictable. That it is determined by the capricious whim of the judge and jurors as influenced by the "artfulness" of the arguments, not so much by the facts.

I am surprised that those in the legal profession don't see this as a problem that needs to be addressed.
 

It will be interesting to see how this gets played out in the professional blogosphere. I'm thinking mostly of medical bloggers like myself, but also of legal bloggers. I suspect it will increase the likelihood of employers to require that their employees do not blog, even anonymously, or that malpractice insurance policies add clauses which address blogging, in particular.
 

daedalus2u,

I think you are either shockingly naive or have put your head deep into the sand on this one.

It tells me that the outcome of the legal process is inherently unpredictable.

Yes. That's why they build courthouses. If we knew who wins before hand, there wouldn't be much need for them.

That it is determined by the capricious whim of the judge and jurors as influenced by the "artfulness" of the arguments, not so much by the facts.

Now you've taken your point too far. Law is not black and white. Nor is the impact of arguments or questions on other human beings. For that matter, facts are hardly as clear as you would suggest. Is there a reason why some lawyers are better than others? Do you think it has something to do with their ability to be more persuasive, pose better questions, be more "artful" in their handling? This is part of life in the law. Similarly, both sides have their "facts", viewed as they see them. They are rarely identical. It is up to the jury to determine whose facts to believe.

This is what the whole system is about. Did you ever wonder why everyone in America doesn't come to you to tell them who wins and loses? Instead, they engage in these silly things called trials.

The legal system doesn't see this as a problem, becaue it IS the legal system. Do you see your naivete as a problem? Did you really think that whatever decisions you personally make dictate right and wrong for the rest of the nation? Now that might be a problem.

SHG
 

It wasn't stupid of Flea to blog. He blogged stupidly on occasion, and there is a difference.

People tend to pass of demonstrations of pique and temperantal posts in med blogs as hard-earned "venting" - the truth is, over time, he revealed some traits I suspected would come back to bite him - and that would color my decision to engange him as a pediatrician.

He was terribly imprudent is his remarks at times, but worse than that, he demonstrated a pattern of listening problems when relating to peers, and an irracible temperament and self-serving thinking errors.

I don't know him personally and I wish him well. However, I hope he learns more from it than the world is unfair to fleas.
 

SHG,

No doubt defenders of the Libyan "legal system" would say the same things.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/the_tripoli_six_revisited.php

Need to figure out all those pesky facts and see who is to be believed.
 

Aw, you caught us. That's right, all lawyers are Libyans, here to subvert the legal (and medical) system by imposing competing views of facts and theories upon the simplistic.

SHG
 

Scott, It is only a difference of degree and you know it.

Illinois had 13 innocent men on death row.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/penalty_5-10.html

Libya only has 6 innocent medics on its death row.

Tell me Scott, when you select jurors, do you look for the smartest, most logical, most discerning, most perceptive, best educated ones? Or do you like them "simplistic"?
 

daed:
re: "I am surprised that those in the legal profession don't see this as a problem that needs to be addressed."

Trust me daed lawyers do see the issue. The problem is they directly profit off of the problems with the system. Lawyers run this country. Nothing will change. The verdict against flea had nothing to do with justice. it was about playing lawyer games to get a W. Ms. Mulroy is a good example of what is wrong with the legal system in the US. Scottie can pontificate all he want but the fact is:

A: Flea settled on the second day right after....

B: Ms. Mulroy threatened to unmask him at the end of the first day.

Only an idiot (or someone so biased they have their head's in the sand) doesn't see an association between the two.

What a fucked up legal system.