Somehow John Ritter’s Widow’s remarks following the not-guilty verdict of two physcians angers me to no end.
“I disagree with the jury’s decision but I believe in the system and I respect it,” said the widow, Amy Yasbeck. “It inspires me even more to find, with these brilliant medical minds, a path to diagnose aortic diseases.”
So what is she saying? It seems to imply that she realizes that brilliant medical minds cannot always definitively diagnose and treat aortic dissection. And yet she disagrees with the jury? And why did it take a jury of non-medical laypeople to convince her that the medical minds involved were brilliant? Could neither she, nor her lawyer, nor the media, nor the hospital’s lawyers convince her of this? So all someone has to do is choose not to believe something that is evident, and then sue numerous physicians and the treating hospital as well? In a case that took nearly five years to settle?
Are you with me on this or am I crazy?