RE: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees

BLHamrick wrote:

<<It is different than the fear caused by a potential murderer, for example, who fails his (or her...as if) goal, because the intent of the murderer is to DO you harm, so the fear has a basis in the knowledge that there was an event that actually threatened your life, and the intent was to actually take your life, and your life would have been taken by that event but for some intervening, possibly arbitrary, action. This is entirely different than an event, which is completely unplanned, and which does you no harm, did not intend to do you any harm, and nothing specific prevented the event from doing you harm, because it was in its essence a harmless event. >>

I'm not an attorney Barbara, but I see this a little differently. Let's take a different example, and it's not really off-topic; I think there's a close parallel. Let's say that a woman is told by a malicious individual that the man she was with until recently has AIDS. Not knowing she's being set up, she's told the same thing by several other people. Thoroughly distressed and embarrassed, and convinced that what she's been told is true, she buys an EPT and it says she's pregnant. Not wanting to bring a child into the world w/ AIDS, she goes in for an abortion and dies (or pick your own nightmare) from complications. (BTW, how many of those 10,000? women died from abortions post-Chernobyl?) No intent to murder/maim/disfigure, but the end result was the same. Now what's the outcome? I think some of the real victims (like the 10,000 women) have a valid claim against the purveyors of fear.

Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: BLHamrick@aol.com [mailto:BLHamrick@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:01 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees

As one of our Ruths pointed out, it is Friday night, and so a little off-topic philosophizing might possibly be excused, right?

In a message dated 03/08/2002 7:45:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU writes:

It is the APA that makes such statements. I only quoted and paraphrased it. I also based it on how I have seen it applied to intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress with PTSD as the evidence indicative of an injury.

As Shakespeare said, "First, kill all the lawyers" (myself excluded, of course). One of the problems we face today is the result of an aggressively litigious society. Someone must pay, right? If it's not my fault, then I must find whose "fault" it is, and force them to pay.

The problem with this is that it is that, for many, it is human nature to deny oneself is to blame under any circumstances. Thus, the fact that one is ignorant about the effects of low-level radiation, would rarely be found to be the "cause" of PTSD resulting from a frightening experience involving a potential low-level exposure, although perhaps that should be introduced as a defense (I'd love to give that theory a shot on someone else's dime).

Furthermore, as you point out, Mr. Lavely, in the TMI case, the NRC wasn't sure what to do, nor the State of PA, and the media exacerbated this situation with alarming news reports. Perhaps the media should be sued for the intentional infliction of emotional distress...I wouldn't mind pursuing that legal theory either.

If PTSD is caused by an event where there is no actual physical harm from the agent causing the fear, then the person causing the event is not to blame, unless they are the ones that subsequently drum up the fear. In the case of TMI, e.g., TMI causes the event, which causes no harm, but the NRC, the State of PA, the media, and the ignorance of the residents effectively create a state of panic. Who's to blame?

At some point, we, as a society, must accept that there are risks taken for the ultimate benefit of all. Nothing is 100% safe, ever. But, how should we parcel risk of being scared of something that doesn't harm us, except for the fear we experience that it might harm us? That's the question the PTSD from TMI poses.

It is different than the fear caused by a potential murderer, for example, who fails his (or her...as if) goal, because the intent of the murderer is to DO you harm, so the fear has a basis in the knowledge that there was an event that actually threatened your life, and the intent was to actually take your life, and your life would have been taken by that event but for some intervening, possibly arbitrary, action. This is entirely different than an event, which is completely unplanned, and which does you no harm, did not intend to do you any harm, and nothing specific prevented the event from doing you harm, because it was in its essence a harmless event.

I don't see this as a question of psychiatry at all, but a question of who is fiscally responsible for irrational fear. Is it the entity creating the harmless event that you irrationally fear, the government entities or media exacerbating your fear, or your own ignorance that creates the potential for that fear? Who, as a society, should we be holding responsible for this kind of risk? If we acknowledge that this is a legitimate risk, then how do we parcel that risk out?

Frankly, if we do anything under the color of law, I would like to see us move toward equalizing those risks across the economic strata (put an LLRW site in Newport Beach, e.g.). I'd rather balance our risks with an environmental justice model, and stop courting the irresponsiblity of the ignorant plaintiff that can either afford an attorney, or has the time to find one willing to bet his firm on a big money toxic tort case a la Ed Masry.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Barbara L. Hamrick