Thanks to all for comments on the previous post. FWIW even Darling Spouse has weighed in, saying that I don't know all the facts and so I'm getting all upset over Flea for nothing.
I'll grant that consensus seems to be congealing into a general impression that Flea was foolish for blogging his trial as it was happening, and arrogant/cocky for thinking he could get away with it. Some have even gone so far as to imply that this means that Robert Lindeman, the physician (as opposed to Flea the blogger) was also arrogant and cocky, and therefore "got what was coming to him."
Here's a wild and crazy thought, though: since when does arrogance per se constitute medical malpractice?
Don't get me wrong; I think that, by and large, arrogant doctors are lousy doctors. They tend not to communicate well with their patients, so they tend not to be the best diagnosticians (hit TV series notwithstanding.) But I am forced to admit that there are individuals with specialized technical skills that provide tremendous benefit to patients (cough**CT surgeons**cough.) These folks tend to be arrogant as hell and would probably rub anyone -- including most juries -- the wrong way. But do they -- or anyone else -- deserve to have their medical care judged by their interpersonal skills?
Although a doctor's personality, appearance and demeanor on a witness stand are seen as proxies for behavior with patients, I fail to see how actions (or writings) outside the courtroom or exam room have any relevance to the questions that come up in a malpractice trial. I know that's how the world *does* work. My question is, should it? I say no.
Believe me; no one's more surprised than me to find me, of all people, defending arrogant pricks. I suppose I have an unhealthy attraction to that alien concept known as "Justice."