I am not yet a doctor. But being a final year medical student in the UK it just horrifies me that medical practice has come to such a stage.

I am in no way meaning to condemn any doctors in the above posts stating they are not going to stop and help on the road side, but i remember the first day in my clinical teaching our hospital dean told us that we are now regarded as someone with medical knowledge, and have the responsibility to help in any emergency situation. He put it bluntly, if u were found out to be a medic and not helped on the scene, u get ur ass fried by the GMC (General Medical Council).

I guess it must mean something when someone who spends a good 8 years of studying to become a doctor so that he can help people, felt so threatened that he wud rather leave the injured to die on the street. Any lawyer who is reading this shud really have a long hard look in the mirror and asks himself why.

I feel sorry for doctors in the states and at the same time fear that my future practice wud one day become as such. Please keep your litigious culture to your side of the Atlantic.

But for now, I will be the first one to stop and help at the scene, be it on the plane, on the road or wherever.

Immunity makes sense in the context of disaster services and providing care voluntarily, as a Good Samaritan. Immunity benefits society, by encouraging those with training to assist those in need. Properly drafted, immunity statutes protect against those “horror stories” because the immunity is not available for gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct. And NO-ONE, physician, lawyer, minister or whatever, should be immune from responsibility for reckless, willfully improper behavior. Providing care alongside a road, in a cornfield, or even on the floor of the bathroom at a neighbor’s house is a totally different environment than the environment in which most physicians practice. On top of poor lighting, lack of space and often risky surroundings, equipment commonly relied on is not available. These differences greatly impact the care that can be given – and should be taken into account in determining whether an action rises (falls?) to the level that immunity should not attach.

America has a great tradition of neighbor helping neighbor, and law should support that. Well-drafted laws can address liability and licensure issues, and can help assure that when a disaster strikes, medical help can be offered. We need to support and encourage volunteerism by healthcare providers, not discourage them. Immunity is an important part of this.

As an aside, not all lawyers are “out to get” doctors, and not all lawyers chase the almighty buck – just as not all doctors behave as badly as some headlines might suggest. Some of us sit in offices drafting contracts; some of us try to help find collaborative ways to create positive outcomes. We are individuals, and we deserve to be recognized as such.

Why are you a physician to begin with? If it is for money your motivation was completely misplaced to begin with, but you aren’t the kind to stop for others anyway. You deserve to face the threat of lawyers.

If you are a true physician (let the reader decide), you need time off so that you can help the patients who come to see you. If you are walking down the street on your time off, let others who work in EMS take care of the patient.

The general population is unquestionably disconnected from physical reality. As physicians we are alone in the world. Take some time to think about that.

Carefully screen your new patients, do not take it lightly. Build relationships with those who understand we are here to heal and otherwise they can let nature take its course without us.

Drop your malpractice insurance and self-insure with a group of physicians you respect. Together build a fund so that in the rare chance you get sued you can hire a bigger shark than the attorney fighting against you. Or are you more comfortable with your lifestyle than you are upholding your principles?

Never compromise patient care and always admit human mistake.

When you get sued NEVER settle. NEVER back down because a lawyer is standing in front of you.

Otherwise, just shut up.

He does not do medical malpractice.

For what he does do, which are personal injury cases (small ones that firms won’t take), will and trusts and pro bono work for the elderly, would you believe he pays over $8,000 a year in malpractice insurance.

Did you know lawyers can get sued for malpractice, too?

The are some major slimeballs out there in the legal profession. Believe me, sometimes my husband has to deal with them.

Just like there are some pretty awful doctors that I have come across in almost 30 years.

I understand the bitterness when we in the medical/nursing profession are forced to watch our back with every move.

But I’d still help at the scene. I haven’t lost that much faith in humanity yet.

You misunderstand the meaning of “standard of care”. It would correspond to the changed conditions. The very definition of the term contemplates that. The physician in rural Mississippi is not held to the same standard as the one at Johns Hopkins.

The dream of lawyers is to impose joint and several liability on the entire country. They know that this is the only way to really expand their business. Universal joint and several liability will generate the necessary billable hours and wealth transfer to keep lawyers (and their DemoRAT supporters) happy.

This medical immunity for emergency care is simply one of those roadblocks to the lawyers’ dream. Naturally, they fear the loss of income so they fight it.

Certainly, these lawyers dress their self-serving agenda in noble rhetoric, usually the rhetoric of “protecting” the public from “bad” doctors. No one, of course, should be fooled by this.

The next time some scumbag lawyer tells you doctors that only a small percentage of the “bad” apples are affected by their litigiousness, ask them why they are so against “loser pays” legal systems like the one they have in other first world countries. After all, loser pays only filters out the “bad” or “meritless” lawsuits. If they’re such vaunted supporters of the “rule of law”, then why can’t they trust their billable hours or contingency payouts to the swift and sure justice and wisdom of our legal system?

If their cases are likely to win based on the merit of their claims against a defendant, then they have no reason to fear a loser pays system.

“In other words, why not let the lawyers loot as many pockets as they can, deep ones preferably? That seems to be the tort lawyer position.”

I have a friend who went to NYU law school who described his tort law classes as exactly that: go after the deepest pockets.