>>OFF TOPIC AND TOO LONG<<
JLA,
I'll offer some comments about the current "lawyers" discussion. For full disclosure, I'll admit that I have been sued and that it is a humiliating and degrading experience to see your work distorted and your personal character maligned. The higher the standards you hold for yourself the worse this hurts. But it's the plaintiff's attorney's job to support his case by tearing you down. After one deposition in which a lawyer tried to tear me apart, he came up to me and told me that if he ever had the need for surgery for him or his family, that he would want me to do it.
My point is that this litigation stuff is like a tennis game for lawyers. They tear each other up, then go out for lunch together afterward. It's a game. The fact that sensitive humans are often torn apart emotionally by their game doesn't seem to matter. They tell you not to take it so seriously. It's just "business", as the Mafia hit man says before he pulls the trigger.
Having said that, let me state that in my experience, most lawyers have been honest people. They are naturally profiting by the system which exists, just as most physicians did when Medicare paid very high fees. Not to participate in the system is stupid if it benefits you.
Also, nowadays we have, thanks to the Republicans and their ties to the insurance industry, the managed care or HMO system, which looks like a "bargain" up front but tries to cut costs with your life and health at stake. Many physicians are now realizing that combatting Clinton's (admittedly awful) socialized system may have been a "frying pan into the fire" move, when we consider the consequences for physicians' autonomy in patient care decisions.
My point here is that without the threat of legal action, the managed care millionaires would have a license to kill, the threat of lawsuits being the only thing keeping their avarice in check.
Physicians and lawyers will never see eye-to-eye because we are trained in totally different methods. The scientific method teaches us to record all observations in an experiment, whether or not these data support our hypothesis. The lawyers are taught to discard those facts which do not support your side of the argument. This is advocacy.
There is indeed a litigation explosion, and some controls are necessary. I'm not smart enough to know what they should be. But the cost of litigation to the country is enormous, just in the ridiculous waste of medical resources for protection from malpractice. It's one thing to put up a sign saying "Watch your Step", but it's much more costly to get an $800 CAT scan on many patients who comes to the emergency room with a headache. (I am not kidding or exaggerating).
Another thing which would reduce the need for lawsuits would be for Insurance Companies to pay the benefits they agreed to pay when you bought the policy. They compete with other companies and lower their premiums, then try to get the money back by not paying the subscriber. The only thing which seems to make them live up to their contract is the threat of an expensive lawsuit.
One final note: I don't think doctors or lawyers should be allowed to advertise, other than a small,discrete telephone book ad, or an announcement in the newspaper whey they begin practice. I would love to know how much money is spent on defensive medicine, extraordinary personal injury settlements and advertising. We should be spending these dollars on infrastructure, transportation, education, research, and other beneficial things.
Sorry for long post, JLA. I do respect your profession.
Jack |
