Comments on: No malpractice contracts

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:09:00 +0000

Anon 11:02. You sound like a psychologist that I know who consistently and loudly proclaimed that psychotropics were a scam and don’t work–and then the next thing I knew she was lobbying for Rx privleges for psychologists proclaiming the need of the public to have more access to these treatments????

Of course, there is no longer any social penalty for hypocrisy any longer, so if conscience isn’t a problem . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 21:34:00 +0000

>>"The purpose of medmal is to guarantee a level of quality. "

No. The purpose of medmal is to seek awards of money. Quality has absolutely nothing to do with that. Only trial lawyers would have you believe otherwise.

The purpose of government licensing with credentialing is to guarantee a level of quality.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 16:02:00 +0000

There is no psychiatric guild? Umm. . . I can’t prescribe. That’s legal protection for the head shrinks of whatever flavor. That legal limitation is particularly egregious given the questionable effectiveness of most psychotropics in the treatment of, say, depression. The medicalization of depression is a superb example of how costs are increased to consumers–doctors and other healthcare professionals get richer–with little benefit to anyone else.

The purpose of medmal is to guarantee a level of quality. As “professionals” the law requiresyou to behave in a certain way. If you argue that you should be able to provide doctoring services without that guarantee, then why should you prevent anyone else from providing such services.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 12:31:00 +0000

I am confident that they would never hold up in my state because most of the state legislator's are lawyers and THAT guild is never going to let go of the revenue to be made pursuing and defending tort claims.

The argument will be that the patient was under duress, etc etc.

As a matter of fairness, I see no problem with it at all as I sign similar agreements with nearly institution that I do business with. As long as the first contact is elective, there is no duress. In my specialty, there is no guild. I do psychiatry. Every other medical specialty can Rx prozac and talk to people. In this state, the psychologists can RX meds too. Then there are social workers, LPC's who can hang up shingles to talk to people. In addition to all other physicians and psychologists, people can and often do order their meds over the internet without seeing anyone.

So If people see me, it is because the chose to see me. Why shouldn't we be free to set whatever terms are mutually satisfactory to us?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:29:00 +0000

Your comparison to getting married is odd, and really makes no sense. What's more, to be enforceable, a prenup requires full disclosure on both sides- they ain't enforceable if you forget to tell your wife about the $500K in Tbills you have. Is the doc giving full disclosure of every claim she's ever had, every time she's been negligent, etc.?

When she cries about her insurance premiums but then won't tell exactly how much they are, I doubt she's any more honest when it comes to direct dealings with her patients.

Not going to hold up. You have you patients sign "consents from medical justice"?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:51:00 +0000

OK Cochise, enlighten us with that enlarged cranium of yours. Going to a OBGyn and getting married are both elective. You don’t have to do either. People have been having babies for thousands of years, same with getting married. It’s a free country. Most married couples don’t sign one but maybe they should. Most physicians don’t have their patients sign one, but maybe they should. I have all of my patients sign consents from medical justice, otherwise they can go on down the road. Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 02:10:00 +0000

Think of it as pointless lobbying by a physician who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Because that’s what it is.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:34:00 +0000

Think of it as a doctor “prenup”. You can always see or marry the next one down the line.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:33:00 +0000

Getting rid of credentialing is pretty absurd. I like to shoot guns and ride fast in cars. Why can’t I be a highway patrol and bypass all of this school crap. All I have to do is read a book and pass a test right?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:47:00 +0000

Oh that old canard, the "legally protected guild" (don't forget the caps lock, makes a lie seem truer).
It is the idiot's claim.

I figure I'm about as protected as the electrician or the plumber, since we all have to have a license. And legally protected from whom? Other doctors? Not. Or from what, "competitors" who have no training but might like to set themselves up to offer snake-oil remedies? There still seem to be all sorts of people selling that kind of stuff.

The public doesn't seem to be clamoring for care provided by those who cannot convincingly show they have education and training in medicine any more than they want fake bridge "engineers" providing designs for roadway bridges they have to use every day.