Reasons why doctors practice defensive medicine

The truth is this chart does not sum it all up. Some tests have inherent risks, sometimes bigger than that which you want to prevent. So you could have this additional outcome:
TEST x BAD OUTCOME (due to test):
Patient: “Why ever did you order this test if it wasn’t necessary?”
Doctor: “I guess I was overzealous.”
Lawyer: “I take half.”
Insurance: “We need more money.”
Government: “We need more money.”

I wonder if those who decide what other people ‘deserve’ factor risk-taking into the equation.
The legal profession has scant risk of its victims’ recourse for mistakes, no risk of predatory (greenmail) litigation, no risk of bodily injury in the course of doing business, scant risk of government price-fixing for professional services….

Of what professions are the critics, I wonder, who criticize the doctors, nurses, soldiers, police,firefighters…

What we’re really talking about is who bears the cost of medical certainty? What is the benefit of so-called “defensive medicine?” For the patient, the extra test will tell you if you do or don’t have a serious condition. For the doctor, there’s medical certainty that you’ve properly diagnosed the patient…read: done no harm. Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be about? The Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm.” If you’ve found the best answer that modern science can offer, isn’t that really doing no harm?

This debate is all about how the issue is framed. The opponents of health care insurance reform are using this as a chance to limit lawsuits. Maybe instead of talking about “defensive medicine” the proper label for this cost in our health care system is the cost of medical certainty. We should re-focus our debate on how much we as a society are willing to pay for proper and timely diagnosis – using the technology available to us in the US – rather than trying to make those already hurt by medical negligence bear the further cost of not having an adequate remedy in court.