Do you agree or disagree with President Obama regarding malpractice suits?

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," Obama said Wednesday night.

In June, Obama told the American Medical Association that he was not an advocate of lawsuit caps, which he said can "be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/news/economy/obama_medical_malpractice/?postversion=2009091112

[Batman24]

I definitely think many doctors are practicing defensive medicine. We live in such a litigious society that many doctors are afraid that if they don't run the gamut of tests, etc. they will be held liable and chances are good they might be. And this happens in all arenas of medicine where matters are far from life threatening. It is costing us billions.

I am not in favor of capped damages either. That would be grossly unfair to those that are victims of gross negligence where life long care is needed and where horrible permanent damage is done.

A big issue that could save billions is the ER being used for emergencies only. I would also like to see the idiotic malpractice suits thrown out with the plaintiff footing court costs. L&D is another area where I have concerns. Tons of money spent there where it need not be.

[elkpark]

I'm not sure whether I "agree" or "disagree" with Obama on this, because it's another of his middle-of-the-road, "this, but then again, that" statements. He isn't really taking a particular position, except possibly the part about being opposed to capping damages. Was that what you were referring to?

[lsyorke, RN]

I'm not sure whether I "agree" or "disagree" with Obama on this, because it's another of his middle-of-the-road, "this, but then again, that" statements. He isn't really taking a particular position, except possibly the part about being opposed to capping damages. Was that what you were referring to?

I think that his argument is what most people think. We see "defensive medicine" all the time, which absolutely raises costs, but then we also see the negligent doctor. Until there is a true effort to remove the negligent physician, the public is at risk, and the only recourse is the lawsuit.

We also see the "group treatment", where every consultant is called in from one group of doctors and every test ordered in each specialty, regardless of admitting diagnosis. Talk about raising the cost! Specialization is a great thing, but not every diagnosis needs 5 specialists to all say the same thing.

There is no easy answer, but the patient being the only one being asked to accept concessions isn't the answer.

[ukstudent]

Before I could agree or disagree I would have to know what his position is. Like Elkpark said he hasn't stated a position.