Allan Rousselle's House of Cards: Victim Does Not Equal Expert

June 29, 2007

Victim Does Not Equal Expert

As I mentioned in my previous post, I suffered a bit of downtime last week with a gastrointestinal bug that, well... let's just say it forced much more stuff out of my system than it was allowing in. I lost four pounds in the course of one day, and I'm still not fully recovered.

(That said, I've tightened my belt a notch and haven't had to let it back out again in the week since this all happened. Even this nasty cloud had a silver lining.)

Does the fact that I was a victim of a GI virus qualify me as an expert on GI infections? Seriously. Does my experience now make me an expert on maladies of the gastrointestinal tract? The mere fact that I know it's a GI issue instead of the flu (did you know that nausea is not a symptom of the flu?) certainly must count for something, right? The fact that I listen to a science/medicine podcast only adds to my knowledge of such matters. Combine that with my first hand experience, and I'm an expert... right?

No?

You wouldn't consult with me regarding matters of GI infections? You wouldn't trust me to advise public policy on the treatment of GI viruses?

Of course you wouldn't. Being a victim doesn't qualify me as an expert. Having seen the virus attack both of my sons before it hit me also doesn't make me an expert. I don't even qualify as an expert on how my body reacts to that kind of a virus; I'm only an expert on how *I think* my body *reacted*.

A close relative of mine got into a nasty car accident a few years ago and was killed. Does that make me an expert on automobile safety? The fact that I'm now well read on statistics regarding auto fatalities... am I now competent to advise public policy on highway design or automobile design or DUI laws? Well, perhaps more so than your average bear, but certainly less so than a qualified expert -- for example, someone with a degree and a career in mechanical engineering or physics or civil engineering or, for that matter, law or public policy.

While I was out of town recently, I was annoyed to see this headline in my complimentary nation-wide newspaper: Families skeptical of Va. Tech panel. The lead paragraph read:

Relatives of Virginia Tech University shooting victims challenged the credibility of a state panel investigating the massacre on Monday, demanding that a family representative be appointed to join the eight-member committee.

According to the article, the mother of one of the shooting victims has said that if the victims' families are not represented on the committee, the panel could reach conclusions "that may not be accurate."

The author of the USA Today article, Kevin Johnson, notes that a spokesman for Virginia Governor Tim Kaine said that each of the members of the panel were appointed for their special expertise... and he put the words "special expertise" in quotes. As if there's something dubious about their qualifications, or something suspect about being an expert.

The purpose of the panel, as the governor's spokesman is quoted, is to (and I'm quoting the article again here) "help determine what went wrong and how to prevent a future tragedy."

So, then: how does being the family member of a shooting victim qualify one to be an expert in the prevention of similar tragedies? How are they competent to help determine what went wrong? What qualifications do the family members have that will help them to make sure the committee doesn't reach conclusions "that may not be accurate?"

Please don't get me wrong. My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this tragedy. To whatever extent our society can reasonably move to prevent future incidents like this, however, I'm going to have to put more faith in the counsel of individuals with "special expertise" than in individuals whose primary qualification is that they've been harmed.

By all means, let the families of victims consult on the best way to memorialize their loved ones. But do not allow sympathy for the victim's families to cloud better judgment when it comes to improving public safety.

Posted by on June 29, 2007 08:26 AM in the following Department(s): Essays

Comments

Well said, sir.
BB sent me your way, BTW.

Posted by: jimmyb on July 1, 2007 6:01 PM

On the other hand, consider the possibility that somebody as intimately involved as the parents might have deeply researched the issues, talked with trained experts, and in some ways become real experts, at least on a narrow range of issues. Their new knowledge, fresh eyes, and passionate involvement may be quite useful in subsequent decisionmaking.

Had you spent a significant amount of time researching GI illnesses, I have no doubt that you could become an expert in the topic. Granted, unless you devote more time than you have (more time then we devoted fans of your writing and conversation would like to lose!), the knowledge may lean towards being deep and narrow, rather than broad - but useful nonetheless when used with discretion and help from others with different bases of knowledge.

An example in my own life: after 9 years of undiagnosed chronic illness - and having the time necessary to perform serious research and experiment - I and my current doctor consider myself to be an expert in several very narrow fields of study relating thereto (well, illnessES as it turns out). In fact, my doc has more than once referred a friend to me for deeper explanation than he felt able to give. I have used this narrow, deep knowledge to help several other friends become diagnosed and begin undergoing treatment for related ailments. I would consider my victim-instigated research to have benefited myself and others, and thus possibly meet a limited qualification of 'expert'.

Could people in the Virginia Tech incident have been similarly motivated to become experts to some degree? I think it possible. Is it not also possible that one or more may already be experts related to the field? Clinical psychiatrists? Security professionals? Triage doctors?

Consider too what knowledge is needed to deal with such an incident - what about the need to communicate with parents, counseling parents and children both during and after the incident, marshaling and safety of parents and escaped or evacuated victims, education of parents in how to deal with an incident and its aftereffects. Are parents not one of the appropriate contributors to those discussions?

Too, a victim could be considered an automatic expert in one thing: being a victim. Or if not an expert, then certainly somebody with special knowledge that could be used to help in an analysis of the incident. The parents' knowledge would be valuable in helping plan the methods of communication during an incident, identifying counseling needs, etc.

Although I strongly agree with your thesis that a victim is not automatically an expert, I believe that a victim often gains the impetus needed to become one. The specialized knowledge of a victim can also be a expert data in and of itself.

Posted by: alan on July 2, 2007 10:02 AM

I think there is one point that is being over looked here. Lawsuits. Yep, money and lawsuits. I don't want to diminish the pain the families feel, but I am wagering they don't want a state commission because they are afraid the state will bury evidence that could be used against them by victim's families in a lawsuit. Big, fat, hairy, loads-of-cash lawsuits. Sigh....

I honestly think it doesn't have anything to do with who is, and who isn't, an expert. It appears to be more about money, at least when you stop an consider the bigger picture.

Posted by: Greg Zuvich on July 6, 2007 3:37 PM