lisarea

I KNOW.

But it was in place for quite a while.

http://www.mcandl.com/colorado.html#VII

As I understand it, they started carving out little paths around it while the caps were in place, but even those added an extra burden of proof for the injured party to show that, in fact, they should not have to pay the doctor for accidentally sawing off their leg or whatever.

OK. I was being lazy before, but I went and asked.

I guess what you have to do to determine future earnings is get a forensic economist or something to figure out earning potential based on various demographic factors. So, say a 2-year old is brain damaged and will be unable to earn a living for the rest of his life. They'll take into account factors such as socioeconomic status, the parents' education and employment, etc., and use those factors to determine what the child's likely earning potential would have been based almost entirely on averages for the relevant demographics, and those are considered economic.

Which is kind of scary and weird, because that seems to imply that the child of poor minority parents would automatically be deemed of lesser value than the child of wealthy Ivy League educated parents. For someone who is older and thus farther along in establishing their own life, those factors would be taken into account.

I'm sorry. I must be the laziest person ever, for not just walking down the hall to ask in the first place. If some forensic economist comes around asking questions, though, don't tell him about the laziness thing, OK?

Edit: I forgot to add that the reason I ask this is because of cases like Jesica Santillan, who got an organ transplant with the wrong bloodtype, and who was determined to have virtually no economic worth, as she was 17, unemployed, and poor. She eventually died, but if she had been grievously injured, I would hate to think that a young person is limited to some minimum economic value based solely on circumstances beyond their control. I might have something less of a problem if there were some kind of reasonable, and even reasonably optimistic, standard set for future economic damages.

pug846

The 76% figure is, unsurprisingly, total bullshit and not scientific. It’s based on a survey sent out to a medical organizations membership—76% of those who responded said they had been sued.

Loren said:

Wow, Loren once again posting in a thread about medical malpractice without evidence to support his position.

Loren, don’t you think it’s a bit too obviously hypocritical for you to criticize jurors for making judgments where there “isn’t the evidence to decide�? when you consistently do the same thing?

Loren Pechtel

And what's wrong with that? You think the doctors were lying about being sued??

someotherguy

I'm no statistician, but it seems to me that this method could easily inflate the percentage without any dishonesty on the part of the doctors. Those who have been sued might be more likely to respond (and hence be counted) than those who have not been sued. I don't know the name, but I'm pretty sure that this is some sort of statistical fallacy. This is, of course, assuming that Pug's assessment of the study is accurate.

pug846

Well, for those of us who like to base our opinions on things called facts, putting aside that it isn’t clear whether the survey was even a random sampling of the organization’s members, the 76% would not represent obstetricians as a whole unless you assume, without any evidence, that the members of the organization represent obstetricians as a whole. (There is an irony in your being appalled at the thought of doctors lying though: you constantly write—again, without factual support—that there are tons of meritless lawsuits. In those “meritless�? lawsuits, at least one expert witness—i.e., at least one doctor—would be willing to swear that malpractice had been committed. As a result, you must hold the position that those doctors are lying.)

As was pointed out to you here, simply going to google and linking to the first article you find with certain key words in it does not constitute legitimate support for your position. Although I must say that your attempt to back up your baseless assertions is rather encouraging. Perhaps one day you can take part in a discussion about issues, such as medical malpractice, by actually having an informed opinion.

…

As for the article linked in the OP, I’m not sure I have a problem with what the doctor did. If the doctor feels that his personal feelings about the patient might cause him to treat the patient less than what he expects of himself, then I think he did the right thing by refusing to work with the patient.

It’s also clear that something needs to be done to ensure that women receive the medical care they need when giving birth. Unfortunately, as has been argued over and over again in this forum, there is little evidence to suggest that “tort reform�? will help.

Matt the Medic

Yes I do. And that is what I get for trying to type a cogent post at 5:45 in the morning before a long day at work. It was more a reflection of how we pronounce the acronyms at work (jay-ko) I guess.

Liberal

He shouldn't be forced to treat anyone he doesn't want to. Why should he be forced to treat a patient who could potentially destroy him, or at least be oblivious to that fact? If she doesn't care about him, why should he care about her?

America is ridiculous with it's damage awards. John Edwards specialized in these kind of frivilous lawsuits. His main specialty was "proving" that lack of C-sections caused brain damage in babies, using gullible juries, junk science, and tragic cases which always make use of appeal to emotion. This "theory" has since been thoroughly falsified. The cost of medical care is driven up in this way because doctors had to perform more c-sections, protecting doctors from lawsuits but not protecting babies from brain damage.

No, thats not true. It's rather difficult to get a p.h.d in medicine first of all. Secondly, there are brigades of regulations and rules you have to go through to renew your license to practice medicine. Finally, patients have every right to choose their own doctors based on what they know. If they don't have enough information about one doctor they should seek another.

Besides, what evidence do you have to prove that medical boards shield bad doctors, besides unsupported assertion?

Which hospitals like to employ bad doctors? Let me know so I can avoid going to those ones.

To my knowledge, there is no hospital in the world which prefers bad doctors over good doctors, but let us know.

Case in point: gullible liberals.

What reason do you have to believe that there is a conspiracy in the first place?

Probably lying? I see no reason to believe that.

To left-wing extremists it does. Read some of the thread titles around here.

That implies that reason is the central motive behind a juries decision in the first place, which is often not true. Emotions play a much bigger role in American courtrooms, which is why we have people like Johnny Cochran, who are paid to play on the juries emotions.

See, another medical person has just corroborated everything I said.

Viti

The last time we had this discussion, evidence was presented showing that states that inacted tort reform did not have a correlating drop in insurance premiums. :huh:

Liberal

I'd like to analyze that data more closely if you don't mind.

pug846

I forgot to provide the link to the “76%�? study in my previous post, and I can’t currently seem to find a description of it anymore on the ACOG website, but here is an article discussing part of the scope of the survey (along with the current difficulty of being an OBYGN). Although this story does seem to describe the study as a random sampling of ACOG doctors, other links don’t seem to convey that message. (Regardless, it is clear that the study is of ACOG doctors and not a random sampling of all OBGYN doctors.)

Liberal writes:

His “main specialty�?? One case in his entire career dealing with c-sections and brain damage and that’s his main specialty? Moreover, unsurprisingly, your description of the case isn’t accurate.

I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement that at the very least, some medical boards don’t do a very good job policing doctors. For example, here is an article describing some of the problems found in New Jersey. From the article:

Here’s another story detailing how lax some medical boards have been: