You're article fails to state one very important point, when was the theory about caesarian sections discredited? You are correct, it has been discredited, but the article you linked to talks about a rise in the rate of sections in 1970, logic dictates that the court case(s) occurred before this date.
I`ll admit, I've not read these references, they were cited in an article that covers amongst other things the point you were making, but you might notice something interesting about them.
Blair E and Stanley FJ. Intrapartum asphyxia: a rare cause of cerebral palsy. J Pediatr 1988;112(4):515-519.
MacDonald D. Cerebral palsy and intrapartum fetal monitoring. N Engl J Med 1996;334(10):659-60.
Phelan JP and Ock Ahn M. Perinatal observations in forty-eight neurologically impaired term infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(2):424-31.
Richmond S et al. The obstetric management of fetal distress and its association with cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83(5 Pt 1):643-6.
Did you manage to spot the important point? Don`t worry, if you didn`t I`ll highlight it for you, the research is modern. Now, you may argue that there was earlier research I've failed to cite, you may be correct, but here is in article published in 2001
http://chealth.canoe.ca/columns.asp?...articleid=1573
that specifically mentions "recent" research, which would strongly suggest we are not talking about circa 1970. BTW, I made sure that I included a link to a medical site so that we can get the facts without any political rhetoric.
Medical science dynamic, theories rise and fall with new discoveries. I've seen treatments for cancer using radiation therapy that would make your eyes pop out, almost literally. Try them today and you'd be deafened by the collective lawyers shouting malpractice. At the time the were believed to be the best treatment on offer.
A case can only be argued on what is accepted as medically correct at the time the case was heard. Edwards would have been arguing on the basis of accepted medical knowledge at the time. This, we now know was incorrect, but if you think that court cases can be argued on the basis of research that isn`t conducted for another 20 years then all your credibility goes flying out the nearest window, probably without pause to even open it first.
One of the biggest criticisms directed at people like Michael Moore is that they pick and choose facts and slap them together to form their argument without any consideration of context. If that is true, then you must be a great admirer of his tactics.