Only the consents you sign are intended to protect your doc from suits. Everything else is to fulfill a government regulation e.g. CMS or a mandate of The Joint Commission. Ever notice how your doc hardly looks at you during an office visit bc s/he is too busy punching on a laptop? Yep. Documentation to fulfill a government regulation e.g. CMS or a mandate of The Joint Commission. I currently work for a med mal defense firm. The things people sue for is absurd. Don't get me started. We need to get rid of unreasonable people.

And Cosby says otherwise. So.....

What I do know.... Why refer to a source if you can't trust it and have to fact check it?

Huh??? In the vast majority of cases the woman is believed whether she is being truthful or not.

I fully agree that most victims do not come forward for many reasons.

I ran into a few law students at the U of MN who had been raped at one time or another and/or sexually assaulted and I do not think any of them reported the incidents. And some of these were while they were in law school by other law school students. And I could not do much about it because of the social networks at law school which were often how one got a hold of the all important law review outlines of the such-and-suchs classes. These outlines made the class a lot easier. And all I had for evidence was some friend who claimed x did y. I did warn other friends to stay away from some person but never went into why.

Follow the money

My doctor has actual conversations with me, face to face, eye to eye. He also pauses between subjects to type into his laptop all the information we'd discussed. When I get home, I can see everything he's put in, from my own computer.

Transparency is awesome.

So if your best friend in the whole world, who you trust with your life, came to you and said "the earth is flat" you'd just believe him because you trust him?

You wouldn't ask "where did you hear that?"

And if he told you he saw it on a news website that you also trust, you wouldn't wonder where THEY heard it from? Which scientist informed them of this fascinating tidbit of news?

Perhaps you're not interested in learning new things, expanding your knowledge base, or making sure that you are *accurately* informed of things.

I'm very interested in knowing stuff. So I look up things when "someone said" something.

You think so? No. No, you do not. There are pieces and parts of a patient's medical record that is not in your portal.

Well, at least the federal government don’t have to pay the nursing bill anymore. The law only applied to the unconnected, or disconnect.

Fatty Arbuckle's story is an interesting one. A movie star that got taken down by what looks like a false accusation of rape and manslaughter. They do happen. But my younger brother was hearing jokes about Bill Cosby's behavior when my younger brother was a rental car person at the Reno, Nevada airport. Cosby played at the casinos there if memory serves. Bill Cosby was a frequent visitor to Northern NEvada They did hear warnings about getting too close to Bill Cosby.

Roscoe Arbuckle - Wikipedia

No one has written as to why Cosby was freed and protected from further prosecutions for his druggings and sexual assaults. He was facing civil suits from his victims. The statute of limitations was nearing its limit. The local prosecutor told Cosby that they would NOT use anything he said in the civil suit to prosecute him. So Cosby told the truth, or some of the truth, in his civil suit including that he had given drugs to women to lower their resistance to sex with him.

The prosecutor then used that testimony to indict and try Cosby. The court ruled that the promise of the prosecutor to not use his civil court testimony was binding, like a promise of immunity. It then vacated his conviction as it depended on prohibited information. Yes money talks and it buys good lawyers too. But the rule of law is important and the court seems to have gotten this one right even though it allows a likely guilty man to walk.

It is not clear what this promise was with respect to which cases would not be prosecuted criminally. Certainly not all of them. Only the one in that jurisdiction of the prosecutor. Bill Cosby is a free man after Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns sex assault conviction - CNN

The Statute of Limitations probably would have run out on all these cases though no matter what jurisdiction.

It should be pretty clear what kind of man Bill Cosby is though. He is a pathological liar who preyed on women for a long time and got a way with it because of his fame and fortune.

Not true at all in this day and age. Thats in the old days

So, a criminal prosecutor agreed not to prosecute Cosby for a crime so that a plaintiff in a civil court case could get money from Cosby? That sounds like obstruction of justice and illegal. Why is a criminal prosecutor even involved in a civil court case?