19 ms·

That is interesting, but the study you cite concerns medical malpractice lawsuits. Determining that a doctor was negligent in such lawsuits no doubt involves di

by byset 7y ago

That is interesting, but the study you cite concerns medical malpractice lawsuits. Determining that a doctor was negligent in such lawsuits no doubt involves difficult issues, but issues perhaps far less complex than those at play in the Roundup lawsuits, where, as the parent comment said, the jury must decide "does glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer."

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> the Roundup lawsuits, where, as the parent comment said, the jury must decide "does glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer." The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable.
- windexh8er 7y ago
  > The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable. I'm curious how you draw this conclusion. While many substances may not, with 100% reproduction rates, cause a particular response there can be a majority that happens when excessive or improper exposure happens. If you're saying the question is unanswerable because it's not 100% guaranteed you'll get cancer, but say 67% chance then that's proof it did cause cancer in the subset. In this case it appears there has been suppressed study data which points directly to the outcome which brings into question, for the jury, the morality of the organization selling the product which are likely influencing reference points for a jury.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Isn't it the case that the standard of proof here is 'via a preponderance of the evidence' (it is more likely than not) rather than the criminal trial 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? That seems decidable.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    You have situations like the following: - The age-adjusted baseline rate of a particular type of cancer is, say, 1%. - An age-adjusted 2.5% of people in an afflicted community have been diagnosed with this type of cancer. This is a huge increase above baseline. - By implication, of people in the community with a diagnosis of this type of cancer, 40% of them would have cancer anyway for reasons unrelated to whatever is being sued over, and 60% of them got it "because" of whatever the problem is. It isn't possible to make any distinction between those groups at the level of an individual case. There's no difference in the cancer.
  - ABCLAW 7y ago
    McGhee v National Coal Board is probably the most instructive case on the matter. It brought a 'material increase in risk' test to apply to the causation step of analysis. The case has been widely cited and has had international impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGhee_v_National_Coal_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGhee_v_National_Coal_Board Your jurisdiction might deal with things differently, but this case has had international adoption, as the framework deals with scientific uncertainty fairly elegantly.

by byset 7y ago

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> the Roundup lawsuits, where, as the parent comment said, the jury must decide "does glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer." The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable.

windexh8er 7y ago
> The system isn't set up to answer or ask the question "did it specifically cause this cancer", because that question is known to be unanswerable. I'm curious how you draw this conclusion. While many substances may not, with 100% reproduction rates, cause a particular response there can be a majority that happens when excessive or improper exposure happens. If you're saying the question is unanswerable because it's not 100% guaranteed you'll get cancer, but say 67% chance then that's proof it did cause cancer in the subset. In this case it appears there has been suppressed study data which points directly to the outcome which brings into question, for the jury, the morality of the organization selling the product which are likely influencing reference points for a jury.
sokoloff 7y ago
Isn't it the case that the standard of proof here is 'via a preponderance of the evidence' (it is more likely than not) rather than the criminal trial 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? That seems decidable.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  You have situations like the following: - The age-adjusted baseline rate of a particular type of cancer is, say, 1%. - An age-adjusted 2.5% of people in an afflicted community have been diagnosed with this type of cancer. This is a huge increase above baseline. - By implication, of people in the community with a diagnosis of this type of cancer, 40% of them would have cancer anyway for reasons unrelated to whatever is being sued over, and 60% of them got it "because" of whatever the problem is. It isn't possible to make any distinction between those groups at the level of an individual case. There's no difference in the cancer.
- ABCLAW 7y ago
  McGhee v National Coal Board is probably the most instructive case on the matter. It brought a 'material increase in risk' test to apply to the causation step of analysis. The case has been widely cited and has had international impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGhee_v_National_Coal_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGhee_v_National_Coal_Board Your jurisdiction might deal with things differently, but this case has had international adoption, as the framework deals with scientific uncertainty fairly elegantly.