I don't really have anything to say

I was going to go home because I didn't really have anything to say. Then it turned out I forgot my keys in the computer, so now I'm here anyway, so I feel like I might as well post. But I still don't really have anything to say...

There are light switches on the end of every book shelf in our library.

My commute is one constitutional conversation long.

The characters on Bones keep saying VIN number. This is incredibly frustrating. It's a vehicle identification number number! Like ATM machines, HIV virus, PIN numbers, and other examples of RAS syndrome (redundant acronym syndrome syndrome).

In contracts we are talking more about enforcing promises, and in torts we are establishing the fact that being a doctor is the worst idea ever. We must have talked about at least five malpractice cases recently, and doctors just don't have it easy where the law is concerned. For example, doctors are sued for mistakes all the time, but what makes them liable in a tort is their failure to meet a standard established by others in their profession behaving reasonably. This seems reasonable, right? But in this case where a young-ish lady had glaucoma, her doctors didn't perform the necessary test to figure that out because in their profession that test wasn't required for people less than 40 years old. So they didn't do it, and then she sued them. The court found they were still guilty because the test is painless, so doing it incurs no risk to the patient. So even though they were operating at the standard that was nationally accepted, they were still found guilty because the court decided to increase that standard (seemingly arbitrarily).

This is also a problem for me because it's not as though there is no reason at all to refrain from performing the test. I'm sure the test costs something to perform, and the incidence rate of glaucoma in young people is minuscule, so unless every other young person agrees they want to have this test performed and to pay for it, I'm not sure asserting these doctors did anything wrong. If the court said they should have realized the necessity for the test from symptoms presented or something along those lines, I could see how that would point to negligent behavior, but what they said in their ruling was they "had a choice between finding for an innocent victim of glaucoma or specialized doctors," and they couldn't bring themselves to rule against a victim they knew was innocent, so they went the other direction.

There is an interesting note in my book with which I am sympathetic as well. It basically questions how we justifiably blame doctors. Firstly, the fact that you can't even find them guilty except for negligence is telling. It is just assumed that you can't sue a doctor for intentionally harming patients. By the very nature of their profession they are trying to help, so negligence is the only way to go about taking them to court. Taking this one step further, is it perhaps incorrect to hold them negligent in most situations? In order for negligence to be viable, you must prove a person had a duty, they breached that duty, and that there is a causal relationship between the breach of duty and the harm that resulted. But the book points out that this causation can be questioned, because is it really the doctor that is causing the harm, or is it the disease (or whatever their problem is), which is certainly not the fault of the doctor. The patient wouldn't be in the situation, obviously, if there wasn't something already wrong with them, and we are already willing to stipulate that doctors only want to help. Maybe court cases are actually good at sorting this out, generally, but, like my professor said, "we don't deal with the easy cases." So I suppose my perception could be warped by the stuff to which I'm exposed.

Another topic we are dealing with is what standard to apply when talking about a reasonable expert in a profession. Obviously we want to compare doctors to doctors, but what about cases where doctors just don't have the same access to technology, resources, or other necessary equipment? Do we hold the hospitals liable for not having enough funds, because a person could die for lack of a machine for sure. Originally the courts applied a standard of care that looked at people in similar positions, so a rural doctor would only be judged by his performance relative to other rural doctors. However, this presented major problems in that rural doctors could then get away with anything by just all deciding not to do a particular thing. Or by not testifying against each other if something went wrong. So now we use a national standard, which seems appropriate, but again, if we hold Hicksburg Community Hospital to the same level as Mayo Clinic, we are probably doing something wrong. It's a tough line to draw. Luckily, the court is supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, and these "rules" can be explained by judges in ways that are supposed to uphold fairness, but that's not a perfect system by any means.

Well, I've watched all the new TV shows, and I am hungry. And I need to read a bit more stuff. And while I could perhaps do that here, for some reason it goes faster when I'm not in front of a computer. Until I get out my phone, of course.

I'm surprised at how little I miss a TV. I only really miss watching football (and probably other sporting events in other seasons), but it's really not a huge loss. I guess you just adapt to whatever you have. I am glad I found this computer lab though.

I played handball tonight, though it was mostly just for fun, since I was never really challenged. I can't wait for league to start later this month so I can be guaranteed a solid match at least once a week. It's pretty cool that I'm incredibly confident playing any of the people at the University though, since when I got here I readily acknowledged they were better than my previous competition, and now I'm beating them with scores similar to what I was winning with in Ames. I beat David 21-3 today, for example, and he's not a bad player by any means. I think I also adapt well to my opponent once I play them a few times, though, so it doesn't really help when you go into a match blind. Hopefully I can just get enough experience among different players here that I'll always have an analogous style to draw upon when I'm thinking about what will work against a brand new opponent.

Music Interrupted

I was expecting your call
while the rapper in my ear
rhymed seamless rhythm
quick and smooth
then halted.

And so did my breath
catch
my pulse
pause
as I snatched, possessive
and began to answer
already forming words
trembling
tongue-tipped
teetering.

I was ready to gush
ready to pour out
exuberance
over the slightest hint
overflowing the bowl
as your pittance
your single cornflake
doused in milk
dissolved
and dipped
over the edge
drained down the sink
as my words fell fruitless
filled excuseless
and meant all the less for it.

And then the rapper
resumed
his hitch a glitch
and I thanked the shoddy
spotty internet
for showing me my sham.