WHAT MALPRACTICE CASES DO
TO DESTROY YOUR MEDICAL CARE
The Battle to Allow American's Freedom to Purchase Affordable Canadian Scripts Reaches New Bizarre Low
"A government that's big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away."
Currently, I am watching in Florida and Pennsylvania the slow and steady erosion of good medical care. Foolish malpractice lawyer associations lie and say this is having no effect on the quality of medicine, as if they were physicians.
Here is a small sample of what happens to your area when it becomes known as a place where lawyers control the medicine. They can control your medical care by constant lawsuits, lawyer controlled state medical boards, state representatives promoting anti-physician positions or merely doing nothing to promote your area as a safe place for physicians to practice.
How You and Your Loved Ones Get Burned
By Those "Caring" Sharks -- Malpractice Attorneys
- You will lose physicians if you live in a state with high lawsuits.
- You will lose emergency room specialists, e.g., hand surgeons, neurosurgeons, cardiologists, obstetricians, when you need them most.
- You or loved ones may die, lose organs or limbs due to excess travel to areas that offer specialized high liability treatment.
- The best and brightest are not idiots, and to survive will only treat simple patients and will not treat difficult problems.
- You will be forced to endure excess testing which is both a hassle and something you will pay for, as you will see below.
- No phone consultations or scripts, which do not generate income to pay off massive malpractice premiums and increase liability.
- A slow loss of evening coverage or weekend coverage by your physicians. Instead you will be referred to an emergency room that may be hours away. In both Florida and SE Pennsylvania, which both have many hospitals, I am seeing my patients or family referred to other counties or cities by trauma teams and pediatricians -- facilities hours or hundreds of miles away.
- You or your loved ones will get less time with your physician since they have to make more money to pay for their massive overhead -- including paying for out of control MASSIVE malpractice bills.
- Routine care for pregnancies or specialist surgeons may be hundreds of miles away.
- Any patient service that does not generate income to pay for huge malpractice rates is being lost to you.
- Every penny for malpractice payments comes from you. It also comes from the care of other people. It does not come from the assets of doctors. All costs are passed on. Assets of doctors are called "blood money." Lawyers don't touch physician's assets, because they know doctors might actually become very aggressive if that started to happen. Currently, most physicians are merely passively moving away or cutting services; they are not being aggressive. Start talking about taking a physicians'home, the home of his family, and you would see every physician in the country become a lion in a day.
Bottom line: medical malpractice is a tax on working people and patients. It either raises costs or reduces your access to care.
- Lawsuits cause defensive medicine which adds 10% in costs nationally, but which is extra care that is usually worthless to you.
- Medical malpractice prevents the investigation of medical errors and the prevention of future ones. Meaning, it kills people and hurts them because no one is willing to go back and look honestly at how care could be improved.
Let me surprise you-Some physicians believe most medical errors are the fault of a lawyer.
John Edwards single-handedly increased the rate of Caesarian sections in this country. The cerebral palsy rate due to the increase in "safer" C-section should have created a dramatic reduction in cerebral palsy. It has not.
Instead, he has single-handedly increased the asthma and gastroenteritis
rates in infants by 31%. Where do the extra asthma and gastroenteritis
victims go for justice? [In this site I mention concerns with both parties].
Clin Exp Allergy. 2003 Jun;33(6):757-64.
Caesarean section increases the risk of hospital care in childhood for
asthma and gastroenteritis.
Hakansson S, Kallen K.
Department of Paediatrics, University Hospital,Umea, Sweden.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if caesarean section (CS) increases the risk for childhood asthma and gastroenteritis with reference made to children born with vaginal delivery (VD).
METHODS: Retrospective study of data from linked Swedish medical service registers--Medical Birth Registry (MBR) and Hospital Discharge Registry (HDR). Data were obtained from women without any background/perinatal morbidity noted, and from children without any neonatal complications. Children that had reached at least 1 year of age and were found in the HDR were considered as cases, whereas children not found in the HDR or hospitalized for other causes than asthma or gastroenteritis were defined as controls. Odds ratios (OR) stratified for year of birth, maternal age, parity and smoking in early pregnancy were calculated. Investigations were made comparing the risk for in hospital treatment for asthma or gastroenteritis in CS children and in VD siblings of CS children. The overall inpatient morbidity in CS and VD children were also nvestigated.
RESULTS: The OR for asthma in CS children was 1.31 [95% confidence interval CI) 1.23-1.40]. The same OR, 1.31, was found for gastroenteritis (95% CI 1.24-1.38). The OR for CS children having experienced both asthma and gastroenteritis was further increased (1.74, 95% CI 1.36-2.23). The risk for asthma in VD siblings of CS children was not significantly increased, whereas VD siblings experienced a slightly increased risk for gastroenteritis. CS children had an increased overall in hospital morbidity when compared to VD children.
CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase of the risk for developing symptoms of asthma and/or gastroenteritis that motivates admission for hospital care in CS [cesarean section] children older than 1 year. It is speculated that a disturbed intestinal colonization pattern in CS children may be a common pathogenic factor.
What Do Lawyers Say Is Their Goal in Malpractice Lawsuits? Is This True?
- vindicating individual rights
- redressing private harms (public harms are redressed by criminal law)
- moral responsibility and corrective justice
- good social policy helping all of us
- preventing violent self-help and retaliation
- deterring wrongful conduct
- assessing the cost of injury and of risk to the wrongdoer
- economic efficiency (predictable rules, willing payment of costs of injury)
- balancing judicial accountability with tight rules and judicial flexibility and the human factor with loose rules
- requiring rationality by imposing a need for reliable proof.
Why Do Lawyers Make Themselves Immune To Their Own Medicine? Is This Hypocritical?
OK. Let's accept these dubious reasons and simplistic beliefs for the massive malpractice feeding frenzy.
Why then do lawyers and Judges (who are also lawyers) deal themselves nearly absolute and absolute immunity from these benefits listed above? Why can't lawyers and Judges be sued so they may receive these great benefits for their work?
In the case of Judges, the error rate in the death penalty is 20%.
In the case of medical malpractice, jurors are saying they are wrong 70-80% of the time, with no accountability for the costs and traumas of their wrongdoing.
Malpractice attorneys feel free to impose their "solution" on all of us. Why not expose them to the great benefits of litigation so they may improve their practices and stop hurting people?
Yet where is the data showing that our system achieves any of these goals? Are medical error rates far higher in Germany or Switzerland?
* The Haddon Matrix is almost 40 years old. No lawyer has heard of it. Virtually all accident experts work this way now. It certainly applies to medical error prevention. It is far superior to the basic legal concepts of factual causation and proximate legal causation.
Some of this is from an experienced clinician that does not want to be harassed in the future, and has no desire to be known or traced for fear of repercussions. So much for physicians guiding medicine. This veteran does not even want his name or specialty known. He has a fear of speaking freely! Lawyers run all three branches of government and all of medicine law. I suppose he is aware of the vulnerability of tempering with the malpractice money machine.
[In this site you will find concerns I have with both parties]
To Your Health!