Harsh. Sauce for the goose, I suppose.
My readers, particularly those of my readers who are lawyers, may want to read this prescription for reform of the legal profession from a physician. It’s a modest proposal.
There is a notable difference between the circumstances of the legal profession and the medical profession, however. If wages for physicians had increased only at the rate at which the wages for lawyers and the members of other professions have over the period of the last 40 years, we wouldn’t be talking about a crisis in healthcare now.
Wow. That article manages to be bad as satire (ie, it’s neither illuminating or funny), bad at explaining current healthcare proposals, AND bad at explaining the legal profession. That’s what I call a trifecta…
Not to mention it’s ironic, b/c one of the main planks in conservative health care “reform” is the protection of doctors from the consequences of their own negligence through tort “reform” that would have the effect of the victims of malpractice being less likely to be compensated for their losses.
My initial reaction was what I wrote in the post: it was unduly harsh.
Moreover, as you point out, it’s not particularly insightful. There has been precious little consideration in all the heat of the debate over healthcare reform of items along the lines of the author’s modest proposal. For example, medical malpractice is a construct, not a law of nature. To be honest I think it’s time we revisited whether holding physicians to the “standard of care” is the right thing to do or simply to consequences.
That’s one component of the flawed incentives that I’ve been whining about.
I’ve touched med mal a little bit in my life and my experience has always been that people are really reluctant to sue their doctors, and generally only do so when the facts are particularly egregious. Read a handful of medical malpractice cases and for the most part what some of these doctors did are just horrible…
I like this modest proposal better:
“We all know the threat of bankrupting lawsuits in our ‘jackpot justice’ system causes doctors to engage in wasteful ‘defensive medicine’ in which they prescribe drugs and order extra medical tests that aren’t necessary in order to reduce their risks of liability,†said the President. “That’s why I’m proposing that medical services and operations be performed right in the courtroom, where lawyers can provide advice to doctors and patients in real-time, limiting litigation transaction costs.â€
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-plan-calls-for-making-health-care.html
That reminds me of my idea that every Special Forces unit should include a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
That’s probably why I liked it.
He forgot a few items:
1. Provide insurance for all legal matters starting from the simplest, so that a person is motivated to sue the bartender for pouring a 15oz pint, the mother of a screaming baby, toe stubs, etc.
2. Require every person to pay monthly premiums for his legal care, but ignore the fact that he will not be entitled to legal care while overseas, whether a tourist or a retired expatriate.
“That’s why I’m proposing that medical services and operations be performed right in the courtroom, where lawyers can provide advice to doctors and patients in real-time, limiting litigation transaction costs.â€
LOL Everyone is an expert…………….on Monday morning.
Alex – I’ve been in and around med mal too. I think you grossly underestimate the prevalence of specious suits. They don’t call them ambulance chasers for nothing.
That said, who could disagree with having a remedy for the truly negligent actions you cite? And they do happen. Some observe that doctors do a poor job of policing themselves. But regulation by snitching seems easy to say, hard to do.
Alas, I have no magic bullet. But I do know they have almost chased the neuros and OB Gyny’s out of IL through open season suits based on jury pool selection near the community of East St. Louis. Read: poor, stupid and open to “jackpot justice.”
A sad state of affairs.
This is why I’ve argued that juries should be professional and composed of trained, non-lawyer fact finders with scientific backgrounds, not just folks off the street.