There are other cases that involve the feres Doctrine. For example Medical Malpractice in the army. Also Marines being exposed to Toxic chemicals on US Bases. The Military is exempt from being held accountable on all of these matters. The Feres Doctrine needs to be overturned.

Your example is already in play in southeast Florida: some doctors have started requiring patients to sign waivers before becoming patients in their practices. If you don’t sign, you are shown the door.
And it’s legal.

Look at just about every service you buy anywhere: there are waivers for jury trials for all disputes, agreements to arbitrate in a specific location and frequently limitations to what can be disputed and for how much. States have passed laws that limit liability for state-related institutions. It is all legal. Feres is really a federal version of the same type of limitation.

You are assuming that malpractice has no consequences in the military. That isn’t true. Military physicians are subject to adverse credentialing actions and are reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

If you want to see abusive terms of service, Sermo’s are an example.

http://www.sermo.com/about/terms

Discuss some innovation to get some feedback, they may own the intellectual rights. You are providing total liability insurance to the limits of the last button on your last shirt with that indemnity clause.

Docs sign that. What is wrong with the Feres Doctrine to protect doctors under fire by terrorists, and seeking to save our civilization?

This is an IMedExchange favoring site, here. I can recommend it, so far, as an intelligent alternative to Sermo. So far, IMed has not trotted out abusive Terms of Service.

If I am a doctor, and I have a patient sign a waiver indicating that if they want me to treat them, they cannot sue me, even if I am grossly negligent and cause them harm.

I wonder if that document would hold up in court. If it did, why don’t we as doctors just have all our patients sign away their legal rights.

I mean, it’s all voluntary. Right?

At this point in time, the relationship of the enlistee or officer to the military is voluntary. You give up rights when you enlist or take a commission, voluntarily. One of those rights is the right to sue your employer. As it is voluntary, you can elect to avoid that circumstance by not volunteering in the first place. Drawing distinctions between a civilian and a military person is meaningless; you are trying to make those differences seem an injustice. (And if the association were not voluntary in the first place there might be a better argument that it wasn’t just, but since press gangs and the draft are a things of the past, that argument is moot. The same comparisons could be made for other disadvantages of military service, for instance not being able to buy life or disability insurance that covers duty-related death and disability. It just goes with the job.)

The same argument could be made for the military. They provide you everything you need, as defined by them.

Everything they get is paid for, but they don’t always get everything they need (unless you define “need” exactly the same way CMS does).

I see no difference when you word it like this.

Let me get this straight. People want our full speed surgeons to be subjected to medical malpractice litigation. Our military surgeons are to be parsed for record-keeping irregularities and second guessed by weasels in the comfort of federal court for decisions they made about piles of shredded up Iraqis and soldiers?

The military surgeon is far better off not forming a patient-doctor relationship, and watching shrapnel filled, little, Iraqi kids die without lifting a finger. Ending the Feres doctrine is insanity.

Yo, Thailand. Stay healthy. Try to not age. Wait til you get sick. See how great cheap Thai medicine is.