Comments on: Medical Malpractice http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:01:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: E. http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-5126 E. Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:59:02 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-5126 A.) Physicians should be “practicing with one eye over their collective shoulders." B.) Physician fees significantly contribute to health care costs today more so than any other factor. A.) Physicians should be “practicing with one eye over their collective shoulders.”

B.) Physician fees significantly contribute to health care costs today more so than any other factor.

]]> By: Ian M http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4726 Ian M Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:55:03 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4726 Barry- Your idea of a special health court sounds like it may violate the constitutional rights of any physician brought to trial. Your recommendation would require that all defendants in this special court be relieved of their right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Most jurors are not forensics experts, yet murderers do not get special trials. Likewise for juries empanelled to try cases of embezzlement, tax fraud and money laundering. The only way such a scenario – a review by a panel of independent experts –would work is to remove the cases, and therefore the entire ‘special health court’ from the justice system. This would necessitate the equally daunting task of decriminalizing the malpractice offenses, in order to remove them from our traditional courts. How this could be done, or whom could grant such an extrajudicial body the authority and jurisdiction to impose penalties upon those found to be at fault, I’m not sure. My opinion is that it would be very difficult to establish and maintain such a body, and, most importantly, enforce it’s impartiality. So long as these cases are to be tried within the current justice system, the ‘junk’ comes with the jury. Barry- Your idea of a special health court sounds like it may violate the constitutional rights of any physician brought to trial. Your recommendation would require that all defendants in this special court be relieved of their right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Most jurors are not forensics experts, yet murderers do not get special trials. Likewise for juries empanelled to try cases of embezzlement, tax fraud and money laundering.
The only way such a scenario – a review by a panel of independent experts –would work is to remove the cases, and therefore the entire ‘special health court’ from the justice system. This would necessitate the equally daunting task of decriminalizing the malpractice offenses, in order to remove them from our traditional courts. How this could be done, or whom could grant such an extrajudicial body the authority and jurisdiction to impose penalties upon those found to be at fault, I’m not sure. My opinion is that it would be very difficult to establish and maintain such a body, and, most importantly, enforce it’s impartiality.
So long as these cases are to be tried within the current justice system, the ‘junk’ comes with the jury.

]]> By: Kevin, M.D. http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4675 Kevin, M.D. Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:41:36 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4675 Charlie, Health courts, arbitration, no-fault insurance, and global standards of medical care are 4 ideas that each would be infinitely better than our current system. A tort-based system simply promotes defensive medicine (or as you say, physicians "practicing with one eye over their collective shoulders") - which significantly contributes to health care costs today. Please see my piece on the issue: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/defensive-medicine.html Thanks, Kevin Pho, M.D. http://www.kevinmd.com Charlie,
Health courts, arbitration, no-fault insurance, and global standards of medical care are 4 ideas that each would be infinitely better than our current system.

A tort-based system simply promotes defensive medicine (or as you say, physicians “practicing with one eye over their collective shoulders”) - which significantly contributes to health care costs today.

Please see my piece on the issue:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/defensive-medicine.html

Thanks,
Kevin Pho, M.D.
http://www.kevinmd.com

]]> By: Barry Carol http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4673 Barry Carol Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:08:45 +0000 http://www.letstalkhealthcare.org/transparency/medical-malpractice/#comment-4673 "So what’s the alternative?" How about special health courts presided over by judges who have built up expertise in medical issues and can hire and pay for neutral experts to help them. The key virtue is that it would get malpractice cases out of the hands of juries who have no expertise and are often swayed by emotion and sympathy for the plaintiff. If I were a doctor, I would have more confidence in a health court system that could bring objectivity, consistency across the country, and sound (instead of junk) science to the dispute resolution process. “So what’s the alternative?”

How about special health courts presided over by judges who have built up expertise in medical issues and can hire and pay for neutral experts to help them. The key virtue is that it would get malpractice cases out of the hands of juries who have no expertise and are often swayed by emotion and sympathy for the plaintiff. If I were a doctor, I would have more confidence in a health court system that could bring objectivity, consistency across the country, and sound (instead of junk) science to the dispute resolution process.

]]>