This statement is, quite simply, patently incorrect. The commenter clearly doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.

Of course, this has been tried many many times and the courts routinely throw out any kind of waiver like this.

In the eyes of the court, there is absolutely nothing ironclad or binding. Written contracts are worhtless and routinely thrown out by courts.

Lawyers and courts have made these arrangements virtually impossible, creating a haven of uncertainty at every turn. It is that uncertainty which makes our legal system insane and drives defensive medicine.

You guys all talk about how bad American medicine is. the sad part is you have no clue the role you have played in creating that.

You can do that, and most doctors do, with patients who have 1/2 a brain. Many still want the test that is 1/1000 likely to be positive. Especially if the government is paying, or if they have health insurance (that is why it costs so much).

Even if you find something, what is the likelyhood that finding something is going to make a difference? So the odds that your patient will actually benefit from the test may be even less than 1/1000. What about risks of the test?

It might be not stealing in a sense that you are not getting money, but you still order the tests mainly for your own benefit, and think it is perfectly fine to make her pay for it without informing her why the test is needed.

The same sort of process applies to ordering tests. If I knew with 100% certainty before ordering a test that it would be negative, then it would be improper for me to order it. Of course it wouldn’t be “stealing,” because I don’t get any money for ordering tests, and the hospital doesn’t care if I order any tests or not.

But what if I was only 99.9% sure? And what if that 1/1,000 instance that I was wrong might result in a patient dying, or suffering an injury? Then the test is justified.

Am I required to order a test that I am 99.9% sure is unnecessary? Only if I want to keep practicing medicine. If I miss a diagnosis that results in death or injury once in 1000 times, then I am going to get sued a lot, and I won’t be very employable. So I am “required” to order tests that I personally feel are unnecessary, but that the attorneys and families think are mandatory. So I do.

I’d rather order 10,000 “unnecessary” CT scans than get sued one time.