Tsukiyumi wrote:Sorry, but cutting these people slack is why so many people die from "mistakes" in hospitals every year. If you'd like, I can find other info on the problem.
Believe me, I understand your visceral reaction. I feel exactly the same way. But at what point do you quit robbing Peter to pay Paul? In other words, do you really think it's worth it to stick it to the few bad ones if it means making the rest of the decent, helpful healthcare world unavailable to more people? I sure as hell don't. If I did, when a baby died because healthcare was unavailable thanks to the freedom of litigation, I'd be just as responsible for it as any bad doctor.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
HA! Now I read the link. Wow, that's pretty unreliable info on which to build a case. First, that's a study of Medicare cases, not the public at large. Second the metric used was even described by HealthGrades as identifying potentially-preventable issues. Even all the completely-preventable issues wouldn't fall under the sphere of "medical malpractice," and obviously even less of the "potentially-preventable ones would.
But, let's pretend that those figures are in fact reliable enough to use. Further, let's pretend (even though it's ridiculous) that all 195,000 incidents described are actually medical malpractice. That would mean that 0.53% of hospitalizations incur a case of medical malpractice. In a perfect world, of course, that number would be zero; but to restate my position above, are you willing to make healthcare less available because of the 0.53% chance that someone you know may be hurt by malpractice? An awful lot more people than 0.53% would be hurt by inaccesability of heathcare.
Let's refine it. The article suggst that a 20% reduction in issues is feasible. That makes 156,000 incidences. Now to further adjust for the real world, let's weed out the ones that wouldn't fall under medical malpractice. I'll be generous in saying that maybe 2/3 are malpractice, which makes (roughly) 105,000 cases, or 0.28% of all hospitalizations.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
No, you're right that statistically it's not that bad. However, even if you're being generous in favor of the medical system and say 100,000 people a year die from malpractice, that's still more people than die from gun violence and car accidents per year.
Statistics don't mean sh*t when I'm talking about people I love, though, and I'm honestly surprised that more people aren't infuriated by this. What they did to Leia was absolute crap, and that was in a rather large and well-funded hospital.
I do understand your position, though; my grandma has had literally dozens of surgeries and came out okay, for the most part - we call her "the bionic grandma".
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
If I may, just what do they define as malpractice? Is it a case of fucking up in surgery or prescribing the wrong medication, or is it a case of not giving what may be thought of as "enough" care for the patient?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
I think Malpractice has its uses. In the US Army where you can't sue for malpractice in just my little area of experience I knew one guy who died from over hydration because the medic made a mistake of thinking he was dehydrated and plugged in an IV of water. And someone at PTRP that was left alone and awake in a surgery room with her body opened up and her pain killers rapidly disappearing. And that was just in my little view field of about 500 patients. So I think Malpractice does keep doctors on their toes but I agree that its used too often and there should be a cap on the damages.
How many Minbari does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.
Those statistics probably, unfortunately, include all of the following: true malpractice; spurious allegations; and situations which were reported although nothing was able to be done.
Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm honestly surprised that more people aren't infuriated by this.
See, I'm more infuriated by the possibility of the allowance of spurious litigation making the ER unavailable if one of my babies needs it. Small chance of malpractice > 100% chance of no care at all.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
An emotional response is fine, but you can't govern from an emotional response. You need to make decisions based on sound factual evidence and well reasoned choices. If you don't... well take a look at our government over the last twenty years.
First off, a malpractice lawsuit for $250,000 isn't any less painful to a doctor than one for $5,000,000. His insurance is going to pay for either one. The difference to society is that the premiums for malpractice lawsuits would be far lower with a corresponding reduction in overall healthcare prices for everyone and potentially less defensive medicine. Lawsuits aren't going to correct malpractice, right now there's no cap on damages so you can't make it worse. If you really want to lower preventable deaths then you need to find another way because suing them into submission isn't working.
Mikey wrote:...See, I'm more infuriated by the possibility of the allowance of spurious litigation making the ER unavailable if one of my babies needs it. Small chance of malpractice > 100% chance of no care at all.
Dude, I agree that spurious lawsuits are f*cking the system up. Do you agree that hospital staff members are making way too many mistakes that kill people? I can find way more evidence than that one report; this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Tyyr wrote:An emotional response is fine, but you can't govern from an emotional response. You need to make decisions based on sound factual evidence and well reasoned choices.
I'm not the one that needs to change this sh*t. I'm just stating the facts of how I would feel if some unconcerned f*ckwads killed any friend of mine.
Tyyr wrote:If you really want to lower preventable deaths then you need to find another way because suing them into submission isn't working.
Agreed. I'm thinking something involving pikes.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Tsukiyumi wrote:Do you agree that hospital staff members are making way too many mistakes that kill people? I can find way more evidence than that one report; this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Sure; when the stakes are somebody's life, more than zero is too many. But until you finally release that medical droid on the market, doctors will make mistakes, because people make mistakes. Allowing frivolous lawsuits has not changed that fact, and disallowing such things can help people. So where, exactly, is the downside of disallowing such things?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I already conceded that frivolous bullsh*t lawsuits are hurting the entire medical system, but there is no substantial punishment for doctors or nurses who f*cking kill people through negligence. I'm sorry, but that is a serious problem. And it's not just a few people per year.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Tsukiyumi wrote:I already conceded that frivolous bullsh*t lawsuits are hurting the entire medical system, but there is no substantial punishment for doctors or nurses who f*cking kill people through negligence. I'm sorry, but that is a serious problem. And it's not just a few people per year.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that people dying due to medical "whoopies" are a bad thing. It is a bad thing...so what's the plan to stop it?
Well if we want to lower malpractice deaths, a good start would be to simply stop having doctors and nurses work retardly long shifts. But that would require hiring more and spending more money, can't have that now.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Well if we want to lower malpractice deaths, a good start would be to simply stop having doctors and nurses work retardly long shifts. But that would require hiring more and spending more money, can't have that now.
There you go.
I'm just stupefied by the lack of compassion and professionalism in the industry, though. Like I said, I saw it first-hand. That was just. plain. bullsh*t.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Cpl Kendall wrote:Well if we want to lower malpractice deaths, a good start would be to simply stop having doctors and nurses work retardly long shifts. But that would require hiring more and spending more money, can't have that now.
What sort of shifts do doctors in the US have?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
No, I didn't - that's why I asked about it.
