On Thursday, 27 March, the nation's first class-action trial concerning breast implants opened in New Orleans. Thousands of women say that their implants leaked, and caused illnesses, including arthritis, lupus, and scleroderma.

What's interesting here is that more than 25 peer-reviewed clinical studies proved quite conclusively that silicone leaks do not cause these diseases. In fact, the rates of the illnesses in the very large cohort of women with implants is about the same as in the general population. This is really no surprise. In ANY group of more than 1 million people, there is BOUND to be incidence of all kinds of conditions!!

Look at it another way. We can "prove" that wearing underwear causes car accidents. How? Well, gosh. Just about every driver involved in an accident is wearing underwear, right? Therefore, the underwear must be the cause.

Nonsense, you say. And, of course it IS nonsense. But, how did you decide that such a conclusion is invalid? It is because such "reasoning" goes against your everyday experience, and inherent common sense. Unfortunately, the affected women have no such resource to draw from, on the silicone matter.

Worse, they are victims in at least two ways: They HAVE contracted some kind of disease, and now they are being exploited by the rapacious plaintiff's lawyers, and their equally rapacious medical accomplices.

All that Science can offer are clinical studies. These have exonerated the silicone--but it doesn't matter. "Victimism" being what it is these days, nothing matters (the truth included) more than compensating the victims (and by the way, their attorneys).

The adversarial form of "justice" is to blame. Somebody always has to win. It is seldom Society at large. Does anyone believe for a moment that O. J. Simpson is innocent? Yet, because of a superior defense team, he was acquitted.

In a surprising way, the Inquisition format was probably a better way to mete out Justice. Why? In the Inquisition, in a sense, it was everybody against the defendant--including his lawyer. If he was being prosecuted for rape, and really committed the crime, the defense lawyer wanted him convicted. Why would he want a known rapist freed? He has daughters, too.

Moreover, the Inquisition prosecutor wants to convict, but certainly doesn't want the reputation of jailing innocent men. In these proceedings, the only thing that DOES matter is the truth.

Have we really progressed since the Middle Ages?

To further demonstrate the futility of the adversarial legal system, try applying this approach to Medicine.

A patient is diagnosed with breast cancer. Dr. A. presents his argument for a treatment protocol. But wait. Dr. B. has a totally different approach. They each bring in their experts. After much debate, the medical jury determines that Dr. A's method is correct. He has won the case!!

One problem, though. The patient has already died. This is tragic, but doesn't affect the total scheme of things. Dr. A's reputation has grown. He can now be part of the medical dream team.

People protest that letting a patient die (read: freeing the guilty) hurts society at large. The experts and the media assure us that this is just a small price to pay for having such a fair medical system. After all, the patient's rights, and both the doctors' rights were being protected. She didn't have to succumb to the wrong treatment, and each doctor was able to defend his methods in an open forum. What could be fairer?

And here's a bonus: No one can claim victim status. The paternalistic system took special care to protect everyone's rights. She just inconveniently died before the system had a chance to complete its course. Kind of like getting murdered by a violent repeat offender out on bond....