Malpractice Books

I've been in grad school for the last eighteen months (my Kindle was a gift for graduation.) This was the first book I've read for pure enjoyment in quite a while and I simply couldn't put it down.

Dr/Mrs. Hazzard is a fascinating character. Any reader of serial crime will find her and her husband to be quite interesting.

Loved it.

I think that if I had just read the second part of the book, the part about the attempts to bring this woman to justice, I would have liked it a lot more. My problem was that I didn't get any sense of how the medical community was viewed by people in the era portrayed in the book. I found myself getting so angry at the people for not doing SOMETHING. I think that if the author had done a better job of putting the situation into context, I would have had an easier time of it. He did a wonderful job of transporting me to the era physically, but emotionally, not so much. I found myself getting irritated more than feeling sympathetic to the ladies' plight. I feel like he could have done a better job putting me in the mindset of the time when an "osteopath" was a primary care physician. Perhaps then I could have enjoyed the first half of the book more thoroughly.

Typically, I read true crime set 1980-present, but I am glad I stepped out of my comfort zone to check out this incredible book. "Starvation Heights" is a masterpiece, backed by a level of historical research most will find impressive. I believe the book was set sometime between 1910-1920 (back in the days when we didn't have very good forensic science), so Gregg Olsen needed to rely on interviews, news reports and conjecture.

This made for fascinating reading! I was able to tackle this book in a single weekend and enjoyed every last moment. I work as a physician recruiter and could not believe "Dr. Hazzard" was allowed to do all the harm she did before someone finally shut her down. It's interesting how we trust our doctors more than common sense sometimes.

Well, in conclusion, check out this creepy, twisted book and enjoy! You'll never believe how enjoyable historical TC can be.

I'm a bit of a historical true crime buff (even have my own blog on the subject), and this is leaps and bounds the best historical true crime book I have read. It is top notch in research and telling, and as other readers have mentioned-you will NOT forget this book and the horrors the sisters endured.

As good as a good fiction novel, Starvation Heights is not to be missed.

Dr. Linda Burfield Hazzard is a name one will never forget after reading this unique true crime story. Set in the early 1900's, the so called Dr. takes advantage of the sick and wealthy by providing a new "fasting treatment" that eventually leads to their deaths.

However, through one woman's courageous battle for life and to avenge her sister's death because of the starvation cure, Dr. Hazzard is brought to justice.

As an avid reader of true crime, I was amazed at this story. It is truly hard to imagine the likes of Linda Hazzard and the fact that something so sinister occurred at the turn of the century. Linda is a cold hearted woman who stops at nothing, not even murder, to attain notoriety, wealth and fame.

Although Linda is found guilty of her crimes, it is ironic that she only serves a few years in the penitentiary and comes away with writing books about her cure and begins to practice her starvation cure once again.

This is a book one cannot not put down as it is well written and researched, and the reader begins to empathize for those who lost their precious lives because true medicine had failed in the quest to become healthy.

As a former analyst, I'll reiterate what you've seen said elsewhere, that it's very realistic. As to the way it was presented, the only thing I was unhappy about here was the fact that the book ended . . . not the way it ended (which was fine), but the fact that it ended at all. I wanted to keep on reading and reading and reading and reading. It was that good!

I am no financial genius, yet I've enjoyed books on the subject by several other authors, among them Michael Ridpath, however "Conflicted," was truly a textbook. It gave all the facts, M'am, but I read for education AND enjoyment. There was no way I could enjoy the minutiae of every single task and moment in the offices of this screwed up environment. If true, as many of you who work in the industry attest, then I wonder how we are still afloat. I found the sexual behavior quite disgusting - mainly the whole trading floor cheering a scene on the roof of an adjoining building. So, all in all, this book taught me there are no morals, very little honestly, and ethics only when they must have them in the world of the traders.

I should have read the comments before reading this stinker. To my credit, I skimmed ----- a lot.

I enjoyed this book and I suspect that the complexity of the subject is better treated in a novel than an essay but I found myself longing for a little more Kurt Anderson-Tom Wolfe-Charles Dickens than I got from Michael Culp. I don't know what any of the characters look like. So many comic and satirical opportunities rise up and disipate without really getting those belly laughs or drawing the reader along. Nice book for those of us who eat and sleep this stuff but could have been a great novel.

Step inside the shoes of David Meadows, the Director of Research, at a large New York brokerage firm. The Director of Research mediates between the stock analysts, the firm and the world at large. 'Conflicted' gets it's title from the intrigues that go on behind a 'Buy' or 'Hold' rating a high-paid analyst gives a stock and how markets can be manipulated.
I specifically enjoyed the author's (a former Director of Research himself) use of language, dialogue and the glimpse afforded into the lives of those who influence financial markets.

Sigh, I wanted to like this book. I really did. There is a lot of room for someone to write a whole series of business books that do for business what has been overdone by Grisham, Turow, et al., in the legal world.

But this book isn't it.

I could not decide whether to give the book 3 or 4 stars. Initially I selected 3 stars as I thought the book was average but allowed myself to be swayed by the prior reviewers. I ultimately gave it a 4 out of respect for the author's talents and knowledge as a malpractice attorney. As most of the prior reviewers, I am a physician as well.

The book does a good job of laying out the fundamental issues involved with malpractice. However, I didn't find any of the recommendations particularly innovative. Rather, all seemed simply based on commmon sense. For example, physicians should place mechanisms so that test results are actually reviewed upon completion, physicians should get informed consent, physicians should not practice outside their area of expertise, etc. Most importantly, physicians should avoid falling into an adverserial relationship with their patients. Hmm.

I surmise that the author is a very talented attorney and very knowledgeable with regards to malpractice. However, I think that the large part of malpractice suits stem from a emotional response to a bad outcome. Therefore, the key ingredient to avoiding a lawsuit is the last point made above. Patients tend not to sue those that they like regardless (up to a point) of a bad outcome.

Although the book probably suffices for med students in teaching them the basic procedures required to clearly stay out of trouble - time would be better spent teaching a good bedside manner as a deterrent against lawsuits. Most practicing doctors should have caught on to the advice in the book by now.

Pithy, succinct, and spot on. Excellent explanation of malpractice claims for those of us who are not lawyers, and detailed yet simple advice how to prevent a lawsuit. Highly recommended.

This book is short and is easy to read. It contains useful information based on research data to support health professionals adopting certain behaviors to minimize the risk of patient dissatisfaction and potential malpractice litigation.

A quick primer on malpractice lawsuits followed by methodical explanations of the simplest yet most effective techniques to preclude them. Excellent book.

My malpractice insurance company sent me a copy of this book, which I wish I'd had before I was sued a few years ago. It lays out in detail the best strategies for physicians to prevent malpractice lawsuits before they happen.

As physicians, we all know to practice the best medicine we can. But this book explains how to improve the quality of our medical practice by means other than medically. The author calls it "real world" perspective, but now that I've read it I would simply call it common sense.

After explaining the ins and outs of a medical malpractice claim and lawsuit (I didn't know they were really two different things), the book is divided into seven chapters, each of which explains a different practice area where we can affect the chances of being sued. I've seen a lot of other books about what to do once you're sued, but this is the only book I've ever seen that instructs us how not to get sued in the first place. Excellent.

Harmful intent was a good first effort by Baine Kerr, but it failed to really keep my attention and the plot seemed to move too slow at times. It seemed like there were too many flashbacks to the lawyer Peter Moss' time in Vietnam and too many loose ends not tied up in the end. I felt like I was left hanging at the end of the book.

Good plot. Wicked courtroom scenes. Promising first effort. Has a few flaws. I *still* don't know why the doctor missed the diagnosis. Loose ends.

Best legal thriller I've read in quite a long time. Smart, snappy, funny. But the plaintiff was way too flaky, didn't jibe. And the ending was so unfair it made me mad which in turn ruined the book for me. CAN A JUDGE DO THAT!!? Kerr leaves you hanging with another injustice and the case unresolved.

Peter Moss, attorney, takes another suit against Dr. Bondurant after already losing the last case against him. This is a terrific book to read and keeps you on the edge of your seat. A woman in the last stage of breast cancer realizes that her doctor let her advance in her disease to the point of being terminal for his own selfish, sick reasons.
Peter Moss is obsessed with winning this case against Bonderant and when I finished this book, I wanted to find Bonderant myself!It's hard for me to review a book like this because I don't want to give away any of the twisted story. All I can say is that the writing is very interesting and not too deep into the medical info to make the story hard to understand.
I believe this is Kerr's first book and it is a winner. It's way out of my usual genre, but I was with a friend of mine that is a nurse and reads med/mysteries. I'm glad I bought this one and read it. In a nut shell: Asingle mom with terminal breast cancer hires an attorny to stop an incompitent(?)doctor sicko.
Don't miss the chance to read this. It's different and very, very good.

As I was scrolling through upcoming books to be published I saw that WRONGFUL DEATH by Baine Kerr is due in May. I remember reading HARMFUL INTENT and reminding myself to definitely read his next book because HARMFUL INTENT was so well-written. This legal thriller contains beautiful prose that gives the creative plot life. It's a story of a lawyer representing Terry Winter, a woman suing a doctor for his misdiagnosis and unwillingness to treat a lump in her breast. It's Peter Moss' second chance to sue Dr. Bondurant, having lost a previous case to the arrogant piece of humanity. As the trial progresses the reader discovers Terry Winter and her daughter, Emmy are lovable and have a very special relationship. The reader also discovers Dr. Bondurant's harmful intent, that he didn't report the tumor for a very selfish and repugnant reason that was startlingly revealed with a well-timed and fine sense of drama.

HARMFUL INTENT is an absorbing examination of breast cancer within the warring worlds of medicine and law and a mother's transcendent courage. If Kerr's insight and humanity is as evident in his upcoming book, it too will be highly recommended.

A catchy title, that's why I started reading it. The book is okay. Not the best book I've ever read, but not bad either. I think teenagers can really identify with the main character Lauren. She describes her life, her family life, her problems, etc. There are funny parts, but it's also sad sometimes. It's a good book for a teacher to read in class with pupils. There are many items you can talk about, like what happened to Lauren re. sex. Her boyfriend broke up with her because she didn't want to go all the way with him. Or about her family life; her parents quarrel a lot. Her father is very old-fashioned. Teenagers have to deal with these issues. What do they feel, or think and do? So, even when I think it's not the best book, I still think it's worth reading it.

If you have, you'l understand exactley how Lauren feels.
Her parents make all the choices.
Her sister Milissa is all that makes it bearable.
But when she moves out, the only light on Lauren's harizon is Zack, a boy that is in eghieth grade. Great! A year younger then Lauren. Now every ones out to tease her. Could it get any worse? YES. Now her old boyfriend, Bobby wants her back. She could clear up all her school problems, and still have a
boyfriend, or stay with Zack, the perfect guy. How and Who will she choose?

Fourteen-year-old Lauren is always feeling neglected by her family; her little sister's annoying, her big sister never has time for her anymore, and her father's angry and controlling. So when she learns she's been accepted into a Young People's Law elective class at school, Lauren is thrilled. Maybe she'll finally be able to take control of her life!

But just when she thinks she's about to get a grip, Lauren's life turns even more topsy-turvy. She's met Zack, an eighth-grader from California, and instantly fallen in love. No one at school can understand how Lauren might find Zack a fun, caring guy to be around...all they see is a girl going out with a boy a grade lower than her, which seems like a huge gap in junior high.

Meanwhile on the homefront, Lauren's college-aged sister Melissa announces some big news that threatens to change their family dynamic even further...

This book isn't the best ever - or even Danziger's best - but it's fun and interesting nonetheless.

Her dad's impossible. Her boyfriend quits her for someone more sexy. Her little sister is a messy roomate. And she has romantic longings for an eighth-grade boy. BUT she's in the NINTH grade. That's a no-no, a never! Teenage readers will understand Lauren's problems--both the wacky ones and the serious. This is a funny and sometimes sad and moving story.

A Non-Workbook, Non-Textbook Approach to Teaching Language Arts: Grades 4 Through 8 and Up

This book is about a 14 year old girl named Lauren and it seems like her life is falling apart. Her older sister Melissa was kicked out and now she's living with her boyfriend. Her littler sister annoys her with her jokes. Lauren's parnets fight all the time and Lauren going out with a younger guy. Everyone's teasing her because her boyfriend's in 8th grade in 9th. What I really liked about the book is the girl Lauren really likes the boy and doesn't care what other people think of him. She likes him for who he is.

Find anything you want to know about this amazing band! Dates, song, events you get the idea it's all in there!

A true Encyclopedia. This book should be the definition of it. Nothings missing in this compact book that is available at a bargain I think. Van Halen fans should not live without this excellent book.

As you might know if you have read my other Van Halen product reviews, I am a Van Halen fanatic...which means I know a lot about the band, but with this book, the band members themselves could learn something! 425 pages containing things such as past concert dates, numerous pages of information on each song that they wrote, a 25-page timeline, I could keep going on all day.

Pros: Well, it's got alot of trivia tidbits... Cons: Numerous errors and a big disappointment if you're looking for good info regarding bootlegs. The Bottom Line: Unless you're simply looking for some shallow trivia about Van Halen, it would probably be best that you avoid paying your hard earned money to get this book, Recommended: No --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bought this because I thought it was gonna give me lots of juicy details about the plethora of VH bootlegs that are available on the WWW, but I was sadly mistaken.

I wanted a list of bootleg cdr's with track listings, track times, sound quality & performance ratings, but these are not in this book.

Some errors: ---Attributes "Man On The Silver Mountain" to David Bowie(!) instead of Ronnie James Dio & Rainbow. ---Spells Jimi Hendrix "Jimmy". ---Attributes "Nobody's Fault But Mine" to Edgar Winter instead of Led Zeppelin. ---On page 173 Lynyrd Skynyrd is spelled "Lynard Skynard". ---Says that "no known recording exists" for VH's cover of Trower's "The Fool And Me" when one does indeed exist on "Golden West Ballroom 1976".

Perhaps these errors seem trivial, but damn, you'd think that the author of a book about a mainstream act like Van Halen would know better...

I was deeply disappointed with this book and wish that I had instead spent my money on something by Bukowski or Crumb.

Dull dull and dull. A guaranteed good time for anal retentive fans with no life. For the rest of us it's about as exciting as watching paint dry. No pictures, no band interviews, no opinions, no new info, nothing. Just a billion pages of information, about 10% of which is useful. The other 90% is just there to take up space. Save your money.

Religion is a powerful thing: It can do great good and great evil, Marci Hamilton reminds us. As a lawyer, her question is how to regulate religion? Hamilton offers a deceptively simple modus Vivendi for religion and the law - namely, that religion should be subject to neutral laws just like anyone else. When there is a need for small, minor exceptions, those should be enacted by the legislature, and never by the Courts.

I disagree with both parts of Hamilton's solution: In my view Religion, being a mighty force, should be subjected to special regulation. And the main crafters of that regulation should be the Courts, not the legislators.

As Hamilton rightly stresses, Religion can bring both great good and great ill. Thus it makes no sense to think that general regulations, applicable to less powerful forces of society, are straightforwardly applicable to religion. Religion needs its own regulation: at times, it should be regulated more fiercely then non-religion; At other times, it should be allowed more leniency.

Take Creationism; if parents would like their children to study Austrian School Economics or Marxism in Economics class, the Courts wouldn't intervene. But when Christian parents try to sneak "creation science" into biology class, Lawsuits abound, and succeed. Is that unfair discrimination against religion? Surely not. First, unlike economics, religion is a divisive. As Richard Dawkins likes to point out (e.g. in The God Delusion), we have Christian, Muslim and Jewish Children, but not Marxist or Neo-Classical ones. Therefore a school policy reinforcing religion can cause severe tensions (and does: see Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul for recent shenanigans in Dover, PA). Second, religion is one of the very few forces capable of massively infecting schools with pseudo-science. The risk of an "Austrian School" epidemic is low, and so regulating against it is unnecessary.

For an opposite example, see the Clergy Child Abuse scandal. Hamilton documents the horrifying child abuse in the Church. The current US scandal is one of many, and the reason for it seems to be self evident: By offering celibate men access to children, the priesthood is a natural calling for a pedophile unwilling or unable to marry (Full Disclosure: There are conflicting studies on the topic). Now suppose that a secular organization would offer activities for children guided exclusively by celibate men. I think it should be banned, or at least closely monitored by the law enforcement and child welfare authorities. But such treatment of the Roman Catholic Church is unthinkable, politically unfeasible, and probably harmful: the appearance of religious prosecution would trump the benefits.

Hamilton agrees that special ("de minimis") exemptions from regulation should be offered to religion: "If an exemption will not harm others, it should be provided - by the legislature". (p. 275).Why should such exemption be provided by the legislature rather than the Judiciary? The only answer I can discern in Hamilton's book is an alleged competency of the legislature to do so in a, well, judicious manner. "[The legislature] may decide to investigate a social problem in depth ... [it should] balance[e] the value of religious liberty over and against the harm to others if a religious... institution is permitted to act contrary to the law" (p. 297). The key word here is "may". Hamilton offers no evidence that the legislature actually does any of these things. Repeatedly, she demonstrates legislative failure, such as when it allowed Christ Church followers in Oregon to act negligently towards their own children. Even after the scandal broke out, and children died... "the faith healing lobbyists... confused... ill informed legislators... already disposed to follow the requests of religious organizations... legislative incompetence is why Oregon's faith healing exemptions for murder... remain in place."(pp. 300-301) The only in depth review of this kind mentioned in the book is done by... a Judge! And yet Hamilton berates him for actually researching the common good! (pp. 123-125).

In my view, de minimis exceptions for religion should be crafted by the Judiciary, and not by the Legislature.

First, most of the cases where an exemption is sought are small issues of individual accommodation. In one case, a Sabbatarian seeked unemployment compensation for refusing to work on her Sabbath (p. 216). In an Illinois High school, sports players were forbidden to wear headgear, including Yarmulkes (p. 123) Yarmulke wearers also encountered problems in the Air Force (p. 170), and religious prisoners wanted to avoid work details on Fridays (p. 213) and to receive Kosher food (p. 290) Hamilton's examples go on and on. These issues rise too frequently to be solvable by ex ante legislation, and legislation it too cumbersome a process to help the plaintiffs; When the US Supreme Court ruled in a Hamilton-esque fashion, it took Congress three years to overrule the legislation.

Second, the issues that arise are too narrow and too case specific. Can Congress really meddle with sportsmen's cloths and prisoner's diets? The Legislature, as we've seen, is unlikely to carry out the kind of expansive research that Hamilton thinks is the rational for having exclusive exemption making power, and is likely to appease popular or powerful religious interests without regard to the public good. Crucially, it has pressing business to attend to. The Legislature should deal with Crime, Economic Policy, and Environment. We really shouldn't let it be distracted into monitoring Yarmulkes.

Finally, there is the question of Church and State. The Purpose of the US First Amendment is to keep earthly Power out of the hands of the priests. If we want to do that, we have to give the religious avenues to pursue their interests other then the legislature. If, whenever an exemption, no matter how tiny, is needed, the Courts shall send the Churches to the legislative branches, the Churches shall develop powerful lobbying machinery. History and Hamilton's book tell us that such machinery will not be used merely for "de minimis" exemptions. Religion may end up ruling the law, instead of being under its rule.

Ms Hamilton's book on the dangers of relgious privilege
above and beyond the law in the U.S. is commendable in many repects. But the author is lacking in any basic understanding of federal
Indian law, the history of institutionalized attacks on American Indian religious freedom, and the Employment Division of Oregon v Smith (1990) decision.

First, the drug counselors were not "private," but worked for the state of Oregon. Smith was a member of the Native American Church. This religion is recognized by mainstream denominations as a legitimate and longstanding church (official status since the early 20th centiury, traditional practice going back centuries). It probably has at least 250,00 adherents in the U.S. Peyote is the NAC's sacrament, analagous to bread and wine for Christians. The peyote is harvested and used in a sacred manner. It is not some hippie drug-trip. Smith told his emplopyer that he would be attending a NAC ceremony over a weekend. In 1990 Oregon considered peyote a controlled substance illegal to possess or use. Upon his return to work on Monday, Smith admitted frankly that he had ingested peyote at the NAC ceremony. For this he was fired from his job. He filed for unemployment benefits from the state of Oregon.

Clearly the state of Oregon violated Smith's first amendment freedom of religion. Scalia's dismissive ruling brushed American Indian religious rights aside by implying that the constitution cannot protect non-mainstream religious practices. This was not a case of religious privilege but first amendment rights. Congress agreed and passed the Native American Free Exercise religious Act in 1994 which now protects NAC use of peyote in its sacred ceremonies.

Hamilton's lack of knowledge or empathy for American Indian religious issues is an all too prevalent norm in American law schools and the legal profession.

We live in a time where extremes of behavior seem to have almost become the norm. We have a long tradition of separation of church and state, where the rules of church and state seem to operate in parallel with almost no touching. And we seem to be in a time where the most fundamentalist Christian beliefs have become stronger in America while the most fundamentalist Islamic beliefs are being used to build an army for a holy war against America, the Great Satan.

At the same time we see that under the guise of religious behavior we find Mormon polygamous families where the patriarch marries the thirteen year old children of other members of their cult. We find that Catholic priests, once held at the highest esteem are being regularly accused of molesting young boys. We find families holding their children out of schools that teach what they decide offends their religion, leaving their children ill prepared to face a life outside their particular restricted community. We find other families that because of their religious beliefs refuse medical care that would save the life of children.

This book covers these interactions of the church and the state from the standpoint of the United States Constitution and the subsequent laws that have been passed by Congress. It is particularily apt for this time in our history and very highly recommended.

A must-read for lawyers, academics, theologians, and curious human beings alike, God vs. The Gavel competently and thoroughly lends insight to the issue of religion and its relationship to the United States Constitution. Professor Hamilton, through her lively style of writing, argues that religious groups should not receive heightened constitutional protection when their actions harm others. While this theory is a seemingly simple and practical one, Hamilton successfully draws her readers into an intricate -- indeed intriguing -- web of religion, law, and their interplay in contemporary society. Easy to understand yet sophisticated in scope, Hamilton's work is a truly impressive accomplishment, and one that is sure to draw attention around the country and across the globe.

When you think of people who break the law and get by with it, what kind of person comes to mind? A rogue bureaucrat who can arrange an audit of anyone who opposes him? A cop on the take, who can hide some evidence and manufacture the rest? A celebrity who can buy a trial, and later write a book about it?

If so, expand your thinking a bit. The ability to break the law goes beyond individuals whom we easily recognize as seedy, scheming characters. Some people use our most cherished institutions as vehicles for such criminal activities as child abuse, murder, and theft. Those seem like strong words at first blush, but case histories show those claims are accurate.

And the courts routinely aid and abet these crimes by providing exceptional protection to those who commit them. Thanks to Constitution-violating court decisions, criminals who hide behind the mantle of religion remain free to strike again and again. At the heart of this maelstrom of magisterial malfeasance, we find the issue of church vs. state. Hamilton looks at this issue closely, and lays to rest the myths upon which courts justify their complicity with criminals who happen to represent religious organizations. Replace the myths with truths, and the entire house of cards tumbles.

The courts, in their support of religious offenders, are doing religious organizations no favor. Just look at what has happened to the Catholic church. The Catholic church continues to harbor pedophile priests, and the courts help them do it. This has diminished the church to most Catholics--many of whom are becoming ex-Catholics. Consequently, many Catholic schools are closing their doors and the treasuries of Catholic congregations are on life support.

The Catholic church isn't alone in sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hamilton shares several examples--from several religions, including Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim--where the leaders of a religious group show complete disregard for the public good or for people outside their group. In many of these cases, the religious leaders behaved so poorly that you have to wonder if they are religious people at all. Innocent citizens then turn to their government for assistance and come away with nothing but a judicial farce.

God vs. the Gavel takes us into the world of judicial incompetence that ignores the concepts of fairness and justice. It's a place where the separation of powers isn't, but where the corruption of power is. Judges routinely misconstrue, misapply, and mislegislate from the bench. This, despite the fact they have a duty to discern the facts and are Constitutionally barred from legislating.

Hamilton isn't on a crusade against religion, religious organizations, or religious people. But she is against using religion as a license for behaving in a loveless, predatory manner that hurts and kills other people. She is opposed to using "religious freedom" as a free pass for torturing children. She is opposed to using "religious freedom" as justification for destroying entire neighborhoods. She is opposed to using "religious freedom" to justify forcing our prisons to spend millions of dollars "accommodating" dozens of different religious meal restrictions, religious reading requirements, and the demands of new "religions" formed for the express purpose of gaming the system. Buy this book for no other reason than to read the lists of lunacy on page 157 - 161, and you have spent your money well.

So, what does Hamilton want, and why does she go through such effort to show us what's wrong with the status quo? What Hamilton is asking for is a balanced approach that respects the rights of everyone. In her vision of how things should be, judges would abandon circular reasoning and twisted logic--in favor of common sense.

She explains the "do no harm" principle, and she shows us how reasonable accommodation of religion can and does work. For example, the US military changed its policy to allow soldiers to wear unobtrusive religious gear such as yarmulkes and crosses. That's very different from using "religious freedom" to sentence an innocent child to death by refusing life-saving blood transfusion. And it's very different from ignoring zoning laws so a religious meeting place transforms a quiet suburban neighborhood into a high-traffic thoroughfare.

God vs. the Gavel is more than just a fascinating expose. Hamilton also offers a vision of how things should be. People who use religion as a license to victimize others will oppose losing that license, and will thus oppose the change that Hamilton is trying to bring about. But people who, like Hamilton, see religion as bringing meaning and guidance to life will very likely agree with her.

Religious leaders who seek to be above morality and the law often claim First Amendment rights. And the courts normally comply with those leaders in knee-jerk fashion, even when no First Amendment issue is involved.

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing in the First Amendment gives any religion special status under the law. The First Amendment merely bars Congress from making laws against particular religions. Hamilton explains the history and reasoning behind this right. But the courts routinely ignore the Constitution, history, and reasoning--so that they can give religious organizations or their leader special status under the law. The consequences of that special status should have us all worried.

A note on the writing. I review quite a few books, and have grown disgusted with the sloppiness trend. Thus, it is now my policy to let potential readers and buyers know about the quality of the writing itself. Form is important, as it dictates readability. Fortunately, this book scored very well on substance and on form. This book actually uses Standard Written English (SWE). This is a refreshing change from the Pidgin English that so many of today's authors slop onto our reading palettes. The care taken in writing this book shows that the author and publisher actually cared about the reader. That's a huge plus.

If you take every stereotype of religion and throw it into one character, you have T.J., a crooked, lying, charasmatic preacher, but I couldn't find a real person with real faith to balance him anywhere in this story. It's fiction; I understand that, but it's presented in a realistic manner in every other aspect, from the courtroom scenes (well-written) to the debate between pro-life and pro-choice (balanced).

But the view of the religious was so extreme and stereotyped that it lacked believability. The next John Grisham? I don't think so. An intriguing read? Sure.

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2985L5AHBV5UI The Appeal A Time to Kill The Firm Twelve Angry Men (Penguin Classics) Inherit the Wind John Grisham 3-Pack (The Pelican Brief / A Time to Kill / The Client) A Time to Kill 12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition) To Kill a Mockingbird (Collector's Edition) Inherit the Wind

This book grabbed my attention and never it let it go. It was fascinating in that with each arguement, with each rebuttal, it was unclear what the author actually believed about the issue of abortion or whether he has an agenda for either side. He gave compelling arguements on both side and really made me examine my own beliefs. The first 416 of its 472 pages were riveting... and then the author took the cowards way out with the tedious tactic of the "surprise revelation". With that, he ruined his own good work. It was a trite, cheap tactic that only served to allow him not to take a stand and give him an ending in this neverending debate. I personally would have preferred NO definitive ending...let the reader use his imagination ... rather than the cheap trick he used. After all the time invested in it, I'm angry and disappointed in this book. Shame on him.

This book gives a very precise, historic view of the pros/cons of abortion illustrated by a trial; very engrossing. The ending descends into soap opera but otherwise, this is well done.

Great book! Quite thought provoking. Character development was excellent. The kind of book I hardly ever read, but thoroughly enjoyed.

This book is the Bible for all those who are interested in the most scientific and thorough understanding of the treatment of trauma survivors, the current understanding of how memory functions and the law as related to both therapists and patients. The authors had to spend several chapters undoing the misinformation that has been prominent during the last few years both in the popular press and in books without scientific merit. These books that have misinformed the general public and professionals are now corrected by this book. It deserves the award it has been given and more. It is a must read for all professionals, patients, lawyers and journalists who wish to honestly write about these areas of the field of psychology.

Brown, et al, have produced a book reviewing the state of the art regarding memory, trauma and treatment that is unbiased and complete as I have seen. Their views are supported by the research and thoroughly scientific. Lawyers, judges, and especially clinicians will benefit from the clear rendering of standards of care and methods of trauma treatment. This book suggests treatment protocols that will reduce the liklihood of "false-memory" litigation and increase the frequency of positive treatment outcome.

This book really should be the final word on the "debate" about whether, and the degree to which, traumatic memories can be repressed. The authors thoroughly and rigorously examine the scientific evidence showing that traumatic memories are indeed often forgotten. They also show, at great length, the many logical holes in the arguments of many of the proponents of the so-called "false memory" position.

Yet the book's great strength--its thoroughness--is also its weakness. Presumably because so much of this so-called debate so clearly disregards scientific evidence, the authors go to exhaustive lengths to show the scientific evidence for amnesia of these memories. That's a wonderful and important thing to do. But it also doesn't always make for the most exciting reading. Thus the one-star reduction: in their desire to make sure that every angle is covered from any possible attack, the authors end up repeating themselves a fair amount. The book (weighing in at more than 650 pages of text) could probably have been cut to about 450 pages without losing anything. Then it would certainly have been a five star book.

This award winning APA book is a remarkable and notable contribution to the literature addressing impact of traumatic
exposure in memory and culture, specific to the legal arena. Brown, Hammond, and Sheflin have researched and synthesized considerable information about clinical practice, theoretical
and research perspectives on approaches to trauma treatment,
and adjudication of related disputes and damages in the
courts. A must for anyone - clinician, lawyer, judge,
client, clinical instructor, educator, law enforcement
professional, and others who find themselves involved in
these issues.

This is a magnificent work, skillfully combining research, case review and practical guidelines for clinicians who are practicing in the complex field of trauma recovery. It is both an essential core reference work and a key guide to negotiating the thorny interaction of psychology practice and the law. My highest recommendation.

Using the label of malpractice to describe the management practice of saying one thing and doing another, Hickman segregates his condemnation of leadership hypocrisy into five areas:
1. Innovation and Creative Imaginings
2. Individuals and Employees
3. Corporate Culture and Structure
4. Interpersonal Relationships and Teams, and
5. Visionary Leadership and Strategy.

For each of these areas, the author identifies 5 failures of management and then writes a prescription for the malpractice - in all, giving more than 125 actions to cure 25 unhealthy management practices that disable organizations. As an example, in the area of Corporate Culture and Structure he describes "Malpracticed Principle #11"; "Create an Environment Where People Fell Free to Raise Concerns" as the lie, and describes the truth as: "Raise concerns at your own risk...." The prescription for this malpractice is:
1. Make raising concerns part of your management practice
2. Admit that organizational hierarchies naturally generate opposition between those on top and those at lower levels,..
3. Obtain information on GE's workout session...
4. Challenge your people to find holes and hidden obstacles...
5. Eliminate any behavior or practice that squelches open feedback....

The book is structured so that the reader can turn to any area and find a malpractice of their choosing and thus are not required to read the entire book. This is a good thing, as the malpractices are often repeated with minor distinctions and the prescriptions are much the same. The malpractices are all failures to act consistent with espoused policies, principles, or value statements. The prescriptions are often, "Do what you say" or, "Look in the mirror". While the organizational and leadership errors noted are common occurrences in many organizations, telling leaders to, "Just Stop it!" may not be all that helpful.

Dennis DeWilde, author of
"The Performance Connection"

From all the points covered in the book, "Management Malpractice How to Cure Unhealthy Management Practices That Disable Your Organization" is a very informative book. All individual in any organization should be introduced to these common practices. Knowing and learning how to identify these practices will be beneficial to an employee in understanding the various intricate communications and practices taking place in an organization' environment.

The basic message of this book, which is that most management teams actively and repeatedly abuse their power, needs to be broadcast and discussed openly by people in organizations everywhere. The fact that it's not, disturbs me greatly!

I enjoyed this book a lot. At the end of each chapter, the author lists 4 or 5 best practices for avoiding/ending the malpractice of whichever management principle is being discussed in that chapter. These best practices are some of the best suggestions/ideas I have come across. This book is an important read for executives and managers, but equally useful for line staff.

This book is extremely relevant to today's business environment. I thought Craig Hickman's take was very unique; not at all the usual fare. He argues that the biggest problem facing organizations is the devolvement of noble management principles. Every corporation woud likely claim that they abide by the 25 management principles Hickman discusses (i.e. Respect Others, Challenge Assumptions, Create Trust, Eliminate Organizational Barriers, etc.), but how many of them actually do? The biggest problem isn't a lack of noble management principles, it is the rampant abuse of already existing ones. This devolvement, if left unchecked, could be what we pass on to the next generation.