>When we speak of malpractice, it doesn't generally refer to
>doctors butchering patients because they're drunk, but to
>honest professionals making mistakes. And when they are
>disporportionately punished for making mistakes, it
>encourages a timid conservatism that isn't necessarily best
>for patient care.
>
>James Greenstein
When we speak of malpractice we are generally not talking about $500,000 judgements either Most settlements or judgements are for minor mistakes and are awarded minor amounts. When you see amounts like $1.3M then you are almost always talking about a case of the doctor fucking up big time and should be ordered to do some serious community service in his role as a medical practitioner. You believe the awards are disproportionate punishments, and they are, only just the opposite of the way you believe. The patient is disproportionately punished in most instances. Insurance reform is what is needed. When California enacted caps the rates of malpractice insurance went up at a disproportionate rate when compared to the national average. When CA enacted some half-way decent insurance regulations premiums fell over 20% in three years. Caps also meant more of the recovery went for legal fees than the injured victim. Caps also make lawsuits more likely which means insurance companies spend an even lager percentage of the premiums collected fighting claims in court. Tort reform, as it is currently proposed, is a bad idea and anyone with an evenly mildly progressive outlook should oppose it. I don't mean progressive in a "weasely" way either. :)
John Thornton