--- Jim Westrich <westrich@nodimension.com> wrote:

"James's "nobody knows" is disingenuous at best. The fact 
is people do study how doctor's practice and know that 
the argument that "defensive medicine" drives health care 
costs is at best insignificantly true."  

It's not possible to disentangle unnecessary tests due to 
litigation and unnecessary tests due to other political 
pressures to test for everything (it's being widely 
promoted by the UK health lobby for reasons unconnected to 
the law).  But if doctors' professionalism means that they 
continue to do the right thing, that does not excuse a culture 
of litigation that encourages bad practices.  

The most common advice to avoid malpractice suits 
is to communicate well.  If it's the good communicators that 
are avoiding being sued, that doesn't suggest that litigation 
is effectively regulating health professionals. It just means 
that there are incentives for the 'nice' ones.

I have no doubt that many tort lawyers go into it for the 
best reasons and achieve good results for their clients, but 
weighed against the overall cost and inefficiency of litigation, 
the promotion of bad medical practice, the unjust and arbitrary 
nature of the system and unfair treatment of doctors, it is not 
something that anyone should be supporting.  Can't we argue for 
proper tort reform rather than just opposing the tort reform 
agenda as it is posed at the moment? 

--James