Is it wrong to deny patients (or their survivors) who have been harmed by medical providers the freedom to collect whatever a jury will award them, or is it better for society as a whole to impose some predictability on the medical malpractice system? That's the question raised by a July 24 editorial in "Newsday" that offers some alternative solutions, rather than just impose arbitrary caps on damage awards. Click on to check out the editorial and offer your take on the crisis.
The editorial, headlined "Don't blame victims for problems with malpractice," while acknowledging that "costly medical malpractice insurance is a real problem," goes on to say that "unfortunately the solution most often touted–limits on jury awards–is bogus."
Ultimately, according to the editorial, "the debate over the rise in the cost of premiums has to get beyond demonizing trial lawyers if solutions are to be found."
They're right! Capping damage awards is an easy way out, but it is anything but fair for those who are injured, disabled or maimed for life–perhaps even killed–by a negligent doctor.
(For the full version of the "Newsday" editorial, click here.)
"Nobody likes being sued. And trial lawyers are a tantalizing target for retribution," according to "Newsday." "But it's the people they represent–those injured due to medical negligence painstakingly proved in a court of law–who would be the victims of dollar limits on damages for pain and suffering.
While conceding "there's no magic bullet to miraculously control the cost of malpractice insurance," the editorial argues that "debilitated patients shouldn't be singled out to bear the brunt of reform, when there are so many other players in this drama with deeper pockets."
The editorial notes that while the size of jury awards is rising, the Center for Justice and Democracy says "payouts from verdicts and settlements have risen no faster than the rate of inflation in medical costs."
"Newsday" concedes that "the cost of insurance is a problem," but goes on to suggest alternative solutions, including:
–A specialized medical court without juries.
–A no-fault system for claims involving neurologically impaired infants.
–A crack-down targeting the licenses of incompetent or chronically negligent doctors.
–Stiff penalties for lawyers who file frivolous suits.
"There are bound to be other, more creative ideas," the editorial concludes. "Unfortunately, they may never be explored if the debate remains fixated on attacking damages awarded to patients for their pain and suffering as the root of all evil."
What do you folks make of all this? Is there a better way to control medical malpractice costs? Or do we have no choice but to pull the rug out from under those who were victimized? What other solutions are there?
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.