Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (343698)	7/19/2007 5:12:34 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1573924

"Personal attacks? Been there, done that for over a decade. Lrn2GrowAThickSkin." Sure. It is just harder to classify those as lying.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (343698)	7/19/2007 6:29:21 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

re: a) I don't care what percentage of malpractice cases are won. What matters are the ones that actually do result in a victory for the plaintiffs, along with its negative effects on health care. You want doctors to be exempt from tort liability? re: b) So what if Edwards isn't the core cause? He's clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution. What's the solution? re: c) So Longnshort isn't very "nuanced." He's so nuanced he makes your skin crawl. (And btw he will love that).

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (343698)	7/19/2007 8:17:37 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

" I don't care what percentage of malpractice cases are won." You should. It is a measure of how severe the problem is. "What matters are the ones that actually do result in a victory for the plaintiffs, along with its negative effects on health care." I am not saying it is a great thing. But what is someone is supposed to do when they are saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills per year for an indefinite period of time? Insurance won't cover it. Euthanasia isn't an option. And the vast majority of people don't have that kind of income, not even close. Because there are bad docs out there. You ever work in a hospital? I did, for 5 1/5 years. Doctors, especially in ER and surgeons, are under a lot of pressure. And some, turn to drugs. I remember one surgeon who got into coke way too much. His fine motor skills were fine, but his judgment eventually went out the window. Especially under stress. He would, for example, over-rule the anesthesiologist. And he would do things that were so wrong the assisting surgeon and nurses would try to correct him. Complaints were filed, and nothing happened. He killed a few patients and the scuttlebutt was that it was his fault. What finally did him in was, when a nurse was trying to convince him he was doing the wrong thing, he exploded and threw a scalpel at her. Because it nicked her and exposed her to blood, there was an official report filed and the hospital board couldn't ignore that. So he got treatment. But what about those people who died? Or worse, the ones that survived, but were damaged? When you look at malpractice suits, the same names keep popping up, over and over again. I haven't seen recent figures, but at one point nearly 80% of malpractice claims were against like 5% of the docs. The AMA is reluctant to do anything because they don't want to cut a colleague's career short. So all that can be done with a bad doc is to sue him or her. There is literally no other recourse. It isn't like the people who win a malpractice claim have done the equivalent of winning the lottery. The money in virtually all of the high dollar cases is going to go to someone who will require expensive medical care for the rest of their lives. So, is it fair that a doc screws up and ruins the life of not only his victim, but the lives of the victims family?