About tort reform - We need to start talking about the function of a

[hedgehog]

malpractice suit.

Is it to remove inept and/or unethical doctors? If so, this is a clumsy method that is often ineffective. Sometimes a doctor who has done nothing wrong is punished because someone has to take the blame for an injury or death. Sometimes a doctor who shouldn't be practicing ends up paying a higher malpractice premium and is free to harm more people. Non-disclosure agreements make this even easier. What we really need is better self policing by all the medical professions (hospitals, nurses and pharmacists gets sued sometimes, too.) It's tough, because people are being asked to police the people they work with. Part of this involves an ongoing effort to determine best practices. A side bonus is that reform in this direction will help limit unnecessary procedures. For example, when should a cat scan be done in the case of a suspected stroke or a head injury?

Is the purpose of the malpractice suit to make someone whole? If someone develops an infection because of bad infection control, that person shouldn't have to pay for treatment to cure the infection. But consider two children with cerebral palsy. Let's say the first case was caused by something that happened during labor and delivery. The second case has no apparent cause. The first child may end up with a life time annuity to pay for future care, or that child may end up with nothing. Under the current system, the second child may also end up with an annuity, or with nothing. A lot depends on the attitudes and education of the jury, the lawyers involved and the judge.

We need to ensure that the patient doesn't have to pay for someone's error. If there is an error, something has to be done to protect against future error besides a payout to the injured party. We also need to ensure that some classes of patients get the assistance they need even if no one is at fault. The Vaccine Court is a model for these situations.

Is the purpose of a malpractice suit to punish someone? I'm not sure what to say about this.The notion of punitive damages is well established. On the other hand, at some point, wouldn't criminal law rather than civil law apply?

There is a need for tort reform, but simply placing a cap on awards is not the tort reform we need.

[asdjrocky]

1. There is no need for tort reform.

It never has the desired effects, just take a look at the data. Tort reform is a corporate right wing lie. Like Welfare Queens.