Not a very tactful remark, I admit, but one born of my years of arguing with people of the sort who talk about aboriginal people a lot but have met very few.

Hear hear.

FXH -

following your line of argument then most people shouldnt have an opinion or influence on foreign policy, war, refugees, mandatory sentencing, seperation of powers, investment, childbirth, live sheep exports, woodchip policy in Tassy, blogs

No that’s not his argument. His argument is that people should maybe learn something about the issue they’re discussing before they open their gob. Imagine how political debate would improve if we all made the effort to acknowledge our own limitations and simply tried learning things?

I’ve read your piece and find it insightful.

However, I am left wondering what sort of ‘talking head’ I might be. If you have time, please read my latest post. I’d really like to know your (as an intelligent commentator) thoughts on my opinions on this issue…

However I am also guilty of propping up the Tyranny of the Faraways. I think the same as you about the faraways, but the NT to me is my bush. Its just there and don’t really give a stuff. I’d like to change my thinking on that but I’m stubborn and until something goes our way out here, you can keep waiting.

The slippery slope argument. A good start but a little cliched. Next logical fallacy please.

Surprisingly, a great deal is known about the psychology, dynamics and effect of apologising for negligence and errors although practically none of it is reflected in the debate over the apology to Aborigines, stolen and otherwise.

The most intensively researched field lies in medicine where, like the previous Howard government, doctors have been historically extremely reluctant to admit to mistakes and often paralysed by fear of litigation, well-founded or otherwise.

In the ABC Radio National program The Health Report in July 2002, Norman Swan spoke with Merryl Green, a person who nearly died as an adverse result of a caesarian section. It is worth reading the transcript in full, but here are a few excerpts:

Doctors I think are so keen sometimes to communicate that they are not responsible for an adverse event that it is received by the patient as if the patient was somehow responsible. And Ive actually spoken to a lot of patients, and I could give you quite a few examples, where patients have been of that view. In fact I often used to say to people if Id known I was going to be responsible for stuffing up my own caesarean I would have done it myself, that way I wouldnt have been surprised at the result.

But (my husband, who is a lawyer) was of the view that given that what I wanted was to get an explanation that was satisfactory to me and some expression of regret from the hospital, that pursuing litigation wouldnt help. He knows from his own experience of people whove received very large sums of money and whove been happy with the money, but it hasnt actually helped the pain.

One of the things that I became very interested in was wanting to know what review mechanisms there existed at that hospital to review my adverse event. Funnily enough, the Australian Health Care Study had come out in the June just prior to me having the baby and I remember hearing that 18,000 people were supposed to die due to adverse events, and I remember thinking to myself Ive never heard anything quite so ridiculous. But after my adverse event, my perspective on that changed somewhat. Id pursued a range of things to try and come to an understanding of my adverse event, and one of the things that I did was to get in contact with the hospitals Freedom of Information officer to ask about how my adverse event was reviewed, and also how adverse events in general were reviewed. And she told me that this major Sydney womens teaching hospital didnt have anything written down, didnt have a policy on how they reviewed adverse events, which I found just stunning, I couldnt believe they could go into a public hospital perfectly healthy and nearly die, and there wouldnt be some procedure that set out what you had to do.

So there you are. It’s these patients’ own faults, you see; they will all want to sue you if you give an inch; shit happens; people die; that’s just the way things are…

Remind you of anything?

Of course every case is different and anecdotes only take us so far, but people like Charles Vincent, Professor of Psychology at University College, London, whom Swan also talks to during the program, have systematically studied the subject.

And here, as a bonus, is a paper by two Australian lawyers, “Disclosure of Adverse Events: An Integral and Necessary Part of the Treatment”, again referring to adverse medical events.

It is disappointing that there has nonsense talked about the purpose and likely effect of the Aboriginal apology.

How many members of the ALSF have ever spoken to an aboriginal person? My guess: very very few.

How many members of the ALSF have had an aboriginal person in their homes? My guess: none.

They haven’t got a clue, yet they (this Andrews character in particular) pontificate like they are experts. Why anyone should pay them any attention is a complete mystery.