Friday, May 09, 2008
Malpractice reform, a bad idea?
DrRich takes a contrarian view:The threat of malpractice litigation, as wasteful and counterproductive as it is, provides at least some degree of balance in the doctor-patient encounter, and gives doctors (even those whose professional pride has been successfully eroded by all the many efforts aimed at doing just that) a good reason to always ask themselves, “Is this action I’m about to take the action that THIS patient really needs me to take?”
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (3)
| 
Comments:
While the trial lawyers are very corrupt, and while there is a need fore massive, massive reform of the jackpot justice lawsuit industry, at the very same time I also feel that the malpractice industry may be the only ultimate protection against socialized medicine!
# posted by 
: 2:43 PM
: 2:43 PM
I enjoyed reading Dr. Rich's views of the necessity of the ‘malpractice noose’ being forever just within reach of the physician’s neck in order to provide behavioral limits on the physician and comfort and control to the ever litiginous patient.
Having retired from amost thirty years of practicing internal medicine and thereby enjoying the thrill of being sued for standing still, I tend to disagree with your views.
The term ‘malpractice’ is itself disagreeable and generally incorrect when applied to the effusive volume of ‘malpractice’ claims made upon the, leagally speaking, ’sitting duck’ physician.
The better term is medical liability, and medical liability insurance, as the term ‘malpractice’ is summary judgement of guilty before proven innocent.
Physicians can, and are, sued for frivolous and reckless allegations.
The horror and nightmare is that the allegations themselves become embedded in to the record and incorporated into whatever legal findings are made.
A patient’s physician who is sued because his patient claims “his pneumonia led to resection of a lobe of his lung”, when this never happened at all, will find reported upon settlement or judgement that “his pneumonia led to resection of a lobe of his lung”,
What good does that do anyone?
A litiginous practice environment sets the stage for unatural physician behavior, a legally-armed patient, and a lopsided exam room setting.
No, no good has come from the legal impotence of physicians and the neutered strength of organizations that pretend to protect them.
When we relinguished the right, when the right was taken from us because we were too busy serving the infirm, to charge for our services we gave up any notion of being a profession, but what is worse we abandoned our responsibilities to our patients.
I believe what is good for doctors is good for patients. Patients are no, longer under our stewardship. Therein is the ‘malpractice’, patient abandonment.
Like to hear from you.
Louis Siegel, M.D.
strategies for surviving healthcare@
likeadoctorinthefamily.com
Having retired from amost thirty years of practicing internal medicine and thereby enjoying the thrill of being sued for standing still, I tend to disagree with your views.
The term ‘malpractice’ is itself disagreeable and generally incorrect when applied to the effusive volume of ‘malpractice’ claims made upon the, leagally speaking, ’sitting duck’ physician.
The better term is medical liability, and medical liability insurance, as the term ‘malpractice’ is summary judgement of guilty before proven innocent.
Physicians can, and are, sued for frivolous and reckless allegations.
The horror and nightmare is that the allegations themselves become embedded in to the record and incorporated into whatever legal findings are made.
A patient’s physician who is sued because his patient claims “his pneumonia led to resection of a lobe of his lung”, when this never happened at all, will find reported upon settlement or judgement that “his pneumonia led to resection of a lobe of his lung”,
What good does that do anyone?
A litiginous practice environment sets the stage for unatural physician behavior, a legally-armed patient, and a lopsided exam room setting.
No, no good has come from the legal impotence of physicians and the neutered strength of organizations that pretend to protect them.
When we relinguished the right, when the right was taken from us because we were too busy serving the infirm, to charge for our services we gave up any notion of being a profession, but what is worse we abandoned our responsibilities to our patients.
I believe what is good for doctors is good for patients. Patients are no, longer under our stewardship. Therein is the ‘malpractice’, patient abandonment.
Like to hear from you.
Louis Siegel, M.D.
strategies for surviving healthcare@
likeadoctorinthefamily.com
I think the malpractice liability system needs to be improved, but not eliminated. Being accountable for our actions is a part of our professional standing.
Remember how Hilary tried to bribe docs to accept Hilary care with a promise of no tort liability. Organized medicine properly saw that for the slave collar that it was intended to be and rejected it.
We we can no longer be held accountable for our decisions, then we will no longer be the ones making them and will simply not be professionals.
Post a Comment
Remember how Hilary tried to bribe docs to accept Hilary care with a promise of no tort liability. Organized medicine properly saw that for the slave collar that it was intended to be and rejected it.
We we can no longer be held accountable for our decisions, then we will no longer be the ones making them and will simply not be professionals.
# posted by : 6:43 PM
: 6:43 PM
