I have twice, during my career, been in the courtroom, being tried in front of a jury of 12 other citizens, having been legally accused of willful negligence which caused the death of another human being. The attorney for the plaintiff, in each case, made the statement to the jury, as part of his opening statements, that these terrible accusations were nothing personal. That attorney said he was aware that I had done many good things for other people, and may be a good physician, but in this particular case, had been too ignorant and/or too lazy to do the right thing for this other human who was dependent on me, thereby causing needless and preventable death. This ploy is, in my experience, one of the games that attorneys regularly play. They want to make it appear to the jury that they are not really out to destroy a productive citizen’s life. They are making all these awful accusations, they say, because they are obliged to do so for a family that needs justice, needs compensation for this terrible wrong that was done against them. I must say, it was well done. It made them appear to be champions of truth and justice, rather than greedy barristers who were simply trying to find ways to put unjustified money in their own pockets.
So before the actual trail was ever begun, this civic minded jury already had multiple sets of lies in front of them, to sort through as best they could, in order to do the right thing for the plaintiff or defendant. While I have made many dire mistakes in my career, taking care of other people in their time of need, it wasn’t because I was not always trying to do the right thing. For every bad thing that happened to a patient because everything did not go as planned, or I made the wrong choice of those choices available, or could not be there when I should have been, I humbly and sorrowfully plead for forgiveness from the bottom of my soul. Those deficits were not true in these cases, however. I was fighting an extensive cancer in one case, and in the other, a weak heart which could not take the strain of surgery, which became more extensive than we anticipated. Perhaps at this time, I would have made different and better choices; at that time I made the best choices I could, based on the information available. I was trying to give each of those patients a longer and healthier life, and failed miserably in each case. It was incorrect that I had wilfully made the wrong choice of those treatments available for these patients. It was incorrect that I had not diligently attended to their needs at all times. It was incorrect that these accusations were not personal. They were extremely personal, with emotional turmoil that contributed to subsequent marital mistakes on my part, those contributing to divorces and great financial loss.
This judicial deceit continued throughout each of those trials. During the first, the plaintiff’s attorney withheld facts about the pathology report that were terribly damaging to his case, but emphasized the long term suffering of this patient in the ICU before his demise. That attorney also hired an expert witness who gave false testimony against our group, stating that there was an intestinal leak, whereas none was found by our radiologist in his report, and none was present on further review of those imaging studies. In the second case, the attorney put up a flow chart showing the course of that patient’s demise and heavy bleeding, stating that I had allowed that man to bleed to death. He declined to show that I had responded to that heavy bleeding by giving transfusions, and that the patient had responded by sequential improvement in his anemia with each of those transfusions. He declined to put into evidence the postoperative electrocardiogram that demonstrated a postoperative myocardial infarction. He declined to reveal that this patient was an alcoholic who was already living on borrowed time. That attorney also paraded the deceased patient’s son in front of the jury, to show that he had birth defects, and would need prolonged and expensive medical care, emphasizing how necessary it was for some type of monetary compensation to provide for this unfortunate child. Deceptions were piled on top of other deceptions. They were all a well-disguised destruction of my character, my devotion to my job, and my career long attempt to do whatever was needed to meet my patient’s needs, many times at the expense of my own family’s needs. The plaintiff’s attorneys knew they had to destroy my character in order to put money in their own pockets, and that’s why they deceived.
Although those trials were Kafkaesque, hearing all kinds of terrible things said about me which I believed to not be true, and cringing with that falsification of the evidence by deception, I found these trials to be a fascinating revelation as to the actual ways our legal system works. I wondered if the jury would see through those deceptions or not, and felt that, win or lose, I had already lost many of those things that were most precious to me in my life, up to that time. I knew that I would in many ways simply have to start over. It took every ounce of extra energy that I had in order to present a better case to the jury than that the plaintiff’s attorney had prepared. I had to show more knowledge as to the evidence in the chart, had to show that I had all times deeply cared for that patient and was doing whatever I could to help him through this crisis, and had to put more evidence in front of the jury than the plaintiff’s attorney. I could not depend on my attorney to do it. He did not know. I had to educate him, had to educate the jury, and finally, educate the accusing attorney as to the errors of his arguments. The only thing I had on my side was the truth. If I didn’t bring that truth out, with all the effort that I could muster, the jury would never know. Fortunately, they did; they saw through that deception enough to render the correct verdict, in both those cases.
Having survived those trials and having been able to keep going in life, in spite of the devastation in love and personal comfort that was left behind, I found them to be a great revelation in understanding of the games that attorneys play, of the great greed that many show, of the dominant egotism that many possess, and of a value system that does not correspond to the value system that all the rest of us are admonished to follow. We are all told that we should, at all times, follow the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We are told that we should always try to figure out what is right and wrong, and then do what is right. We are told that we should always love our neighbor. These, however, are not in practicality, the rules that attorneys follow. Their supreme definition of right and wrong is whether you win or lose in these intense court battles and legal wrangling. Winning is right; losing is wrong. They may profess to follow other value systems, but this is the practical value system that drives most of them in their work. It is not just my observation; many have directly told me that this is precisely how they work; they always look for the easiest solution. It does not matter which side is morally right or wrong.
Now, attorneys are extremely smart people. They are, in general, more capable at swaying opinion than most all the rest of us. They understand how society operates better than all the rest of us. They know exactly what a person can get away with, and what a person cannot get away with. They are, in their moments of conscience, trying to pass laws which will help the greater population. They understand that the universe is made up of balance, and that if there is not an antagonist as well as a protagonist, there is no case. They believe that both sides in any argument should have equal opportunity to state their case. They are the first to cry foul, when they perceive that there has not been a level playing field. They are the first to claim that they stand for the rights of all people when they protest about unfair advantages, in one way or another. For much of this, we are extremely grateful. We have the magnificent fortune to live in a country where there is opportunity for those who have been wronged to state their case in a court of law. We are deeply grateful to know that we cannot be accused without the opportunity to defend ourselves against that accusation. We are tremendously grateful to live in a country where there is an intent to provide equal opportunity between the accuser and the accused. Much of the world does not have this immense gift of a potential equal forum. We have laws that are obeyed, and deeply caring government officials who do their best to keep us from harm, by following those laws. We are so greatly blessed to live in a country where those who cheat, rob, murder and destroy, are usually made to pay for their transgressions. We are deeply blessed to have a system of justice, which gives voice and listens to both sides of an argument.
In spite of these blessings, however, our legal system also has severe flaws. What we have is a legal system, which on one hand, proclaims to be fair and honest, but on the other hand, plays games with our lives. Lawyers take on cases which they believe will give them monetary compensation in some way. Then they go through a period of discovery, which both sides are supposed to play fairly. Letters and counter letters appear, veiled threats and counter threats appear, and confrontational depositions are taken. At the end of that discovery period, both the antagonist and the protagonist size up their chances of winning or not winning, should that case come to court, and then make their demands, followed by counter demands. None of this has anything to do with justice. It is all about figuring out what you think you can get away with in front of a judge or jury. The actual trial, if it comes to that, is a strategy game of the highest order. It is all about who can make the best show in front of a jury. Each side stretches the truth in any way they can, makes whatever outlandish claim they think they might get away with, and doesn’t care whether what they state is right or wrong, as long as it makes an impression on the jury that will play to their advantage. This also means that whoever has the greatest resources to hire the most convincing manipulators of the facts, is the participant most likely to win that court trial. The O. J. Simpson trial is ample proof of this statement. Our legal system allows the wealthy to have much greater advantage than the accuser or defender who has no money, even though we have a country which prides itself upon providing the antagonist and the defender equal opportunity to state their case in front of their peers.
We are terribly proud of the values on which this country was founded. We say that we live in the land of the free, the home of the brave. We sing these statements in our national anthem before every sports game that is played, and fervently believe that we are stating the truth. The truth, however, is many times far different. Before we become too proud of our country, we should pause to consider that it is run, for the most part, by lawyers. This is the same profession that, although they may profess other values, follows, for probably the majority of their members, the practice of whatever wins is right, and whatever loses in wrong. Our president, our White House Staff, our Senators, our Congressmen, all profess many things, but have this very simple game that they play: if we win it is right, and if we lose, it is wrong. Every decision that they make, in the majority, is based on this simple rule of these games that they play. The decisions that they make are based on whether or not it will get them re-elected. The decisions that they make are based on whether or not it will give them more power. The decisions that they make are, much of the time, based on whether it will put more money in their pockets or not. They don’t seem to care whether the laws they pass are bankrupting this country or not. They appear to be only concerned about passing legislation that will make them more popular with their constituents. They all promise many things when they are running for election. Once elected, they do whatever it takes, to take advantage of those self-administered gifts of offices that none of the rest of us have, and do not do what is best for us, but what is best for them. I apologize for saying so, but believe it to be true: our national congressmen and women are, much of the time, great hypocrites
For the above reasons, in my opinion, we should all look at our government, and our nation, with a highly jaundiced eye. I deeply admire and am humbly proud of those veterans who fought for our country in multiple wars abroad, and gave of the most precious parts of their lives in order to serve their country with the most that they had to offer. I remember, much too clearly, when I served as the Chief of Surgery at the Cincinnati Veterans Administration Hospital, seeing these soldiers come back from the Viet Nam war with missing limbs, deep ugly non-healed wounds, struggling traumatic personality disorders, and personally destroyed lives. I often had the feeling that they had given needlessly, as they tried to re-establish civilian lives. The Viet Nam war was, in my opinion, a totally unnecessary war, fomented by our lawyer politicians, goaded by American business interests, to try to control a part of another nation’s destiny that we had no place to enter. I remember, and still have, to this day, immense sorrow at seeing our nation take advantage of these trusting, believing soldiers in order to protect their own governmental economic interests. If there are any who, at this time in our history, believe that the Viet Nam war was ethically correct, I am intensely sorry for you. I have bone deep respect for all who have fought and have given for the defense of this country. I have no respect, and actual antipathy, toward those who made this awful decision. You can find those views reflected in an article published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, after an interview with me, while I served as Chief of Surgery at the Cincinnati Veterans Administration Hospital.
Our nation has some outstanding values and beliefs in moral behavior. It has had a beginning which is unexcelled by any other nation at any other time in the history of civilization. It has had creators who understood in their souls the necessity of division between church and state. We had founders who understood that morality of the right for citizens to pursue life, enrichment, and happiness. Our nation is by no stretch of the imagination, however, ethical in any way. It is run by lawyers, who by training are taught greatly unethical practical behavior: winning is right, and not winning is wrong. No decision made by our nation, using these unethical values, should be respected without question. We certainly should support our nation. We certainly should be humbly grateful for a country which professes freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equal opportunity in a court of law. We should not, however, blindly accept whatever our country asks us to do. That request is almost always flawed by misdirected congressmen, influenced by business interests. It is our obligation, as citizens of a most wonderful nation, to question every demand that they place upon us. Our nation will not become more ethical, unless we, its citizens, and the body from which it derives its powers, demand that it become more ethical, rather than selfish.
These are the same reasons as caused the fall of the Roman Empire: there was a growing disparity between the rich and the poor; there was an attempt to protect Roman interests throughout the known world at that time, and control what happened in all of the rest of the world, in order to protect their own business interests. They did not care about the welfare of any other nation or people; they only cared about their own welfare. These are exactly the same events as are occurring in our country at this time. The Roman bloat, and subsequent collapse, is upon us. We are the modern example of the failure of a powerful government to provide equality of opportunity for all its citizens, and at the same time extend that grand failure even further, by treating many of the citizens of the world with disdain.
Nationalism, willingness to serve our country, and patriotic fervor, yes. Great and humble respect for all those who have given whatever they could give for their country, a soul deep yes. Unquestioning national servitude, no. Ethics demands a great deal more of us than that. Ethics demands that we do our best to provide all our citizens with the greatest opportunity to exist and pursue fulfillment. Ethics, as here defined, demands that we, and our nation, extend those same rights to all other citizens of all other nations. If our nation asks us to perform unethical behavior, then we should protest, and act otherwise.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.