That seems like a good idea, if they could make it work. I have heard
that people are increasingly likely to sue for anything that goes wrong
during a medical procedure, preventable or not - especially when it comes
to obstetrics. This is definitely a disturbing trend in our society;
ironically it's at least partially brought on by how good things are and
how high expectations are as a result. This wouldn't have happened 100
years ago because nobody expected to be cured when they went to the
doctor (and rightly so!) I know the cost of malpractice insurance and the
threat of lawsuits are things that hang over the heads of most doctors.
But there does need to be some sort of consequence for serious cases of
malpractice. Medical grand juries that could not only decide whether
the lawsuit was frivolous but also advise as to appropriate damages would
be ideal, as long as they could be impartial. Do you guys think this is
feasible?
I have to admit I'm a little bit cynical because of my friend's
story; apparently one of the other doctors took him aside and told him
yes, you almost died because your surgeon was drunk and messed up, and
no, you'll never get me or anyone else to testify to this. I can see how
the possibility of frivolous lawsuits would cause doctors to band together
and protect each other, but it's ironic that this would cause them to
refuse to snitch on a colleague who really did something terrible; doubly
ironic that this unwillingness to police each other is (I think) the
reason why they all get policed to this extent. A vicious cycle. Maybe
Danny can put this into a game theory framework...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Lisa Hsu wrote:
> i once read an article positing that it might be a good idea to have
> these like....medical grand juries to decide whether a suit should go
> through. like grab a bunch of doctors to sit on the medical grand
> jury, and they can decide whether the suit is frivolous. a lot of
> suits currently happen just because the patient didn't come out as
> good as new, which is actually impossible to achieve 100% of the time
> no matter how good the doctor is. so a jury of doctors can determine
> whether the doctor in question was negligent or not. what do you guys
> think? i thought it sounded pretty interesting.
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:44:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Karen
> Conneely wrote:
>> Yeah, but it's a slippery slope - how do you differentiate the frivolous
>> lawsuits from the very justified ones? Knowing that 1) there are companies
>> out there that hire actuaries to calculate the risk of death associated
>> with a defective product and to do cost-benefit analyses that figure in
>> the cost of lawsuits and settlements, and _then_ decide whether or not to
>> recall the product, and 2) in addition to all the caring doctors out there
>> who just want to do good, there are doctors who take a cavalier attitude
>> towards their patients (one of my friends nearly died because the surgeon
>> who did his appendectomy was drunk) - well, knowing these things makes me
>> want to set the caps on damages paid even higher rather than reducing
>> them. If they can really find a way to weed out the frivolous ones that
>> won't hurt the people who actually have just cause to sue, fine. But I'd
>> much rather see McDonalds get sued once in awhile for something stupid
>> than to see people being hurt and killed because the monetary incentive to
>> prevent it wasn't high enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Dave morris wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know, this list sounds a little too right wing for me. :-)
>>>
>>> Here's a challenge- what are the good things that will come out of the
>>> Republicans owning the government for four years? Anyone can come up with a
>>> litany of bad things, I challenge people to list the pros as well. I'll
>>> start:
>>>
>>> An actual chance of litigation reform for the medical and possibly other
>>> industries.
>>>
>>> Sure- it will largely benefit big businesses and the rich at first because
>>> those are the lawsuits they'll target, but I do agree that litigation has
>>> become way too rampant and core to our society in all strata in a way
that's
>>> dragging us all down. Starting to pull away from that, implementing real
>>> consequences for frivolous laws suits etc., could be worth quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm creating a new mailing list for discussion of how to improve the world
>>>> (primarily bitching about Bush a while longer till we reach catharsis on
>>>> that one). There are just a few key people on it so far, but I made a web
>>>> page to get on or off, if you want to start spreading the word...
>>>>
>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And while I'm at it:
>>>>
>>>> What Do You Think?
>>>> The Republican Majority
>>>>
>>>> Last week, Bush became the first Republican president to be re-elected
>>>> with House and Senate majorities since 1924. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> "So they still control the House, Senate, and Oval Office? Well,
>>>> at least we still have the smug, condescending attitude that cost us the
>>>> election in the first place."
>>>> Beverly Banks
>>>> Systems Analyst
>>>> "Our nation may be bitterly divided,
>>>> but at least our government
>>>> can agree on being ultra-conservative."
>>>> Edgar Mendez
>>>> Data Keyer
>>>>
>>>> "What's so bad about this? Could some Democrat explain it to me in
>>>> under an hour, without starting to scream or cry?"
>>>> Sam Howell
>>>> Credit Checker
>>>> "The fact that 48 percent of Americans voted for a boring
>>>> placeholder like John Kerry is actually a really good sign for the Left."
>>>> Leo Watts
>>>> Custom Tailor
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Bush Promises To Unite Nation For Real This Time
>>>> WASHINGTON, DC--A week after winning a narrow victory over Democratic
>>>> presidential nominee John Kerry, President Bush promised to "unite the
>>>> divided nation, but for real this time." "Just as I pledged in 2000, I
>>>> promise to bring the two halves of this nation together--only this time
>>>> I'm really gonna do it," Bush said Tuesday. "I'll work hard to put an end
>>>> to partisan politics. Seriously, though. This term, I will." Bush then
>>>> requested the support of all Americans for his agenda of cutting taxes and
>>>> extending America's presence in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - google://"Daniel Reeves"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dave Morris
>>> University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat Æ umich.edu, aka
KB8PWY
>>> home: 734-995-5525 office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357 fax: 734-763-5567
>>> Electrodynamic Applications Incorporated
>>> phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
>>> morris Æ edapplications.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
