That would be the problem- keeping it possible to sue people who did
deserve it. Not only drunken doctors, but big companies.
What about this: place a low cap on monetary value for lawsuits. So you
can sue someone if they wrong you, but the most you can get is a few
tens of thousands, not millions- especially for "emotional damage" or
something else that's not an actual cost you incur. That way the
lawyers fees, a % of the settlement, get smaller and there's less
incentive for lawyers to go out and find cases just so they can get
rich.
But simultaneously, you replace the high punitive damages with criminal
charges. If a doctor was going to get sued for $10M for doing something
that egregiously incorrect, instead remove his license to practice for
10 years. Or forever. Or put him in jail. So people who really got hurt
and have a real case can really put away the people who did wrong.
Since more than the money, it's most important to prevent the
negligence from happening again.
Instead of fining corporations hundreds of millions of dollars for
letting someone get hurt, put the CEOs and bean counters personally in
jail for 20 years. That seems more just to me anyway, and better for
society overall.
You'd need to set the settlement levels appropriately high such that
there were still people willing to become lawyers and do a good job,
but appropriately low so we didn't have the huge "get rich quick"
mentality that we often get today.
I think having juries or panels of doctors to decide what's reasonable
is essential- yes they'll defend each other- but they're simultaneously
the only ones who can really tell what's reasonable or not. And there
are lots of good doctors out there who would want to do the right
thing. Maybe if there were a double blind or other system of anonymity
so that doctors who told the truth couldn't get later ostracized by
their colleagues for having done so. Hmm.
Dave
On Nov 9, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Karen Conneely wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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
|
