Comments on: Does good bedside manner mean a better doctor?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:16:00 +0000

Anon 4:39
Read for comprehension. Talking judges here. How often have lawyers had action taken against them for bringing crap into court? THAT is sup clauses point.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Anon 4:37: The lawyer is the agent of the retaliating plaintiff and has its motives, no matter how deeply, pretextually couched in supercilious virtue in the complaint. The pretextual appearance of virtue is itself another form of bad faith, but this time on the part of the lying lawyer. Those are intentional torts. Once the lawyer’s self-dealt immunity ends, the lawyer, the judges, the law schools, the states, the counties will have to pay $trillions to the doctor, down to the last water bucket of the last fire brigade sold at sheriff’s sale.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:39:00 +0000

Anon 3:44, you’re a fool if you think all lawyers are united in the same way on these issues. There are far, far more corporate and insurance defense lawyers, not to mention probate, criminal, contracts, etc. lawyers than there are those who represent plaintiffs in personal injury cases.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:37:00 +0000

"If it is a lawyer, it is implying most medmal cases have an improper motive, "

Not at all. It's just that people are more likely to forgive errors of those who treat them with respect and dignity. A physician conducted this study.

Whatever the motive of the client, though, that doesn't mean the lawyer has that same motive, and it's the lawyer who has to decide if the case has merit and proceed with spending his money. So your argument doesn't hold much water.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:44:00 +0000

Are you really surprised supremacy claus? Judges protect their own (lawyers).

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:12:00 +0000

If Anonymous 9:23 PM is a disgruntled patient, try switching doctors to someone who will focus on your emotions.

If it is a lawyer, it is implying most medmal cases have an improper motive, namely disgruntlement, rather than damages from a deviation from standards of professional conduct. This view is supported by data. First, disgruntled patients are more likely to sue to retaliate, not to be made whole. Second, three fourths of medmal claims fail at every step of litigation. This combination of failure and malice represents a massive intentional tort by the plaintiff bar. These malicious, and negligent lawyers owe doctors about $trillion. It is the height of injustice that biased lawyers on the bench have granted them immunity for their malice and carelessness.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:23:00 +0000

If physicians were truly interested in reducing their malpractice exposure, it is their relationships with their patients they would worry about the most. They whine and bitch about anyone who dares question their work and asked to be paid for damages they cause, yet most see no benefit whatsoever in improving their skills with regard to how they treat the patient. If they spent 1/2 as much time worrying about their relationship with the patient as they do ordering what they claim are “defensive tests”, their exposure would decline significantly.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:45:00 +0000

Dr. Rack: The doctor that controls my brittle diabetes by experience and skill, keeps me out of ICU, skips my yearly diabetic coma, he can cuss, spit on the floor, and throw the bedpan against the wall, as far as I am concerned.

The slick, patronizing, salesman type who is not loyal to me, and does not go all out on my behalf, he can be your doctor.

By: Michael Rack, MD

Michael Rack, MD — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:05:00 +0000

Supremacy Claus, lot’s of people who aren’t feeling particularly sick need to go to doctors. Are you saying that a diabetic on 3 oral hypoglycemics and 3 meds for BP, with a hemoglobin A1C of 10% and a BP of 185/95, who cares about bedside manner is not sick enough to see a doctor, but needs a friend instead???

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:43:00 +0000

I think most patients would consider listening a component of a good bedside manner, not as two separate qualities. If you care that medical professionals listen to you, then you probably are aligned with those who value the “bedside manner”. That phrase hasn’t been very well-defined here. I personally wouldn’t go so far as to say I care about the docs sitting on the bed and having a chat — to heck with that. Just be reasonably gentle and sympathetic as you poke and prod, and listen closely during the time that you do have.