Murtha the Victim of Medical Malpractice
This is potentially huge in its implications.
[Congressman] Murtha was first hospitalized with gallbladder problems in December. He had surgery Jan. 28 at the National Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. He went home, but was hospitalized two days later when complications developed. According to a source close to Mr. Murtha — confirming a report in Politico — doctors inadvertently cut Mr. Murtha’s intestine during the laparoscopic surgery, causing an infection.
The GOP, in its opposition to healthcare reform, tells us that healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world, in terms of quality, and that the real culprit to rising insurance costs are frivilous malpractice lawsuits, and thus the fix to the insurance problem in this country is massive tort reform, where patient’s rights to sue for malpractice will be severely limited if not eliminated while at the same time establishing damages caps.
Now, our doctors in this country are well trained and heroic. But they also make mistakes. Indeed, if a doctor at the BETHESDA NAVAL STATION can make a mistake DURING A SURGERY ON A PREEMIMENT CONGRESSMAN, what are the chances that doctors across the land make mistakes of this magnitude every day on regular people like you and me?
Malpractice suits are a well to enforce accountability upon doctors, nurses and hospitals for their mistakes. Now, we all know that the modern day Republican Party despises accountability and responsibility, but how much will mistakes by doctors increase if doctors were not subject to malpractice suits for the mistakes they make?
Exactly, that’s why I’m suspicious of tort reform. I think there should actually be “malpractice reform.” I’ve read that 10% of physicians are responsible for 90% of medical mistakes. Instead of looking at the victims, perhaps we should address the people who make the mistakes.
I agree. I am all for limiting damages depending on the injury. And I don’t think punitive damages should ever be imposed for malpractice. But the right to sue and recover must always be available.
I’m not so sure I agree with limiting damages or in limiting of punitive damages. Locally, it is beginning to look like there were a great many people in the medical profession who knew or suspected something very wrong about Bradley. It seems to me that you trade in some of those limitations in exchange for more vigilant policing by the profession itself. And how about the nurse in Texas who did report a local doctor for various acts of malfeasance? She is the one on trial for reporting the doctor.
The entire system of doctor and nurse accountability could be reformed, but I would not be in the business of changing malpractice law until I knew that doctors did not routinely look away from the Bradley’s of this world.
Obama blew his Baltimore answer on tort reform big time. He said he would consider working with Repubs on it, and acknowledged that it would reduce costs. But he failed to make the point that the cost savings are not worth giving up our legal rights, and are not worth the resulting reduction in incentive against malpractice.
The court system already has mechanisms for dropping frivolous cases. Plus, no lawyer can afford to have a reputation for bringing frivolous claims.
Dems should maybe propose their own malpractice reform that addresses insurance reforms and medical practice reforms, but leaves our legal right of redress intact.
Exactly Cassandra, because those of us looking from the outside see a system that goes for protecting its members first and the public second. Then those same people are saying WE should be the ones to give up legal rights.
Studies by the GAO have found that malpractice is only 2% of the cost of healthcare. If we want to reform healthcare we really should be looking at this things that make a bigger difference. Tort reform is just a soapbox issue for Republicans.
Studies by the GAO have found that malpractice is only 2% of the cost of healthcare. If we want to reform healthcare we really should be looking at this things that make a bigger difference.
UI – I agree, but I really hate this argument. Dems should not put themselves in the position of arguing against a 2% cost savings. We should be against GOP style tort reform on its merits, not because it doesn’t save enough money.
Don’t concede the Republican frame. Make them debate our frame – that their tort reform is a corruption of our legal rights, and a loss of protection for patients.
Malpractice may be 2% of healthcare–but defensive medicine is a cost greater than that. Ask any practitioner who gets a patient in with a headache–doesn’t matter if it was just for today–or the last 3 months–it’s “light ’em up” w/ scans, MRIs, and xrays. A cheap alternative would be Excedrin first–but everyone reads WEB MD, and has some personal affiliation w/ Natasha Richardson. These folks who are so pro health care reform at whatever cost, will need to realize the days of “zebra hunting” will be over.
If the actual lawsuits and premiums are 2%, Joanne, how much do you think “defensive medicine” adds? More than that? If that test is on you, is it just as unnecessary as when it’s a statistic?
For every hypochondriac who overuses health care, there’s someone reluctant to visit the doctor, even when they should. I know an 84-year-old who, because he never wanted to get a colonoscopy, recently underwent surgery to remove a softball-sized tumor from his colon. Which leads to the irony here: Both overuse and underuse of the health care system lead to higher overall costs.
Everybody wants to pay less for health care, but very few want to actually die. That, not lawsuits, drives the steep increase in costs.
Government Healthcare
Ah, the balmy breeze of ignorance. If only it melted snow.
I think we should have tort reform and the CEO’s that want it should have their Salaries capped too.
The savings is lower than 2%, but there are ways of doing some tort reform that are genuinely fairer — but restricting patients’ and families’ access to legal redress is not one of them. Even President Obama has been known to talk about the health courts idea or the disclose and apologize model among others. But much of the solution also relies on changing the care model to one that values outcomes over number of services rendered. Because part of the problem with the piecemeal model is that it is often ALOT easier to just hand a nervous patient a bunch of scripts for tests and drugs than it is to take time to talk, explain and reassure. Scripts can be done in 15 minutes — talking can take alot longer.
I’m not sure Murtha’s colon wasn’t intentionally snipped. Who was the surgeon?
Was the doctor military or civilian?