Greedy Trial Lawyer
Defensive Medicine - Is It Medical Malpractice?
Category: Gaming The System
Just imagine for a minute that it was suspected that accountants were practicing defensive accounting - accounting practice based on fear of legal liability rather than on their clients' best interests. Then, actual studies confirmed this suspicion. Would the solution to this state of affairs be to propose four (or more) avenues for reform of the traditional tort compensation system?
Why does the entire English-speaking world have to revise its traditional tort compensation system because doctors refuse to practice good medicine? If a doctor wants to claim that he is practicing defensive medicine should he not be disciplined for failing to practice within the standard of care? Or, has the medical standard of care degenerated to the point where it embraces defensive medicine?
From Lancet, 2006 Jul 15;368(9531):240-6:
Effects of the medical liability system in Australia, the UK, and the USA
Although the direct costs of the medical liability system account for a small fraction of total health spending, the system's indirect effects on cost and quality of care can be much more important. Here, we summarize findings of existing research on the effects of the medical liability systems of Australia, the UK, and the USA. We find systematic evidence of defensive medicine--medical practice based on fear of legal liability rather than on patients' best interests. We conclude with discussion of four avenues for reform of traditional tort compensation for medical injury and several suggestions for future research.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/281
Comments
Here's what I want to know - how do you quantify this "defensive medicine"? Surveys? Ha.
Even with the most artfully worded questions, you can't get past the fact that the tort reform lobby and medical industry associations have done a brilliant job of convincing doctors that they practice defensive medicine. So, when surveyed, the doctors' answers are even more unreliable than typical self-reporting.
Let's be honest for about 5-seconds. "Defensive medicine" is an unquantifiable abstract concept that is nothing but political rhetoric. Ted Frank and Dan Kessler can harp on and on about defensive medicine, but the fact of the matter is that they can't present any hard scientific evidence of it, regardless of whether or not it exists.
But that's the point, isn't it? Ted Frank and Dan Kessler are just lobbyists. They push a particular policy agenda; they're not objective analysts.
What's truly depressing is that we all have to waste our time talking about this kind of pseudo-research when we could be looking for ways to actually improve our medical and legal systems.
Posted by: Seth (not a lawyer) at July 19, 2006 11:11 AM
Seth,
Defensive Medicine: ordering tests, procedures, etc, which you otherwise would not, simply to cover yourself in the case of a lawsuit.
That is, it IS bad medicine, and everyone knows and admits it, even (sometimes especially) the doctors.
The reason it is practiced is that it saves the doctor's butt in the courtroom.
Doctor's have been given vry strong incntives (as in, their ntire life's work being at stake) to cover every ridiculous possibility, or be judged with 20/20 hindsight in the courtroom.
OF COURSE they do it - they have no choice. When lawsuits against doctors return to sanity, they will be quite happy to STOP doing so.
Deoxy (also not a lawyer... or a lobbyist of any kind)
Posted by: Deoxy at November 16, 2006 05:04 PM