Update to my post on the reform of the appeal provisions last week: Wendt Nassall has since pointed out to me that, whilst the numbers that he had published had appealed to the rational mind, they were only one side of the story. In addition, there was also a very emotional campaign for the law to be changed. That campaign was driven by the parents of a baby handicapped since birth, allegedly due to medical malpractice. The parents did not want to accept that their appeal in the medical malpractice case was dismissed without a hearing, without their day in court. The role the parents played was acknowledged in the parliamentary debate, and it appears to have been the combination of emotions and rational argument that made the change happen.