Re: What's up Doc? Tell it to the hand.
From: Robert J. Carpenter, Jr. MD (zygote@icsi.net)
Sat Jun 28 13:49:09 2003
As I have facetiouly stated for years, there would neither be a malpractice crisis nor a
situation where 15% (or therabouts) of the GNP are used for health care if we would
revert to medicine the way it could be practiced in 1900! And as my Chinese genetics
teacher said in 1968 "You Americans pollute the gene pool!" Interesting, the average
person expects everything possible done for them and for it to be done perfectly and
for them to pay nothing! That is very interesting!
On 28 Jun 2003 at 10:46, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/27/03 22:55:12, djkrell@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> > If all our money is merely paper, then lets work it out so that
> > doctors and hospitals are more profitable entities than insurance
> > companies and personal injury lawyers, and so that injured people
> > can be helped financially without 30% going to the attorney. Human
> > error and non-preventable medical events should not end up in
> > court. The term "malpractice" should be very narrowly interpreted,
> > then the consequence of such an offense can quite rightly be dire.
> >
>
> Well, the definition of malpractice IS pretty narrow.
>
> First principles:
>
> 1) You have to have a damage - no harm, then no foul. So in the first
> place, the patient needs to be injured somehow. This IS of course
> where some frivolous claims start, with "pain and suffering." I would
> wonder how many of y'all/us have been sued for a good result that just
> hurt too much. I'd wager that's a very small percentage of the whole.
>
> 2) You have to have violation of the standard of care. And who makes
> up the standard of care? WE do. Of course, we delegate that
> responsibility sometimes to organizations (and quite often the
> organizations screw us - remember the ACOG VBAC scandal?), including
> hospitals and HMOs. THAT'S where we need to tighten up. Plaintiffs'
> whores, "experts," and the like, as well as ridiculous "protocols" and
> "policies and procedures" are all things WE should have a hand in
> dealing with. Remember, part of the malpractice establishment came
> about by OUR OWN establishment of a "standard of care," because
> well-educated doctors didn't like having to compete with snake-oil
> salesmen (literally - in the 1800s and earlier) for the medical care
> patient base. You make the standards, then they hold YOU to the
> standards.
>
> 3) Finally, it must be proved that the violation of the standard of
> care caused the damage. That's almost an after the fact kind of thing.
> If you can prove there was no violation of the standard of care, or if
> there's no damage, you get the case dismissed anyway. (Unless your
> lawyer commits malpractice - but that's another story for another
> time.)
>
> Anyway, the definition of malpractice is pretty standard and actually
> pretty reasonable. It's the fleshing out and use of the definition
> that causes the problem. And much of that is OUR own doing.
>
> Joe P.
>
> "Ambulance chasers would not be in business, if there were no
> ambulances." - J. Pastorek, 2003
>
--
Robert J. Carpenter, Jr. MD
6624 Fannin, #2720
St. Luke's Medical Tower
Houston,TX 77030-2339
713-795-4600
|
|
