Comments on: Should doctors who follow evidence-based guidelines be offered liability protection?

By: Jodi

Jodi — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:48:03 +0000

Anonymous – It is interesting that you think all a doctor needs to do is talk to their patients in order to avoid a lawsuit. I assume, you are not a physician yourself or otherwise involved in medicine, or you would understand the greater picture and necessity for Tort reform.

A wonderful cardiologist I happen to know was sued by a family stating that he did not force their family member to have a cardiac catheterization and subsequently died. He discussed with this patient the fact the chances of his death without the testing and possible intervention was very high. He documented what he told the patient. He documented that the patient refused to have the test. He still got sued. He was devastated because that lawsuit deems him negligent, when he did everything he could to get that person to choose the testing. He lost the lawsuit. The judge overruled the finding. The appeals court ruled with the jurors. People use lawsuits as another form of winning the lottery in this country….and they see doctors and hospitals as easy targets.

By: WriterGirl

WriterGirl — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:41:28 +0000

The IDSA did this with Lyme diagnostic and treatment guidelines and have initiated witch hunts after doctors who diagnose or treat outside of those guidelines.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:52:00 +0000

There are so many problems with these, following them is almost medical malpractice.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:39:00 +0000

What would that have to do with anything? It’s one side of one case.

That’s like relying on a drug trial with one patient who only tells his version of what happened to make a decision.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:23:00 +0000

Where’s Dr. Merenstein when you need him?
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2004/05/evidence-based-medicine-up-for-trial.html

By: Joseph Sucher, MD FACS

Joseph Sucher, MD FACS — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:41:00 +0000

“Its a smart play”. No… it’s a political play. Its a play that doesn’t understand the meaning of guidelines at all.

Guidelines are simply just that. A guide. They are not rules, and they filled with “weasel words” like “low blood pressure” or “fast heart rate” or “high temperature”. These words are interpretable by each individual. Therefore, there is no way to tie the practice of medicine to a guideline as a source for EXACTLY how a diagnostic or therapeutic pathway should evolve.

Guidelines should not be tied to the medical-legal system. As stated above. We are bound by the standard of care. Doing so protects you from being found negligent. But nothing will protect you from being sued. However, as we all know, good communication and compassion is what will reduce your risk of being sued.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:50:00 +0000

"Doctors should have some sort of liability protection if their decision making has a sound scientific reasoning to it"

They already do. Doctors themselves establish the standard of care, and often it's even lowered via the locality rule.

"You will find mega defensive medicine being practiced."

Why? We keep hearing they do it, but no one seems to be able to show it works. We know what DOES work to reduce their exposure to lawsuits-better communication with patients-but doctors don't get paid to do that, so it doesn't seem to be a priority.

By: Torsten

Torsten — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:13:00 +0000

It(He,She) is lamentable these things, because a time ago behind wise that the medical services were a problem for many persons and up to the moment they neither find they do not even give any solution, apparently the government forgot what promised and it is now where it is that to there be remembered(reminded), before that is very late, the medical assurance is important for many people, like that they indicate it in findrxonline, the web page that delivers a lot of information about this debate.

By: VENDORMD

VENDORMD — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:47:00 +0000

Doctors should have some sort of liability protection if their decision making has a sound scientific reasoning to it. Whether we admit or not defensive medicine is a fact. We cannot live in denial about that. Just look at the ER admission thresholds in any hospital for a case as common as a chest pain. You will find mega defensive medicine being practiced.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:22:00 +0000

The AMA makes the following claim:

"The practice of defensive medicine is also a major factor in rising costs. A 2003 Health and Human Services (HHS) report estimated the cost of defensive medicine to be between $70 and $126 billion per year."

Putting aside the fact that the craziness of estimating the number is illustrated by the wide variation between the high and the low, it appears that the AMA has redefined the term "major".

Given that total health care expenditures in the US are some 2.4 trillion dollars, even the high estimate would be approx 1/2 of 1% of costs. And that assumes we would eliminate it totally.

Physicians should be wary of their lobbying organization hopping in bed with an Administration pushing single payer. Particularly when they assume you can't even do basic math.