Cornell Law Review takes a look at medical malpractice and poor state of health care quality
“The scholars further recommend that physicians who adhere to evidence-based medical standards developed by the profession be immune from malpractice suits. ‘If physicians fear malpractice as much as they say they do, the prospect of immunity should be an immediate incentive for the implementation of these standards.’”
That is the smartest suggestion I’ve heard from a lawyer in awhile, and an idea I’d fully support. Right now, lawyers use evidence-based medicine as a “dirty word“. Giving immunity to doctors who practice according to the evidence is a strong step in the right direction.
Related posts:
- A cost effectiveness institute
- Who monitors clinical guidelines?
- Should charitable care be exempt from malpractice?
- The Feres doctrine applied to Medicare and Medicaid?
- Will comparative effectiveness research really save money?
- Should severe birth injuries be pulled out of the court system, and can defensive medicine be good?
- Malpractice systems
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 49 comments }
To provide context, the article to which you link is titled and begins: “Malpractice Litigation Wrongly Blamed For Inconsistent Health Care
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Conventional wisdom holds that malpractice lawsuits are the bane of modern medicine, with high insurance premiums driving doctors from the profession and the threat of lawsuits discouraging health-care employees from reporting and correcting medical mistakes. Examining these claims in a lengthy article in the Cornell Law Review and a shorter article in Regulation, a University of Illinois health-law scholar finds most of the assertions to be without factual basis.”
I have an interesting question. Why are lawyers so opposed to the fact that lawsuits and resources spent on malpractice are a detriment to medicine and patient care? I think this is a legitimate question. As physicians we try to debate this in their forum (debate itself is a skill of lawyers) and we will never win. But we know from our daily practice (if we are in high-risk specialties) that it interferes with our care of patients. Instead of helping them, we test, test, test to protect ourselves. We try to avoid high-risk (read sicker) patients. I can’t even treat pain, i’m so busy ordering tests. Why do we argue with lawyers about it? Is there a solution?
“Why are lawyers so opposed to the fact that lawsuits and resources spent on malpractice are a detriment to medicine and patient care?” Why? Because the proposed solutions do nothing to address the alleged problem. Plain and simple.
A question for you. Why do doctors believe compensating victims for malpractice is a bad thing? The question is just as legitimate. And before you say “we don’t”, how come all your solutions seek to make it harder to do just that.
The current system makes it pretty hard for patients to receive any compensation. You know that I’ve been a supporter of no-fault insurance – which will compensate patients far more efficiently.
Then perhaps you should quit backing other proposals.
As for no-fault, you might as well be in favor of moving people to the moon. Both have an equal chance of happening.
The cited article written by a doctor and a physician concludes that medical malpractice is not the cause of low quality healthcare. It further concludes that the med-mal system is a net benefit for patient care. The question as to why people won’t entertain the idea that med-mal is bad is like asking why won’t you entertain the idea that the moon is made of green cheese. The answer is that the facts simply do not support it despite your intuitive feel as a physician that it’s true.
Why do doctors believe compensating victims for malpractice is a bad thing?
I had my nose busted by a patient last year. I had to work the rest of the night with my nose bleeding. Why? Cause we had no security. We do the security. Why? Money. You really think 3% of the GDP going to litigation doesn’t affect other services? I can get a CT scan to cover my ass 24/7, I can never get a hand surgeon or OB/GYN to see a pt. in the ER. (our pts. are too high risk) How come healthcare works in other countries without malpractice, without lawyers? Why am I even arguing with you?
3% of GDP to med-mal litigation. What the hell are you smoking? I’m not even sure that litigation of all types consumes 3% of GDP. I’ve not seen any anlaysis that quotes that number. Most estimates are between 2.2 and 2.5.
Healthcare chews up 15-16% of GDP. Our nearest “competitor” internationally only spends 10% of GDP. Our outcomes scorecard compared to other countries – countries with universal healthcare – is mediocre at best. Wouldn’t it be great to recapture that 6% of GDP AND have universal healthcare.
Two points that no right-minded knowledgeable honest person will dispute:
1. There is minimal correlation between true malpractice and the likelihood that a medmal suit will be sucessfully pursued.
2. The current medmal system works estremely well. For the lawyers.
1. You’re half right. Correlation is the wrong word. What you mean to say is that the odds are low that an act of malpractice will result in a malpractice payout, for the simple reason that the majority of people don’t pursue a claim. You also need to add that neither doctors nor their insurers want this to change.
2. Who knows if it works well for the lawyers. It probably works very well for some, but then it would also work very well for their clients if they represent plaintiffs. It probably doesn’t work very well for some, too and they lose their asses on cases. If they are defense lawyers, it probably works OK, in the sense they are making a living – not as good a living as a doctor, but a nice one nonetheless. The truth is, you don’t know anything about the economics of a med mal practice on either side to make that claim.
No reasonable minded person can dispute those assertions.
Curious JD, what are the flaws of no-fault from your perspective?
The flaws of no fault would be political more than anything. If, for example, you had an appointed panel of 3 judges, as is often the case with workers comp, then we’re just battling over politics – because who appoints them becomes a much bigger deal.
Also, there is a philosophical standpoint of a belief in the jury system. There is no evidence they are getting it wrong that often. No system is going to be error-free, I think we can all admit, but already doctors win in front of a jury 75% of the time.
Most importantly though, no one is seriously proposing it. Why? Because it will result in more claims. That’s the real advantage of it – more victims of malpractice will receive compensation. While I’m sure some physicians are well intentioned and think that’s a good thing, their insurers don’t. And the only significant legislation to come on this front comes when the insurers squeeze the doctors into pushing it. And they’re not squeezing them to push no-fault.
Elliot: I meant 3% of gdp on all Litigation. Not just med-mal. Stupidity is not limited to MEd-mal, one of the nurses I work with is being sued because her 200 lb. dog got out of the yard and scared a little old lady, now she can’t get homeowners insurance. I agree with you on universal healthcare, but it won’t work if lawyers are going to be able to sue the government for med-mal instead of doctors.
Does anyone know if I go to work for the Veteran’s administration, does the government cover my malpractice? Are my assets protected that way?
Lawyers who openly hope for universal/socialized medicine are fools. Its much harder to sue doctors in socialized med nations than in others.
Hi Anonymous VA-Asset-Protector,
My understanding is that the VA is just like a lot of self-insured universities … they provide a high level of coverage/safety. They also incorporate a number of the patient safety recommendations mentioned in the Cornell Law paper, including electronic medical records.
However, as RichMD said in reference to his suit, he was happy he had a “consent” clause, which meant that his insurer or self-insured hospital couldn’t just settle a claim against him on his behalf, according to their terms (ie, “this claim is settled apportioning all potential blame to RichMD, rather than to Hosptial X”). That’s important, since, as we’ve seen, some hold the stereotype that those who settle are by definition guilty.
I would also guess that VA patients are prevented from suing for malpractice in state courts, and instead are forced to go another, much more arduous, route if they feel they have been harmed by their care. But, probably someone military/VA knows better than I.
Kevin, thanks for that really interesting Cornell Law review post. I enjoyed it.
“Lawyers who openly hope for universal/socialized medicine are fools. Its much harder to sue doctors in socialized med nations than in others.”
I think the point was that for you physicians who ramble on about how great the legal systems are in other countries (although you’ve never been subject to them) and how we should follow their lead, you forget that there is a tradeoff. Compensation for injuries isn’t as important there because the government picks up the tab of your future medicals.
Your comment also illustrates another misconception about this whole debate. That attorneys will somehow suffer if you make it harder for victims to recover. Talented attorneys, which those who focus exclusively on med mal plaintiff’s work, will always do well because if they can successfully try a case as complex as a med mal case, they can try about anything. The only person you’re hurting is those who have already been hurt.
think the point was that for you physicians who ramble on about how great the legal systems are in other countries (although you’ve never been subject to them)…..Trained and lived in the Great White North…..Similar to British System…patients (and reversely, physicians) were not viewed as adversaries there, if something went wrong,(or a bad outcome, which naturally happens in human beings, and nobody is to blame) we cared about the patient, we felt empathy, not anxiety that we would be getting deposed in a few months. Now it’s all about the DEFENSE!!!!
CJD-
Let’s take it easy on the unproven assumptions.
I have served as expert witness in medmal cases, on both sides.
I have been a defendant in several medmal cases.
I have been deposed in several cases where I was a treating physician but not a defendant.
I have reviewed several dozen depositions in which the economic aspect of healthcare and alleged damages were discussed.
I don’t claim to know everything about the economics about a medmal practice, but I do know something, based on the above.
You misunderstood my point about the correlation between true malpractice and litigation. If you draw two circles, one representing the universe of malpractice, and the other representing medmal litigation, in a perfect world they would overlap 100%. In the real world, the overlap is at most 20% and probably a lot less. I get the 20% from the approximate number of cases filed that result in payment from defendant to plaintiff.
When you post that “What you mean to say is that the odds are low that an act of malpractice will result in a malpractice payout, for the simple reason that the majority of people don’t pursue a claim. You also need to add that neither doctors nor their insurers want this to change,“ you manage to make 3 factual errors in 2 sentences. I do not mean to say that, because it is not true. You may be referring to the thoroughly discredited Institute of Medicine study of several years back which described the alleged bloodbath occurring in our hospitals on a daily basis. The majority of people who believe that they have been malpracticed upon don’t pursue a claim, it is true, but that’s because the lawyers that they consult don’t believe that their cases will pay off enough to justify the lawsuit, and the 80% that they do pursue do not pay off either. Doctors don’t want this to change? Puh-leeze! There may be a few marginal practitioners who benefit from this situation, but the vast majority of us fervently wish that following accepted practice and standards of care would protect us from the trial bar. I know that you believe in your heart that the medmal trial bar is on the side on angels in protecting society from rogue doctors, but for any of us who have been through a medmal litigation, we know that it’s entirely about income redistribution from the doc and his insurance company to the trial lawyer and incidentally to the patient from what’s left over after his “expenses” are paid. As for the insurance companies, they like the current legal situation so much that they are dropping medmal coverage as fast as they can. (Before you wind up on the “Bad Investment Performance” talking point, observe that the insurance companies are not dropping any of their other lines of business).
You are entitled to your own set of opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
jb, Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway just purchased GE’s medical malpractice unit. Without any other eveidence whatsoever, thats a very strong indication to me that medical malpractice is a profitable, undervalued line of business.
Elliott, GE just sold its medical malpractice unit. Without any other evidence whatsoever, that’s a very strong indication to me that medical malpractice is a unprofitable, overvalued line of business.
As far as I’m concerned, GE and BH are both well managed businesses, so that’s a wash. Maybe BH is betting on tort reform spreading (it hasn’t read CJD’s posts on this blog to learn that tort reform doesn’t work). It is a fact that many insurance companies have stopped dealing in medmal (St Pauls is the biggest, but not the only one), and physicians in many states have had to organize their own mutual companies to maintain their coverage, as there are no commercial alternatives for them any more.
“In the real world, the overlap is at most 20% and probably a lot less. I get the 20% from the approximate number of cases filed that result in payment from defendant to plaintiff.”
I’m sorry JB, but you simply have no factual basis for that claim. None whatsoever.
“but the vast majority of us fervently wish that following accepted practice and standards of care would protect us from the trial bar.”
No you don’t. Otherwise you would formulate standards to act by. There would be guidelines which one would follow – ie. evidence based medicine. Do you really see a nationwide push for that?
“we know that it’s entirely about income redistribution from the doc and his insurance company to the trial lawyer and incidentally to the patient from what’s left over after his “expenses” are paid.”
No, that’s how you feel. You highlight “expenses” as if to say they are bogus. You have no proof for that, because you’ve never seen them. What you forget is that without the lawyer, the victim had nothing – zero, zip. You deal with insurers, you know how hard it is to get them to pay. You’d think as often as doctors sue the insurance industry you’d appreciate the difficulty.
“As for the insurance companies, they like the current legal situation so much that they are dropping medmal coverage as fast as they can.”
That’s just not true. Companies are coming into the market in both states with tort reform and without. You don’t have to believe me – they insurers tell you that. I’ve posted the quotes numerous times. That’s what’s amazing about you – you’re so wedded to a position you won’t even believe the insurers themselves and your own industry magazines when it contradicts your position. Your head is in the sand, and no one can pull it out.
You cite GE as proof that it doesn’t work, yet GE is the company that said caps on damages affect at most 1% of their losses, a fact you refuse to acknowledge. What’s more, simply because a company sells a component does NOT necessarily mean it’s unprofitable. You know that. And if you think BH is in the business of buying unprofitable businesses, you’re fooling yourself even more. You’d do well to read some of Buffet’s thoughts on insurance and how it works. It’s very informative and very readable, and you’ll begin to understand just how profitable it is over the long term.
St. Paul had more than $1 billion in reserves from med mal alone at the end of the 80s, but failed to adequately assess their risk and released it all during the 90s, making them look very flush and attracting new companies into the market that didn’t know what they were doing. What’s more, St. Paul pulled out of capped and non-capped states alike, further illustrating the fact that tort reform has nothing to do with insurance rates. Not to mention that St. Paul was hard hit by 9/11 and pulled out of other lines of insurance as well. This is not news I got from the ATLA magazine, this is business news. You can read this stuff in the Wall Street Journal. But you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.
You say I’m not being factual when I say physicians and insurers don’t want no-fault? Then how come it’s not seriously on the table anywhere?
No you don’t. Otherwise you would formulate standards to act by. There would be guidelines which one would follow – ie. evidence based medicine. Do you really see a nationwide push for that?
There is a push for it among physicians. EBM is everywhere. Unfortunately, in a courtroom, EBM gets derided, and it’s easy to find physicians as experts to testify that it is not the standard of care, because it’s not what they (and most others) do. Its a catch 22 – EBM will not be standard of care until its practiced a lot – yet until its practiced a lot, it fails the standard of care test in a courtroom, and physicians shy away for that reason. See the PSA issue elsewhere in this blog, for example.
I’d be thrilled if there was standardization in care. It’s a real failure in our current system. The study on hospitals that is making headlines today shows that clearly.
I’m actually not buying the PSA case as wholeheartedly as you are Rich. I’m going to reserve my judgement for some reasons:
1. We only heard from the doc and not the plaintiff. Sure the lawyer made his argument in Court, but that was probably one of many arguments.
2. I’m unconvinced that the evidence for the I recommendation on PSA is the final word. I think the jury is still out, but if push came to shove, a combination of inference – how could it not be better to detect earlier rather than later – and studies such as the Quebec numbers make me think that this recommendation is too cautious. I heard the same thing about lung screening, but I think the recommendation there needs to be revisited. A combination of better surgical techniques, treatment options, and better screens (CT scans) suggest that the studies from the 70’s are no longer applicable.
3. This is one anecdote and I can produce many anecdotes showing that people benefitted from PSAs. I’d want to see data that showed that EBM exposed MDs to greater risk of a lawsuit before I would believe it.
Elliott,
If all docs used “inference” as part of their medical decision making, why do we need to conduct medical studies at all?
I agree that the USPSTF is certainly not the final word in screening – however, it is the most rigorous methodology in evaluating evidence we have. Those guys know what they’re doing.
BTW – doesn’t the introduction of inference run contrary to what we are trying to achieve – that is, a more evidence-based, standardized practice of care?
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin, not at all. Look at the inserts for drugs. They have many parts, but one part identifies the theory of operation (sometimes this says, “we don’t know”) and the other identifies the studies. The scientific method, as I’m sure you’re aware consists of creating a hypothesis and then designing a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I’m restating a hypothesis which is that early detection saves lives. The studies are not strong enough to disprove or prove that hypothesis for the USPTF, but I think more recent studies tip the scales to the proof side. When I read the entire list of USPTF recommendations, I’m conclude they require a higher level of proof of efficacy than I do. That’s fine, but it’s only one source.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to demand evidence, than dismiss the best evidence available because it doesn’t satisfy your preconceived notions.
It is not necessarily so that earlier detection is better. Earlier detection is only better if a) The risk of false positives is not so great that it causes harm, and b) early treatment produces better outcomes. These have been studies in the case of PSA, and found lacking.
The most recent study of radical prostatectomy, for example, found that prostatectomy had NO EFFECT on total mortality. So the proposition is – I can remove your prostate, you have a 20%+ chance of some impotence and/or incontinence problems. You won’t live any longer, but we’ll have treated your cancer. By the way, the cancer can still come back. Wanna have surgery?
I can produce many anecdotes showing that people benefitted from PSAs
How do you know they benefitted? Did they live longer than the case control who did not have it? Do you know what their outcome would have been had they not had a PSA?
I disagree that there is no evidence. Mortality has been steadily falling for prostate cancer. No other explanation fits the facts that I know other than there is improved detection and treatment. Newer studies contradict earlier studies and, to my eye, appear to be well designed. I’ll post the links when I have more time, but I specifically remember a study presented just recently in Canada on Quebec and one, again from Canada, from Toronto.
Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:781–789.
This showed no difference in total mortality: 53/347 [15.3%] with surgery v 62/348 [17.8%] with watchful waiting; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.20).
Here is a quote from Clinical Evidence:
The available evidence suggests that in most men the benefits of radical prostatectomy in quality adjusted life expectancy are at best small and sensitive to individual preferences. A non-randomised study examining a population based, self administered survey of men aged over 65 years in the USA found no differences in general health related quality of life between radical prostatectomy, radiation, or watchful waiting. We are aware of two further ongoing trials comparing radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting. Any benefit of radical prostatectomy in men with prostate specific antigen detected tumours is likely to be of smaller magnitude and require a longer period of time to occur than clinically detected tumours.
Elliott,
I appreciate your input on these comments, because the questions you ask represents the disconnect between physicians and the non-physicians that this blog is trying to break.
Like expert witnesses, you can always find a study that suits one’s opinion. Yes, there are some studies that show prostate cancer screening may have an effect on mortality. Would you pit that single Canadian study against the might of 150+ studies (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr/prostatesum2.htm#references) that the USPSTF systematically and methodically reviewed? I didn’t think so.
Just because it’s intuitive that screening for lung cancer and prostate cancer makes sense and should decrease mortality, doesn’t make it so. It’s also intuitive that screening for heart disease with stress testing should decrease mortality, but that’s not true either. Perhaps in the future, but not now.
Thanks,
Kevin
LOL.
JB is attempting to discuss this issue with CJD and Elliot using reason, evidence, and fact-based argument.
Dude, give it up, those things don’t work with these guys. They only know huffing and puffing.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to demand evidence, than dismiss the best evidence available because it doesn’t satisfy your preconceived notions.
You haven’t hung out with CJD and Elliot a lot, have you?
Actually Kevin I went to the USPTF site and was just beginning to wade through their literature review. I find that given their literature review, the evidence in my mind still tilts towards screening. They, on the other hand, take into account the equivocal nature of the studies and the negative effects of the treatment choose a different recommendation. I will post when I finish reviewing the studies http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr/prostatesum.htm
I’m very curious for example to see how the very first study they mention which is the original RCT Quebec study shows a difference of mortality of 4.6 vs. 4.8 per 1000, and is titled “Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial” is not accepted. They found no case control studies, but the recommendation is from 2002. Since then, case control studies have been published. If you look at the review, it seems clear to me that a meta-analysis of the studies yields a benefit to PSA on the first pass. I think the more interesting result of my input is that we can read the same studies and come to different conclusions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15017125&dopt=Abstract
http://www.emaxhealth.com/33/2558.html
You didn’t read closely enough – the Quebec study found a slight improvement in “prostate cancer death” but no improvement in overall mortality. So the patients die less often of prostate cancer, but die at the same rate overall. Lives are not prolonged, the cause of death is just different.
The negative effects of treatment are very relevant because there is no net improvement in mortality. In the last link you posted, the statistics are thus:
Prostate cancer death for screened vs. unscreened men: (odds ratio (OR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46 – 1.1).
Which means, that if the study were repeated we are 95% likely to find that the odds ratio for prostate cancer death in men who are screened is somewhere between 0.46 and 1.1 – It’s entirely possible that screening increases prostate cancer mortality according to this statistic, since the confidence interval for the odds ratio spans unity.
But the point here is not what studies say what about prostate cancer screening – it’s that there is what is considered (by physicians, not lawyers) to be best evidence, and apparently, when viewed through the lens of a jury, doctors who follow it are commiting acts of negligence.
Government agenices and physicians groups publish standards and guidelines to follow (see Kevin’s links) – just what Elliot and CJD are asking for – but Elliott doesn’t like the recommendations, so he throws them out, and says following them is negligence.
You can’t have it both ways. If you won’t accept guidelines that have been prepared both by separate gov’t and non-gov’t agencies for us to follow, what will you accept? Apparently, only good outcomes.
Only bad outcomes cause people to sue. That’s a feature of our tort system. If there’s no bad outcome then there’s no damage, economic or non-economic. Rich, I gave several reasons why I was skeptical about the EBM doesn’t work argument presented by one case and you have yet to refute that. You know I probably got off into the weeds talking about PSA, but I find it hard to defend the USPTF recommendation when it does not seem to square with the eveidence that they cite in their own literature review and is relatively old. You have no evidence that EBM is not valued in our current med-mal regime; all you have one first person account of a then resident.
Elliott,
Your point is well taken. The recommendations are indeed from 2002. The data since then may change their recommendation in the next edition. But until that happens, all we have to work with is an “I” recommendation.
Kevin
I have to agree with Kevin. We have a guideline (actually, at least two, from different sources) regarding prostate cancer screening. The guidelines suggests that though evidence is lacking, patient preferences and concerns should be taken into account.
Given that, and that you suggest we should have guidelines to follow, is it not acceptable to follow this guideline? Guidelines will never be as timely as the latest studies – does that make them invalid? What criteria then would you apply to the ideal set of guidelines that you and others suggest we should have?
If I accept that EBM is not derided in the medmal universe, and accept that following published guidelines from reputable organizations (such as ACP and USPTF)is reasonable and prudent, can following those guidelines then be considered negligent if a bad outcome occurs in spite of following the guidelines? Or, as you seem to subtly suggest, I should personally review all of the evidence that goes into making each guideline, decide if I agree with it, and hope in the case of a bad outcome that a jury agrees?
As I stated before, you can’t have it both ways.
A quick question: who’s to blame when a bad outcome occurs despite a physician/hospital strictly following established, evidence-based guidelines?
I’d be interested in dissenting thoughts (CJD/Elliott).
Kevin
Kevin, no one is to blame if that happens. That’s just life. If the physician’s actions fall within the standard of care, you’re not liable.
Incidentally, by “no one is to blame” I don’t mean to suggest that literally no one is to blame, but to say that no one should be held liable.
And I know someone is going to pop up and say “Yeah, well that’s not what the lawyers say in court” and “doctors are being held liable when they shouldn’t all the time.” But the truth is both of those are unknown. No one really knows the ratio of bad outcomes to malpractice payouts.
How many of us are truly in a position to substitute our judgment for the jury’s in the med mal cases we read about in the media? Really, none, unless you’re reading one heck of a detailed argument.
Noone is to blame. In fact I sympathize with Dr. Merenstein, who, incidentally was not held responsible. As the April 14 edition of JAMA showed he wrote only from his perspective. A comment by Hall, Green, and Hartz adds some details about the trial itself. I am objecting to the reaction by Kevin, Rich, and others that suggest this is anything, but an anomaly when EBM should tend to reduce exposure to liability and although the studies would probably yield an I recommendation, I think that’s the way to go. The truth is that bad outcomes in the medmal regime are most associated with victims NOT getting compensation when they deserve it rather than bad outcomes without legal liability ending up getting compensation. Information at http://www.silencekills.com suggests that there are 15-20% of physicians who know another physician that endangers patients on a monthly basis. Why aren’t physicians speaking up? If it’s fear of liability then why aren’t they advocating for stronger shield laws for professional review committees and reports? Instead doctors are constantly pointing the finger at the legal system. A legal system that, according to the article that is the parent of this thread, is doing a good job of keeping doctors honest and improving patient care.
Kevin, no one is to blame if that happens. That’s just life. If the physician’s actions fall within the standard of care, you’re not liable.
That’s the problem. Trial lawyers can find “expert” docs to testify that the standard of care is above whatever the defendant doc did. IOW, the “standard of care” is whatever the “expert” says – for $600-$800/hr (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Happens all of the time.
Luckily you won’t have to worry about that in Canada. Au revoir.
Who’s going to Canada?
Must be the wrong Anonymous. It’s hard to keep those of you who are too lazy/scared to even use a pseudonym straight.
Must be the wrong Anonymous. It’s hard to keep those of you who are too lazy/scared to even use a pseudonym straight.
# posted by Anonymous : 10:26 AM
LOL!!!
I believe everyone is treating the symptom and not the root cause. How come I never read about the AMA pulling a doctors credentials for obvious malpractice? Until the AMA truly cleans up its own backyard, there will be no public trust and confidence in the medical profession. Get the bad Docs off the streets so the good Docs can do their job.
Let me add that according to a study titled “HealthGrades Quality Study: Patient Safety in American Hospitals (July 2004); one in twenty in-patients at hospitals will be given a wrong medication, 3.5 million will get an infection from someone who didn’t wash his or her hands or take other appropriate precautions, and 195,000 will die because of mistakes made while they’re in the hospital. 195,000 a year!!! we have lost 2,500 brave servicemen in IRAQ and people are sreaming about needless deaths. 195,000 deaths in hospitals due to mistakes? and no Public outcry? Again, the medical profession needs to get its act together and quit blaming litigation for their problems. Litigation is the result of poor, no a better word is gross negligence on the part of the profession. Who will stand up and be willing to make the hard decisions within the medical profession?
Comments on this entry are closed.