If you read the definition of “malpractice” you’ll quickly see there’s a fairly tough standard that needs to met. It does not include honest mistakes that occur during a surgery nor does it require 100% perfection by a doctor. Nothing comes with a 100% guarantee in life.
Instead of leaving the decision to an essentiall un-educated jury of non-medical personnel, why not have a independent medical review board akin to teh morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference to determine whether malpractice was committed? Opposition will argue doctors can’t be objective with their own peers. Fine. Have a panel of non-practicing physicians who specialize in med/legal evaluations. If the legal system worked properly and everyone in fact got a “jury of their peers”, then we’d have doctors judging doctors. Fact is, nobody gets anything close to a “jury of their peers”. That’s something to remember. Been to a jury pool lately? It’s scarey. Nobody wants to be there and most are there because they can’t escape it. The system is fraught with problems. Too much emotion, not enough objective thought. We should consider “professional jurors” like Japan has. Well-educate, well-compensate, objective, and no emotional attachments to the outcomes.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If you read the definition of “malpractice” you’ll quickly see there’s a fairly tough standard that needs to met. It does not include honest mistakes that occur during a surgery nor does it require 100% perfection by a doctor. Nothing comes with a 100% guarantee in life.
Instead of leaving the decision to an essentiall un-educated jury of non-medical personnel, why not have a independent medical review board akin to teh morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference to determine whether malpractice was committed? Opposition will argue doctors can’t be objective with their own peers. Fine. Have a panel of non-practicing physicians who specialize in med/legal evaluations. If the legal system worked properly and everyone in fact got a “jury of their peers”, then we’d have doctors judging doctors. Fact is, nobody gets anything close to a “jury of their peers”. That’s something to remember. Been to a jury pool lately? It’s scarey. Nobody wants to be there and most are there because they can’t escape it. The system is fraught with problems. Too much emotion, not enough objective thought. We should consider “professional jurors” like Japan has. Well-educate, well-compensate, objective, and no emotional attachments to the outcomes.