Given that medical lawsuits do more for lawyers than the plaintiffs and that even when a medical lawsuit is not bogus, the doctor is not punished - it's the liability insurance company that pays out, charging other doctors for their expenses, which of course get passed along to our health insurance company, which gets passed along to us. So, Why Not create a medical court for all disputes. There would be no jury, just judges and qualified medical experts. Patients could still collect damages, but minimal "pain and suffering". Doctors would be much more liable for suspension of license and true disciplinary action. That would be more likely to end true malpractice and greatly reduce the monitary and human costs.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
I agree we need to create a system similiar to family court which deals solely with medical claims. These courts could set up a more rigid and conformed system or policy for revoking doctor licenses. It will also be easier to track doctor's who frequently have claims pressed against them.
Although it's far from perfect, I think all hospitals already have board which grants or revokes privileges to practice medicine in that hospital, which is already a 'medical court' in some sense.
The problem with eliminating jurors from the system is that I think the perception is that doctors would be reluctant to punish another doctor. Think of how badly the police actually control rogue cops. What if instead of suing the cop who wrongfully beat you up in court, you had to take him before a board of other cops? I think the impression of injustice is apparent.
This same problem arises with those cheated by stock brokers. Arbitration before a panel of the NASD is most often mandatory, and the NASD is, surprise, made of current or former brokers, so the NASD awards are commonly thought to be inadequate, or at least substantially less than what a jury would give.