Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
THe profitable suit idea was included in what the guy I spoke with was tlakign about. What do you find objectionabel about that? If you make a mistake that kills a 40 year old provider for a family why should you not pay for it? Why should you get off th ehook as long as it wan't gross negligence (whatever that is; I suppose you would let the doctors decide what that means?)
You can say what you want, but it is a jury that awards the cash, not the lawyers.
As to other industries, you should ask people that make products what their standard is. It's called strict liability. So yes, other industries face similarly long (or longer) odds.
Our system is not perfect, and lawyers should shoulder their share of blame, but as to malpractice suits, the guy was right: the biggest cause of such suits is malpractice.
|
If there was a medical mistake involved, I absolutely think there should be significant compensation. If you look closely at the original question, I wrote "regardless of the medical care involved". Many lawsuits are picked up without any regard to whether a mistake was made or not, but with an eye to the potential out-of-court settlement. All I ask is that someone with any sort of expertise in medicine take a look at the case to decide that. Why are attorneys fighting this? If it's not greed, I'm not sure what it is.
The gross negligence standard is being tried in several states and has substantially reduced malpractice costs. That may or may not be desirable to you (I can see the argument against it), but it would decrease costs.