Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Of course, I've been saying it for years, but it is better to have data than an opinion. The cause of medical malpractice litigation is medical malpractice-- and the notion that there is a medical malpractice crisis is a myth. Ezra Klein quotes Tom Baker's "The Medical Malpractice Myth": the malpractice crisis is "urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies," and notes that, "including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine."
This is entirely consistent with my own anecdotal observations. I know that harping on this makes me sound as though I am hostile to the Men in White. I'm not-- but I have an abiding faith in the legal system's ability to produce appropriate resolutions to disputes that parties cannot resolve themselves, and I am a firm believer that one of the ways that this is accomplished is by treating like things alike. If the goal of the tort system is to make victims of negligence whole by compensating the victim monitarily , than is should be irrelevant if the tortfeasor is a drunk driver or a careless anesthesiologist. If the injury is the same, the damages should be the same, and any argument that denies this amounts to a plea for special treatment.
There may be an argument for treating doctors differently-- but I've not heard it made persuasively, with actual data. Since they are scientists, you just know that the fact that they aren't making that argument means that the argument is a dog.
This is entirely consistent with my own anecdotal observations. I know that harping on this makes me sound as though I am hostile to the Men in White. I'm not-- but I have an abiding faith in the legal system's ability to produce appropriate resolutions to disputes that parties cannot resolve themselves, and I am a firm believer that one of the ways that this is accomplished is by treating like things alike. If the goal of the tort system is to make victims of negligence whole by compensating the victim monitarily , than is should be irrelevant if the tortfeasor is a drunk driver or a careless anesthesiologist. If the injury is the same, the damages should be the same, and any argument that denies this amounts to a plea for special treatment.
There may be an argument for treating doctors differently-- but I've not heard it made persuasively, with actual data. Since they are scientists, you just know that the fact that they aren't making that argument means that the argument is a dog.
// posted by Bill @ 11:04 AM 
Post a Comment