Posted on 01/01/2003 6:47:09 AM PST by Captain Shady
The doctors are going to have to get downright mean about this or the politicians will keep slithering around like the snakes they are. To those who say people would die under that scenario, I say they will die anyway as doctor shortages worsen because of the problem.
The future of modern medicine is on the line. The docs are going to have to offer a simple choice to the people of this country - Modern health care or no modern health care. I'll bet the millions of legal junkies in this country wouldn't let the tort problem threaten the loss of their supply of mood-elevating drugs. Prescription-waving Americans will storm the state legislatures for tort reform before their pills run out.
It won't work .. not till you do something about all the bad lawsuits being filed
Yep .. the trial lawyers will just keep getting richer and WE are the ones that end up paying
Since the plaintiff frequently will have little assets, with his lawyer operating on a contingency-fee basis, one modification of this is that the plaintiff AND his lawyer are jointly liable in the countersuit. This would make lawyers VERY skittish about engaging in meritless lawsuits
Although off the subject, if your eyes are perfectly good but your vision is out of focus, I recommend the conservative treatment of eyeglasses rather than surgery. Common sense is that surgery is a last resort treatment.
It won't work .. not till you do something about all the bad lawsuits being filed
What Fast Eddie is really doing is increasing taxes on insurers, the result being an indirect tax increase, in the form of higher premiums, for every insured person in the state. A few of the poorest who now can barely afford health coverage will drop their insurance.
Is Mol right that "It won't work"? Well, it won't work for me, but it will work acceptably for the doctors and just fine for the lawyers.
In order to be civilly guilty of medical malpractice, the perponderance of the evidence must show that the physician committed the act of NEGLIGENCE, which is to say HE VIOLATED AN ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE. An error is NOT a necessarily a violation of the standard of care. Have I made an error in my practice? Sure, medicine is still an art, and that means that things do not always happen as you would hope or necessarily expect.
Like many have suggested, tort reform is an excellent point to begin solve this problem in the free market. Many physicians are being forced to go without insurance, and that is a horrible position for us to be in. We all went in medicine to deal with sick patients and help to remedy their situation, and to touch a life. Nonetheless, on a routine basis, people come to us without insurance, and ROUTINELY receive the best medical care in the world, and then tell us they will not pay us a thing -- it is their right to be treated. But if there is even the least unexpected turn in their care, then we get sued for real damage, punitives, etc.
Finally, the big scare in private practice is currently that the government will nationalize health care. Then you will see the exodus of many fine physicians from our healthcare, and we will have lost the best health care industry in the world.
Nope .. it won't work for the doctors either, because there are still too many stupid lawsuits out there. The doctors will still pay higher premiums and we will pay even higher premiums
What will happen is neither the doctors nor the patients will be able to afford the insurance anymore .. because the lawyers will end up with all out money
To solve this problem .. they somehow need to figure out which are the legit lawsuits (and there are legit ones) and somehow throw out the bad ones ...
If I understand this correctly, gas_dr considers doctors who violate an accepted standard of care to be properly considered guilty. If so, the doctors responsible for most of the great medical advances in history stand guilty of malpractice.
To take a specific example, let's say a patient comes in with massive injuries to a leg so that the standard of care says to amputate. But the doctor has a hunch, may be from a few words the patient said before going unconcious, that the patient would rather risk his life if there is a chance to save the leg. In this case, even without any written directive from patient or family, I would want my doctor to be able to ignore the standard of care if he saw fit.
The problem is not that malpractice awards are too high or too frequent, but that the whole idea of medical malpractice is based on a unrealistic idea of medical perfection, and on the idea that medical care is properly static, when it should always be in the process of rapid improvement.
Outstanding observation that belies the sordid and corrupt lawyer industry.
Medical malpractice industry suits and payouts generally bear no relationship to competence. Thus doctors who agree see the most high risk (sickest) patients are the most likely to be sued. Very sick patients are more likely to have adverse outcomes.
You know, when doctors make bad mistakes, there is usually no way for the patient to know -- especially because the malpractice industry gives docs a tremendous incentive to cover up their mistakes.
Yep. It took me a couple of years to figure out that my refractive surgeon had mis-aimed the laser at both of my eyes.
Although off the subject, if your eyes are perfectly good but your vision is out of focus, I recommend the conservative treatment of eyeglasses rather than surgery. Common sense is that surgery is a last resort treatment.
Agreed. I learned that lesson the hard way. I am now back to glasses and contacts after having a cornea transplant.
The anesthesiologist continued working for some time while he was visually incapacitated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.