Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
The British Medical Journal just published a piece called:
“It’s not rocket science” and “It’s not brain surgery”—“It’s a walk in the park”: prospective comparative study. Several of the authors were neurosurgical registrars. A registrar is the British equivalent of a resident.
I’ll let the authors set the stage:
Objective: To compare cognitive testing scores in neurosurgeons and aerospace engineers to help settle the age old argument of which phrase—“It’s not brain surgery” or “It’s not rocket science”—is most deserved.
Participants: 748 people (600 aerospace engineers and 148 neurosurgeons). After data cleaning, 401 complete datasets were included in the final analysis (329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons).
Main outcome measures: Validated online test (Cognitron’s Great British Intelligence Test) measuring distinct aspects of cognition, spanning planning and reasoning, working memory, attention, and emotion processing abilities.
How did the authors find participant subjects?
The Internet.
Anyone who self-identified as an aerospace engineer or a neurosurgeon in the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, and Canada was eligible to participate.
This study was publicized via email and LinkedIn through our collaborators. The Society of British Neurological Surgeons and the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation cascaded the invitation email to respective members. The UK Space Agency advertised the study on LinkedIn and through their partner organizations. The Royal Astronomical Society advertised the study in their June members’ bulletin. The European Space Agency advertised the study via its mailing list. To ensure responses were genuine, access to the study website was restricted to listed members of these groups and the study was not publicized on social media platforms.
Most of the respondents were outside the US.
Both groups comprised more males than females (72.8% of aerospace engineers and 71.6% of neurosurgeons). Most of the aerospace engineers were based in mainland Europe (n=459, 76.5%), whereas most of the neurosurgeons were based in the UK (n=108, 73.0%).
How did our subjects do?
Oh, you want it in plain English?
Results: The neurosurgeons showed significantly higher scores than the aerospace engineers in semantic problem solving (difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.52). Aerospace engineers showed significantly higher scores in mental manipulation and attention (−0.29, −0.48 to −0.09). No difference was found between groups in domain scores for memory (−0.18, −0.40 to 0.03), spatial problem solving (−0.19, −0.39 to 0.01), problem solving speed (0.03, −0.20 to 0.25), and memory recall speed (0.12, −0.10 to 0.35). When each group’s scores for the six domains were compared with those in the general population, only two differences were significant: the neurosurgeons’ problem solving speed was quicker (mean z score 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.41) and their memory recall speed was slower (−0.19, −0.34 to −0.04).
Oh, you want it in more straightforward English?
Of the 6 cognitive domains tested, neurosurgeons “won” one; aerospace engineers “won” one. In the other 4 domains, neurosurgeons and aerospace engineers performed the same against each other and against the general population.
The cognitive profile of aerospace engineers and neurosurgeons was broadly similar. No significant difference was found in four of the six domains (see supplementary figure 2); however, neurosurgeons showed increased semantic problem-solving ability (P=0.001). This problem-solving task was derived from scores for the rare word definition and verbal analogies tests. This difference might relate to setting, with the neurosurgeons mainly from the UK and the aerospace engineers mainly from mainland Europe—although English as a first language was not a major confounder in the original study. Alternatively, the exposure of neurosurgeons to Latin and Greek etymologies in medical education could have conferred an advantage in defining rare words. Conversely, aerospace engineers showed increased abilities in mental manipulation and attention (P=0.004), which are critical to engineering disciplines and actively taught, suggesting perhaps that this ability is amenable to training
The researchers concluded:
In situations that do not require rapid problem solving, it might be more correct to use “It’s not brain surgery,” but in situations where rapid information recall is needed this phrase should be avoided. It is possible that both neurosurgeons and aerospace engineers are unnecessarily put on a pedestal and “It’s a walk in the park” or another phrase unrelated to a career might be more appropriate. It is also possible that other professions might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving group.
I nominate this above-referenced article for an Ig Nobel Prize.
What’s that, you ask?
The Ig Nobel Prize is a satiric prize awarded annually since 1991 to celebrate ten unusual or trivial achievements in scientific research, its stated aim being to “honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think.”
Organized by the scientific humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), the Ig Nobel Prizes are presented by Nobel laureates in a ceremony at the Sanders Theater, Harvard University, and are followed by the winners’ public lectures at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2021 Ig Nobel Prize winners can be found here.
Notable winners:
Entomology Prize:
John Mulrennan, Jr., Roger Grothaus, Charles Hammond, and Jay Lamdin, for their research study “A New Method of Cockroach Control on Submarines”.
REFERENCE: “A New Method of Cockroach Control on Submarines,” John A. Mulrennan, Jr., Roger H. Grothaus, Charles L. Hammond, and Jay M. Lamdin, Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 64, no. 5, October 1971, pp. 1196-8.
Chemistry Prize:
Jörg Wicker, Nicolas Krauter, Bettina Derstroff, Christof Stönner, Efstratios Bourtsoukidis, Achim Edtbauer, Jochen Wulf, Thomas Klüpfel, Stefan Kramer, and Jonathan Williams, for chemically analyzing the air inside movie theaters, to test whether the odors produced by an audience reliably indicate the levels of violence, sex, antisocial behavior, drug use, and bad language in the movie the audience is watching.
REFERENCE: “Proof of Concept Study: Testing Human Volatile Organic Compounds as Tools for Age Classification of Films,” Christof Stönner, Achim Edtbauer, Bettina Derstroff, Efstratios Bourtsoukidis, Thomas Klüpfel, Jörg Wicker, and Jonathan Williams, PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 10, 2008, p. e0203044.
Economics Prize:
Pavlo Blavatskyy, for discovering that the obesity of a country’s politicians may be a good indicator of that country’s corruption.
REFERENCE: “Obesity of Politicians and Corruption in Post‐Soviet Countries,” Pavlo Blavatskyy, Economic of Transition and Institutional Change, vol. 29, no. 2, 2021, pp. 343-356.
In sum, who’s smarter. Brain surgeon or rocket scientists?
I can’t say the matter is fully settled. Certainly, there are some very smart neurosurgeons. (Full disclosure, I was rooting for the neurosurgeons.) And there are some very smart aerospace engineers. And there are some very smart baristas.
What do you think?
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2021 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
The study is fundamentally flawed because aerospace engineers are not rocket scientists.
The IgNobels started at Kresge Auditorium at MIT. The two ceremonies I attended were there, but the Sanders Theater at Haahvahd is larger, so more people can watch. The first time something like it was tried was before the Annals of Improbable Research started: it began its life as the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Probably the best article in it dealt with “At last, blessed relief from percentorrhea,” written by a then-intern who had noticed that all important percentages were between 15-25 and 75-85. So if you’re on rounds and your prof asks “what percentage of Chiari 2 malformations are accompanied by myleomeningocele?” you can reason that it seemed that it was pretty common, so you answer “72-83%, depending on the series.” And your prof thinks you’re a genius as he clarifies “actually, it’s 77%” because he just read that article.
IgNobels themselves are clever. One year that I watched, the Ig (as we call it in the biz) for LIterature went to the NEJM, which had published a two page article with something like 140 authors, for an average of 3.2 words/author. The E-in-C declined to attend, sending his secretary instead. She read a very short prepared statement from him saying that he’d “rather have a. root canal.” The following year, the Ig for Literature went to a Russian inorganic chemist who, in the prior decade, had published something like 940 refereed articles, or one every few days. They gave an honorable mention to “Transplant” Tom Starzl that year for having his name on 155 articles the previous year.
One year the prize for medicine or biology went to someone who measured the time it took male mammals to urinate. turned out to be a remarkably constant 17 seconds, but m mostly they were young animals–humans seem to be the only species that get big prostates.
[It will be interesting to see when women start getting BPH. If men can get pregnant….]
Regarding engineers vs neurosurgeons, I’d observe that people have looked at this qualitatively before. In a general way…
An excerpt from one of my favorite books, Up The Infinite Corridor by Fred Hapgood. The Infinite Corridor is an east-west hallway at MIT, the main one, in fact. The book is nominally about MIT. Fred didn’t attend, but his brother graduated from there. He quotes Elting Morison, a professor and historian of science and engineering, referring to the turn of the century–the one that ushered in the 20th century:
“Engineers in those days moved almost always through atmospheres of doubt and controversy. And it did not help very much that the thing that was said to be impossible while they were building was taken, when they had finished, to be a wonder. It is not surprising, therefore, that, having to trust their own private calculations of natural forces amid the incalculable noise of the crowd, they developed in time into independent, austere, and utterly self-confident men.
“In their letters, anecdotes, and memoirs, there is not much humor, less wit, and very little hail-fellow-well-met. What does come through is respect for certain oft-mentioned abstract virtues…honesty, accuracy, fidelity. One of the type had carved on his tombstone only the word “Veritas,” and truth in structure is what they all learned to live by. Here and there in their memoirs the members of the elite revealed the name of the power that allowed them to empty themselves into the moment, to pick out the flow of changes that counted, to read the meaning of a shift in temperature or intuit a pool of stress building in a shaft or rope; the power that set them apart and touched their small number with success. They called it a sense for ‘the fitness of things.’
“A sense for the fitness of things was a gift, like any other extraordinary sense. It could not be taught; the old engineers were quite explicit on this point. Those who had it were engineers in their souls, even if they chose to throw away their legacy by going into law, whereas 30 years in the profession could not make those lacking the gift into engineers.”
This applies to a lot more than just engineers. Certainly those of us w ho founded neurointerventional surgery were every bit as much engineers as guys who design rockets. If we weren’t, we never would have gotten as far as ignition, save liftoff. And fuhgedddabout treating aneurysms transfemorally [ = clearing the tower and proceeding downrange, if one might continue the metaphor]. It isn’t so much about intelligence as it is about recognizing that there was no box to think outside of and just being able to be creative. I’m not sure how creativity and intelligence intersect.