Chapter 19 - MORETTI FIGHTS BACKMoretti did not disappear.
He gave an interview.
That angered Dante.
The headline:
PROMINENT NEUROLOGIST RESPONDS TO VESCARI CASE.
Moretti defended his decisions.
Some statements were fair.
He warned against hindsight bias.
Explained that Rosalie’s condition evolved.
Said Hannah’s observations were clinically interesting but not definitive.
Then he said:
“Powerful families often seek certainty where medicine cannot provide it.”
Dante almost broke his phone.
Rosalie read it.
“He’s right.”
Dante stared.
“Excuse me?”
“You did.”
“Not the point.”
“It is a point.”
She kept reading.
Moretti also said:
“I regret that institutional hierarchy discouraged fuller debate.”
Rosalie looked at her father.
“That sounds like an apology.”
“It sounds lawyered.”
“Still.”
Dante hated being moderated by an eleven-year-old.
Then Moretti made his mistake.
He implied Hannah’s advocacy had been “emotionally driven.”
Eli read it.
He went silent.
That was worse than anger.
Dante called Moretti.
“You had to say that.”
Moretti sighed.
“I did not insult her.”
“You implied her judgment was compromised.”
“It sometimes was.”
Dante paused.
“Was yours?”
Silence.
“Yes.”
“Then say that publicly.”
Moretti stopped.
Dante continued.
“You want fairness? Be fair.”
Two days later Moretti issued a follow-up.
I should have stated equally clearly that my own confidence in the prevailing prognosis may have influenced how I interpreted contrary observations.
Eli read it.
“Better.”
Not forgiveness.
Better.
The medical board ultimately issued formal reprimands related to conflict disclosure and complaint handling, not deliberate harm.
Moretti stepped away from administrative medicine.
He continued seeing patients under oversight.
Some readers might have wanted prison.
Dante did too, briefly.
But truth did not owe anyone a dramatic punishment.
May you like
It owed accuracy.
Rosalie understood that before he did.
Related Stories
