And the Oscars went to... New bill would grant doctors immunity for saying, “I’m sorry.” Did Flipper deserve human rights? Losing and finding love, American Muslim style.
And the Oscars went to...
Film critics weren’t too far off in their predictions for who would nab awards this year at the Oscars. “The Artist,” a chronicle of Hollywood’s shaky shift to “the talkies,” topped critics’ lists with highly touted nominations for best picture, best director for Michel Hazanavicius, and best actor, for its French lead Jean Dujardin. The black-and-white silent film won those exact three top Oscars at the 84th Academy Awards Sunday night.
Film critic Roger Ebert dubbed the night a very “French Oscars”; for the first time ever, a French actor and a French filmmaker won awards for those categories. “The Artist” also won in costume design and original score. The film was running against Director Martin Scorcese’s kids adventure “Hugo,” which racked up 11 nominations and took home five awards: cinematography, visual effects, art direction, sound mixing and sound editing.
Earlier in the night, Octavia Spencer won supporting actress for her role as a bold maid in the 1960s civil rights era drama “The Help,” and Christopher Plummer won supporting actor for his role in “Beginners.” Film critics nominated Viola Davis for best actress, but Meryl Streep snagged the unexpected win. Fresh (or slightly crumpled) from the red carpet, L.A. Times film writer John Horn joins Larry in-studio to dish about Sunday night’s winners and losers.
Guest:
John Horn, Film Writer, Los Angeles Times
Film Trailers:
The Artist
The Help
Hugo
The Descendents
New bill would grant doctors immunity for saying, 'I’m sorry'
In 2006, actor James Woods’ brother Michael died of a heart attack at Kent Hospital in Warwick, R.I. Woods, a native of Warwick, sued the hospital, claiming emergency room staff members were negligent and didn’t do enough to save his brother. In the end, Woods settled the lawsuit primarily because a Kent hospital executive subsequently apologized.
This Wednesday, Woods is set to testify before a state legislative committee in support of a new “benevolent gestures” bill, introduced by Rhode Island Representative Joseph McNamara, which would allow doctors to apologize for the outcomes of negative treatment, but prohibit those apologies from being used against them in malpractice lawsuits.
There are 36 states that currently have apology laws in one form or other. Most exclude admissions of sympathy (“I’m sorry”) from being used in malpractice suits. Eight states also exclude admissions of fault (“I screwed up!”) as evidence of guilt. California law protects doctors if they choose to apologize, but if they admit guilt, that could be used against them. Research shows that medical malpractice claims tend to drop off when health practitioners apologize for mistakes and other harmful outcomes.
The climate of deny-and-defend might be shifting, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for doctors and nurses to express regret – or that it happens regularly. Malpractice is an ugly system that can quickly become adversarial. It’s not unreasonable for doctors who’ve been creamed by malpractice suits to be hesitant about admitting to any less-than-perfect outcomes.
The full pdf of the proposed bill:
WEIGH IN:
But should they anyway? What are the pros and cons of apology laws? Do they protect doctors at the expense of patients? Or all they good prescriptions for everyone? If you’re a doctor, have you ever told a patient you were sorry? How’d it go? As for the rest of you, can you remember a time a doctor EVER ‘fessed up to being fallible? Did it make a difference?
Guest:
Robert M. Wachter, MD, Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); Author of the forthcoming 2nd Edition of Understanding Patient Safety; and Chair-Elect of the American Board of Internal Medicine
Did Flipper deserve human rights?
The star dolphin of that wholesome 1960s TV show “Flipper” helped popularize the notion that marine mammals are intelligent, individual and worthy of our respect. Now, a new proposal seeks to formally enshrine rights for dolphins and whales and end any maltreatment.
Last week, the “Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans” was presented at the biggest annual science conference in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The advocates, ethicists and scientists that drafted the statement believe dolphins and whales are intelligent enough to merit the same ethical considerations as human beings.
They say a major facet of that intelligence is that cetaceans can exhibit self-awareness at a human-like level. A study by Lori Marino of Emory University shows that dolphins and whales have brains as anatomically complex as human beings, reported the Economist. Spindle cells were found in the cetacean brain, a part associated with higher cognitive functions in humans, such as abstract reasoning.
“Science, over a long period of time, clarifies issues and raises new issues that, say 30, 40 years ago, we weren’t seeing as significant issues,” said Thomas White, member of the Helsinki group that created the declaration.
According to White, improved research has shown the absolute centrality of relationships to a dolphin’s lifestyle, something essential to a dolphin’s basic rights as an intelligent being.
“In the wild, they’ll spend up to one third of the day [...] making contact with one another. You put a big-brained being in the ocean, how do you survive? You can’t survive by making tools and buildings, you’re going to survive by making relationships,” he said. “There is no way you can provide, in a captive environment. There’s no way you can replicate the conditions that you see in the wild that support the kind of emotional development, emotional health and stability.”
Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason magazine, said he supports the effort to protect intelligent creatures, but disapproves of giving cetaceans “rights.”
“One of the central features of ethics and the notion of rights is that the sorts of rights bearing creatures also have to be responsible for their actions. Entities that are incapable of accepting responsibility, like a child, or an animal, even a very intelligent animal like a chimpanzee or dolphin, can only be accorded protections, not rights,” he continued.
Furthermore, Bailey said that language is critical in regards to the notion of rights. “What would constitute rights from the point of view of dolphins? How would they assert among themselves the concept of what rights are, if they don’t have the concept of abstract rights that language affords us?” he asked.
WEIGH IN:
How is animal intelligence measured? How does marine-mammal intelligence compare to that of cats, honey bees, primates and homo sapiens? Is dolphin captivity akin to slavery? What makes a human distinct from all other animals?
Guests:
Thomas White, Professor of Ethics, Loyola Marymount University; author, “In Defense of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier”
Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason magazine; and author of "Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution"
LAO releases updated economic forecast for California
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office just released its updated economic forecast report for California. According to the report California’s economy is on it’s way to recovery, but persistent joblessness remains a problem and the housing market is still in trouble. The report points out that although some sectors of the economy are ailing corporate profits are up and the tech industry is booming. Tax forecasts for the state are slightly better than the LAO’s last report. Then they said the governor’s tax forecasts was off by $6.8 billion, they’re now saying tax revenues will be $6.5 billion dollars less than projections from the governor’s office.
According to the report, if their numbers hold it will trigger more big cuts to the state budget. The report also includes revenue that will be generated by a possible initial public offering of stock by Facebook, Inc. We’ll crunch the numbers with KPCC’s State Capital Reporter, Julie Small.
Guest:
Julie Small, KPCC's State Capital Reporter
Losing and finding love, American Muslim style
Do Muslim women fall in love, or do all of them succumb to arranged marriages? Is an arranged marriage completely loveless in the first place? What happens if a Muslim woman is lesbian? How does she reconcile both identities?
Those questions are left answered and unanswered in “Love, InshAllah: The Secret Love Lives of American Muslim Women.” InshAllah means God willing. It’s an anthology of 25 love stories told by American Muslim women.
Editors Ayesha Mattu and Nura Maznavi say they compiled them to show that Muslim women aren’t so different from those of other faiths and cultures. “We really wanted to shatter the stereotype held by many that Muslim women are a monolith -- that we are all submissive, repressed and lacking agency over our lives,” said co-editor Maznavi.
In this collection, no two stories are alike and each tale is more than a simple love story. That’s partially because the women come from a variety of backgrounds – black, white, Arab, converts, lesbians, Sunni, Shia, South Asian. The stories are told with raw honesty and vulnerability. They share complex, underlying themes that these women face as they navigate hybrid identities while searching for a sense of belonging as Muslims – many of them daughters of immigrants – in the United States.
WEIGH IN:
How do American Muslim women navigate love, culture and identity? How do faith and love intersect? What’s it like to struggle between honoring culture or religion or both without losing who you are?
Guests:
Nura Maznavi, Co-Author, “Love, InshAllah: The Secret Love Lives of American Muslim Women” (Soft Skull Press); Civil Rights Attorney & Writer
Nijla Mumin, Contributor, “Love, InshAllah: The Secret Love Lives of American Muslim Women”; Film Student