Survey: Half of primary-care doctors would leave medicine

According to CNN:

Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.

The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.

According to the survey, 49% said they would consider walking away from medicine because they are "overwhelmed" by the red tape created by insurance companies and government entities.

Also interesting to note was the effect this growing sentiment could have on the future of medicine.

A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.

...

And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.

"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."

And let's not forget one of the primary factors driving a distaste for a career in medicine: lawsuits and the effect they have on medical malpractice insurance rates.

To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers....

This is a sad state of affairs.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...

Lord Justice: Web-savvy young make bad jurors

This is an aspect of jury selection we frequently discuss with our clients: Younger, web-proficient jurors tend to make worse, less receptive jurors.

Young people brought up with the Internet are not used to listening for long periods and would not make good jurors, according to the most senior judge in England and Wales.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor - Telegraph

In a speech, Lord Judge of Draycote, the Lord Chief Justice, said it might be better to present information for young jurors on screens because that is how they were used to digesting information.

He said: "Most are technologically proficient. Many get much information from the Internet. They consult and refer to it. They are not listening. They are reading. "One potential problem is whether, learning as they do in this way, they will be accustomed, as we were, to listening for prolonged periods.

"Even if they have the ability to endure hours and days of sitting listening, how long would it be before some ask for the information on which they have to make their decision to be provided in forms which adapt to modern technology?

He said: "Our system of jury trials depends on 12 good men and women and true coming to court and listening to the case. Orality is the crucial ingredient of the adversarial system.

"Witnesses speak and answer questions. Counsel speak and address the jury. Judges speak and give directions."

Currently information is provided on screens to jurors, such as in complex fraud trials, but "not without difficulty and with great expense", he said.

Younger jurors, sometimes called the MTV Generation, have been brought up on 24-hour news, frenetic action movies, incessant advertising, feverish competition for their attention and disposable income, and more consumer choices than ever imagined. Call them the IGIG, or Instant Gratification Internet Generation.

These jurors, when they need an answer to a question, acquire the information as quickly as they can type into Google or Wikipedia. When I was growing up and needed the answer to who the 23rd Vice President was (Adlai Stevenson--I just Googled it), it was essentially the Dewey Decimal System or nothing.

Anyhow, it's not surprising that jurors accustomed to obtaining information and consumer goods in mere seconds, could become impatient with a judicial system set up to slowly introduce information from both sides over the course of weeks.

Although the article does not explore this, shorter attention spans can also be dangerous because these jurors--accustomed to quickly forming opinions about complex issues based on soundbites and 3-minute news pieces--also tend to quickly take a stand on their trial verdict, before opening arguments conclude. This is a concern with jurors of all ages, genders and races, but in our experience is more prevalent among young, attention span-challenged jurors.

So how do you find out if a juror is web-savvy? In our experience, the simplest is asking whether they belong to social-networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace, or if they Twitter or maintain a personal blog. In addition to being an indication of web-sophistication, obtaining this information can also provide insight into how beneficial or unfavorable that juror could be.

If a juror has a web page on a social networking site, it allows our jury selection team to look them up and glean basic information not included in (or removed by opposing counsel) the juror questionnaire. Jurors may have revealed certain information about themselves on their web pages related to lifestyle, personal outlook, or political views. Even if the page is set to "Private," at the very least confirming a juror has a page can be an indication they are more web-savvy than those without.

Lastly, this topic highlights the importance of presenting all jurors with simple, effective visual presentations in addition to simple, effective themes that play to their predispositions and IGIG tendencies.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, YOU WEB-SAVVY YOUNGSTER

CNN: Juror who vanished from Stevens trial went to California horse race

Your jury system at work, everyone:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A woman who had been a juror in the criminal trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens told a judge Monday she made up a story about her father dying, so she could go to California for a horse race.

The judge last week initially accepted her story about a family emergency, but was later unable to reach her to learn when she would return.

Here's where it gets good:

"I feel bad about missing the last day or two of the trial," [Marian] Hinnant said following Monday's hearing. "I do not feel bad about going to California."

...

"I couldn't think of a, well, on Thursday afternoon, they'd not finished deliberating, so I thought by then we would be through, and I came home and I thought, 'Well, I'm going,'" she said. "My plane leaves at 6 o'clock in the morning, so I called him (the judge) up and told him my father died, in
California."

Sullivan closed the matter without any punishment against the woman for her absence.

It's not as if this is a trial centered on someone being slandered on the internet--this is a political corruption trial of a major, extremely powerful U.S. Senator.

Look, I understand jury duty is the butt of a lot of jokes and very few people are genuinely excited about getting $5 a day and a brown bag lunch, but it is a civic duty. And just because it isn't Disneyland, it doesn't give people--especially those who have already committed to serve--the right to play hooky with no consequences.

By the way, check out the Comments section of the article to gauge America's reaction. CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...