 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010What is the correct way to read this sentence?
The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually written incorrect? " The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had received legal aid funding to carry out his study, through lawyers acting for children whose parents believed their autism was caused by the MMR jab and wanted to sue the manufacturers. It was alleged that he had not revealed this to the Lancet, which then retracted part of the paper." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-downfall I can't see how the first part of the sentence (to do with legal aid funding) could have anything to do with the "lawyers acting for children" in the second part of the sentence. FIRST. As I understand it funding for legal aid does not come via lawyers. Perhaps the author means funding was _arranged_ by certain lawyers. SECOND. If legal aid funding was in fact arranged by lawyers who were themselves also acting for the affected children then what is so remarkable or incorrect about that? On 28 Jan 2010, Reader wrote > The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem > clear to me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > aid funding) could have anything to do with the "lawyers acting > for children" in the second part of the sentence. > FIRST. As I understand it funding for legal aid does not come > via lawyers. Perhaps the author means funding was _arranged_ by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who were themselves also acting for the affected children then > what is so remarkable or incorrect about that? The problem, I think, is that if legal aid funding that was obtained to sue the manufacturers was used to fund Wakefield's study, he should have disclosed to The Lancet that the study was commissioned in support of legal action (as opposed to being independently funded).  SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to > me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > themselves also acting for the affected children then what is so > remarkable or incorrect about that? Another article on the same site says 'One of the key claims was that Wakefield accepted more than £50,000 from the Legal Aid Board for research to support a group of parents' attempts to fight for compensation.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-doctor-fail-children-gmc That's a lot clearer. 'Legal aid funding' brings up the image of a legal aid lawyer providing the money. The Legal Aid Board presumably can donate or pay out money in any way allowed by the rules governing their group as well as hiring legal representation for the poor. Your article also implies that the lawyers for the children were in some way responsible for getting the money out of the Legal Aid Board and to Dr. Wakefield. Paying money to someone in the expectation that his research will give you the results you want is ethically a bit iffy. At the very least, it opens the researcher to accusations of conscious or unconscious bias in favour of the results the financial supporters want. SignatureCheryl On 28 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote > Another article on the same site says 'One of the key claims was > that Wakefield accepted more than £50,000 from the Legal Aid [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > conscious or unconscious bias in favour of the results the > financial supporters want. Yes, and I think the main complaint is that a study commissioned, in effect, as expert witness support for litigation -- whether funded by legal aid or not -- isn't supposed to be presented for publication in a professional journal as an independent study. (Or at least not without clearly stating the circumstances under which it was commissioned.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > at least not without clearly stating the circumstances under which > it was commissioned.) The Lancet has the following instructions to authors: "At the end of the text, under a subheading 'Conflicts of interest', all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of financial conflicts include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patents or patent applications, and travel grants, all within 3 years of beginning the work submitted. If there are no conflicts of interest, authors should state that." SignatureJames >> Reader wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >at least not without clearly stating the circumstances under which >it was commissioned.) My query was about this sentence: " The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had received legal aid funding to carry out his study, through lawyers acting for children ..." etc. I think you're saying it should be read as follows: "The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had received [money to] carry out his study [which had been awarded to fund] for children ..." etc. In other words, lawyers funded Wakefield's medical study from money given to them for legal aid work. Is it me being unusually thick today or do you think the original sentence is almost impossible to read correctly from the way it has been written? >>> Reader wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >In other words, lawyers funded Wakefield's medical study from money >given to them for legal aid work. Correct. They did so completely legitimately. >Is it me being unusually thick today or do you think the original >sentence is almost impossible to read correctly from the way it has >been written? I think that the writer might say that the phrase "legal aid funding" can refer only to legal aid money received by the lawyers from legal aid funds adminstered by the Legal Services Commission (for England and Wales). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 28 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> My query was about this sentence: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > Correct. They did so completely legitimately. Yes. AIUI, where Wakefield flouted professional rules, conventions, and guidelines was in not making this clear when he submitted the research for peer review and publication. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >My query was about this sentence: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >received [money to] carry out his study [which had been awarded to >fund] for children ..." etc. Wakefield, prior to the study, had established commercial links with the solicitor Barr to explore the possibility of claiming for vaccine damage for autistic children. Legal aid had, unusually, been provided to the claimants to fund basic research. Barr paid Wakefield (as well as a variety of assorted American crackpots) and Unigenetics to work on the case. The commercial laboratory in Ireland used for the analysis, Unigenetics, had also previously been set up by Wakefield and O'Leary for the sole purpose of carrying out analysis for the MMR litigants through Barr. >In other words, lawyers funded Wakefield's medical study from money >given to them for legal aid work. Not quite, the money was given to the parents, albeit on the understanding it would be used to fund research into the problem. >Is it me being unusually thick today or do you think the original >sentence is almost impossible to read correctly from the way it has >been written? No. Wakefield did not reveal the source of his funding. It was subsequently found that the samples examined by Unigentics were contaminated in their laboratory and the claimed finding of measles virus was wrong. Without this finding Wakefields hypothesis collapsed. > >>> " The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had > >>> received legal aid funding to carry out his study, through lawyers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/andrew- > >>> wakefield-downfall . . . > I think you're saying it should be read as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sentence is almost impossible to read correctly from the way it has > been written? The obvious error is the comma following "study." Wakefield actually received money (however used) from lawyers pursuing their clients' interest. The sentence is long enough to demand punctuation: but any punctuation between "funding" and "lawyers" misrepresents the grammar of the sentence. The scandal is not (necessarily) that legal aid funds were spent on epidemiological investigations; it is that when submitted to The Lancet (a peer-reviewed professional journal) the interest of the paymasters were not disclosed. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > The scandal is not (necessarily) that legal aid funds were > spent on epidemiological investigations; it is that when submitted > to The Lancet (a peer-reviewed professional journal) the interest > of the paymasters were not disclosed. Both were scandalous. The Legal Aid Board is not authorised to fund research projects and were in effect tricked into doing so on the basis that the money was part of the doctor's fee in supplying expert evidence in the case. >> The scandal is not (necessarily) that legal aid funds were >> spent on epidemiological investigations; it is that when submitted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >projects and were in effect tricked into doing so on the basis that the >money was part of the doctor's fee in supplying expert evidence in the case. Agreed. SignatureRichard Miller >The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to >me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >themselves also acting for the affected children then what is so >remarkable or incorrect about that? Legal aid was granted to fund a group action on behalf of children who had developed autism and on whose behalf it was claimed that there was a link to MMR. As part of that funding, the Legal Services Commission authorised the lawyers to fund, through legal aid, research by Wakefield into the possible connection between MMR and autism. This was unprecedented. Legal aid is often granted in order to secure a report from an expert on whether the known evidence supports the supposition that a causal link exists between the alleged wrong and the alleged harm. Legal aid has so far as I am aware never before or since been granted to enable the expert to carry out a study to find out whether the link exists. That is quite simply not what legal aid is for, and it was a gross waste of public money. The reason it is so improper is that if the study had not yet been done to prove a link, then the doctors who gave the MMR jab could not conceivably have known of such a link, and therefore could not have been negligent in failing to advise of the risk or offer alternatives. Despite that, the Legal Services Commission still got badly slated in the press when they belatedly took the correct decision to pull the funding for the MMR case. SignatureRichard Miller > In message <l9i3m5tm1s3968eu7t754lppucr7pknpbv@4ax.com>, Reader > <unclear_reading@english.writing> writes [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the press when they belatedly took the correct decision to pull the > funding for the MMR case. Interesting. Well put. Do you work in the law? >> Despite that, the Legal Services Commission still got badly slated in >> the press when they belatedly took the correct decision to pull the >> funding for the MMR case. > >Interesting. Well put. Do you work in the law? Yes, I have done for 20 years. SignatureRichard Miller >>The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to >>me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > press when they belatedly took the correct decision to pull the funding > for the MMR case. Although your account is well put, it is probably not accurate in every respect. The claim did not depend on proving that the doctors who administered the jab were negligent. It depended on showing that the vaccine was defective and that this could or should have been rectified by the manufacturer prior to distribution. So it is not accurate to say that Wakefield's study, funded by the LSC, would have been a waste of time and would have taken the case no further. It would have been one important link in the chain in proving that the MMR jab could cause injury. It was however plainly inappropriate for the LSC to fund studies at public expense. Pay for a report from Wakefield, yes. Not pay for him to do research to back up his theories. The LSC decided to withdraw funding for the case, and that of course meant not just funding for Wakefield's studies but for the lawyers pursuing the claim. That was a bold and sensible step. Unfortunately the LSC has often funded hopeless claims and probably continues to do so, because it fails to apply any objective scrutiny and relies to a great extent on the solicitors and counsel it is funding to supply the advice about the prospects of success. Worth reading, anyway: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/155.html (decision to withdraw funding) Press report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3494360.stm and http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2003/1376.html (mothers and fathers in dispute about whether or not children should be immunised) >> Legal aid was granted to fund a group action on behalf of children who had >> developed autism and on whose behalf it was claimed that there was a link [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >and http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2003/1376.html (mothers and >fathers in dispute about whether or not children should be immunised) Thanks, that's a useful correction. It still seems to me, though, that if it was not previously proven that there was a link between the vaccine and autism, it would be impossible to argue that the alleged "defect" could have been rectified. SignatureRichard Miller Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted >if the study had not yet been done to prove a link, then the doctors >who gave the MMR jab could not conceivably have known of such a link, >and therefore could not have been negligent in failing to advise of the >risk or offer alternatives. But the manufacturer could have been. So could the Medicines Control Agency. The onus is on these organisations to prove that a medicine is safe before it is marketed. It is not a defence to say "oh we didn't think of checking for a link to brain damage". SignatureLes Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out to be linked to serious offences. >Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted >>if the study had not yet been done to prove a link, then the doctors [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >safe before it is marketed. It is not a defence to say "oh we didn't >think of checking for a link to brain damage". I disagree. They cannot disprove every conceivable occasional adverse reaction before authorising a drug. SignatureRichard Miller Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted >>Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> posted >>>if the study had not yet been done to prove a link, then the doctors [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>safe before it is marketed. It is not a defence to say "oh we didn't >>think of checking for a link to brain damage". >I disagree. They cannot disprove every conceivable occasional adverse >reaction before authorising a drug. Of course, but they have a statutory duty to search for adverse reactions. If they fail to discover a serious reaction that subsequently emerges in clinical practice, then they certainly can be found liable. At least the manufacturer can be. This has happened to a great many pharma and medical device manufacturers in the past 10 years, and some of them have had to pay enormous sums in compensation. The regulator can usually escape liability by showing it followed standard practice. But in principle it too is exposed. All that *could* have happened with MMR. In the end it didn't, but that wasn't known in advance. That's why we do medical research: to find out things that we couldn't have known in advance. SignatureLes Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out to be linked to serious offences. > The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to > me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually > written incorrect? Your comprehension is incorrect. > " The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had > received legal aid funding to carry out his study, through lawyers [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lawyers. Perhaps the author means funding was _arranged_ by certain > lawyers. Legal aid only comes via lawyers. The lawyers get the funding, to pay their fees and disbursements. Here, they commissioned medical reports from Wakefield and his fees included (in effect) the cost of running his studies, which the lawyers should have refused to pay but presumably they paid, recovering the money from the Legal Aid fund. > SECOND. If legal aid funding was in fact arranged by lawyers who were > themselves also acting for the affected children then what is so > remarkable or incorrect about that? Because any research arranged in those circumstances isn't objective and impartial, but is designed to help establish a claim. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.