Bush says limiting lawsuits will save healthcare

Published

HMmmmm just wondering how you all feel about that theory. Bush says that lawyers are responsible for healthcare costs. I personally feel patients have the right to sue for malpractice. We've all heard horror stories of what our godlike docs have done to patients. I think the law keeps them accountable for what they do. And where would docs be without the nurses who catch the errors before they hurt the patient? Countless times i can recall calling a doc with an order for something the patient was allergic to. Also being the 24/7 monitors we are of the patients..how many times we point out critical things going on with their patients. The docs are crying cause they can't make enough money with insurance costs. I sayyy awwww suck it up and and only have one Mercedes in the driveway:rotfl:

Fergus, I have worked NICU too. I know how expensive it is. And I am not saying the doc is always right. There have been times when I wanted to walk up to a pt. after a delivery and say, "here's a # for a lawyer, sue the *@#! out of that butcher."

I don't think people should have their right to sue taken away either. I think there needs to be a p&s award cap, as well as a "loser pays" system....where the loser in the case foots the bill for the court costs. ALL of the court costs.

Again, if you haven't been witness to it firsthand (lawsuit abuse, frivolous lawsuits, etc..), I can understand you not agreeing with tort reform. I assure you though, excessive litigation is a HUGE problem and needs to be reigned in. Stat.

I live in NC too, Vicky. I feel your pain, girlfriend. :rotfl:

No, you misunderstand me. I think tort reform is a fine idea. I just don't see how it will actually result in decreased costs or decrease the number of frivolous suits (because people can still sue all they want and even with pain and suffering caps, the awards will still be HUGE).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

Not all birth asphyxias are due to malpractice or can be proven to be. I was deposed many years ago on such an incident. Heart rate tracing was indicative of trouble; thick meconium had been seen; pt refused c/section for some time; and once she agreed, INSISTED on an epidural (thus taking more time to get baby born); That was probably 20 years ago and at that time we did not do c/sections on our OB unit. First OR crew was in a case, so a second crew had to be called in. The lawsuit was based on the time delay for getting the second crew in. Now: the evidence of fetal distress was there long before the patient even consented to a c/section; and then she refused a general (also long before we did spinals for c/sections) thus delaying the delivery even more. Who's to say the insult to the infant was caused by the docs? Cannot be proven, but this case was settled out of court. Who's to say that the real damage occurred in the time between when she was told a c/section was necessary and the time she finally consented to have it. Or the additional time giving her an epidural ate up. THAT's what makes me angry. I might add that at that time, not many epidurals were being done in that hospital, so the experience level of the person who did it was probably, and most likely, not the best.

Not that I would wish a bad outcome on anyone, especially a newborn, but these people were given all the possible risks involved with the delay they themselves caused. For them to come back later and cry "you owe me" is just plain wrong. IMHO, of course.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Interesting reading all the opinions on this issue. I think the idea of the plantiff being responsible for the costs of suing, if the case is lost. The two times i was called to jury duty I watched some cases with medical claims. As the lawyers were choosing the jury for the case..they would not pick people with medical backgrounds. The general public would have no clue as to what was going on in the case.But they surely, would immediately have empathy for a "victim" of medical malpractice. If it were not for legalities, how would we keep docs accountable? They cover their own..the public never knowing what has occured. When I went in to just have my wisdom teeth removed last month..i was made to watch a film on the possible complications, and then sign a consent that i was aware of what might occur including death. So how can people sue with such consents. Certainly a neurology surgeon has an extensive consent as to what might occur while working on the brain.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in private duty/home health, med/surg.

The average person sitting on a jury doesn't have enough medical education to make the kind of decisions required in a medical malpractice suit, IMO. A doctor who is being sued isn't truly in front of a jury of his/her peers when the jurors are laypeople. There are just so many things wrong with the system that something needs to be done.

People need to have the right to sue but I agree that "pain and suffering" needs to be capped. I also agree that tort reform will do nothing unless the insurance companies agree to reduce premiums.

On a side note, someone mentioned the McDonald's lawsuit & how a woman got "millions" for dumping coffee on her lap. There are many misconceptions about this case which was not a frivolous lawsuit. You can find facts about it here: McDonald's Coffee Case.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
No, you misunderstand me. I think tort reform is a fine idea. I just don't see how it will actually result in decreased malpractice insurance costs or decrease the number of frivolous suits (because people can still sue all they want and even with pain and suffering caps, the awards will still be HUGE).

Because with caps on p&s, the insurers' risk goes down, thus their premiums can gow down. Yes, the awards will still be huge, but not *as* huge.

Again, I don't think it will be a silver bullet. I guess what you're saying is that you don't think tort reform will "save" healthcare, and I guess I'm really agreeing with you, just being kind of dingy and not really understanding until now that that was the case. So this was a total waste of brain power. :rotfl: Bleah. I'm tired. My kid hasn't napped today. Cut me some slack.

As for what we need to do to "save" healthcare, I don't have enough bandwidth to go on that kind of diatribe. :p

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The average person sitting on a jury doesn't have enough medical education to make the kind of decisions required in a medical malpractice suit, IMO. A doctor who is being sued isn't truly in front of a jury of his/her peers when the jurors are laypeople.

Precisely. I couldn't agree more. Doctors need to judge doctors in medical malpractice cases, IMO. They understand the logistics and medical limits. The lay public, whether they believe it or not, still believe doctors can do magic and save/cure/heal anything and anybody.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

That was interesting to read about the McDonalds case thank you for sharing that. It was me who brought that up. Again I wonder about consents people sign for the procedure they are about to undergo. Don't they limit lawsuits? As well as inform the patient totally about what they are at risk for. I would love to know what cases of medical malpractice make it to a jury. Most are settled out of court with gag orders on the case. I know of one doctor who went to trial, because he beleived he was innocent. He was a dermatologist who did a liposuction on a woman, she died of fluid overload. He lost and it made the headlines of our local paper.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Our consents for OB are a mile long. And at the NICU where I used to work, they have a general NICU consent with every procedure on it, and it's literally PAGES long. Scary. My patients have to sign a minimum of 8 consents on admission. EIGHT.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Supporters of tort reform often point to California as a poster child, where tort reform was initiated. But what they conveniently ignore is that malpractice insurance premiums only stabilized once insurance reform laws were introduced. Tort reform, by itself, did nothing to control the skyrocketing rates of malpractice.

This is what bears repeating. Tort reform alone won't make insurance companies lower their premiums, regardless of whether their risk is decreased. Have you ever known a company to say "Oh, we don't need all this money now, so we'll charge less"? I haven't. Once tort reform becomes a reality the insurance companies will just say "But we are still paying huge judgements!" or "People are still filing frivolous lawsuits" or whatever.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
This is what bears repeating. Tort reform alone won't make insurance companies lower their premiums, regardless of whether their risk is decreased. Have you ever known a company to say "Oh, we don't need all this money now, so we'll charge less"? I haven't. Once tort reform becomes a reality the insurance companies will just say "But we are still paying huge judgements!" or "People are still filing frivolous lawsuits" or whatever.

exactly the point i was making toward the beginning of this thread. yes ort reform may lower the risk, so insurances companies CAN lower rates, but will they actually DO it? somehow in my cynical mind i think not....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Medical.
On a side note, someone mentioned the McDonald's lawsuit & how a woman got "millions" for dumping coffee on her lap. There are many misconceptions about this case which was not a frivolous lawsuit. You can find facts about it here: McDonald's Coffee Case.

I was going to post this but you beat me to it! What's really interesting is that everyone's heard the distorted version, but few people have heard all the details. Hmm, wonder why that is.

Someone posted earlier about the costs of bringing up a disabled child - there was a case in Victoria which came to court recently, where an otherwise-healthy infant was admitted for surgical correction of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis; a 50% dextrose infusion was ordered and hung, but it should have been 5%; the error wasn't noticed for a considerable number of hours, and the infant sustained significant brain damage.

Sure, some suits are frivolous, and I absolutely agree that the public need to be better educated consumers - getting rid of the ever-growing concept that "something's wrong, I don't like it, it's someone's fault and they should pay" wouldn't hurt either - but mistakes happen and outright negligence happens, too.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

That is so sad. Even as a medical person, I have a hard time putting a price on that now brain damaged little one. Accidents happen all the time and no human is perfect. The more I read this thread I started the more I say to myself hmmmm.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion