3 ms·

> Meet one or two of those victims and you will never support tort reform again. Remarks like this are really counterproductive and frankly bizarre. Were chara

> Meet one or two of those victims and you will never support tort reform again. Remarks like this are really counterproductive and frankly bizarre. Were character assessments ever relevant in lawsuits against tobacco companies? It's not hard to find unlikeable plaintiffs. However it is increasingly hard to keep your rights to a _public trial_ in a courtroom when it's a tort case [0]. When doctors ask you to give up your right to a public trial, then the rest of society (in my view) demonstrably loses out. And in fact, per-capita, Americans file fewer law cases now than in the 1840s. [1] > If this were a problem of gross negligence, then I would agree with you that we should focus there. But the problem isn't gross negligence... Gross negligence is literally the problem in the medical industry. The Johns Hopkins study found "medical errors account for more than 9.5% of all fatalities in the US." I'm uncertain that any "business as usual" by doctors is really a problem, but rather the checks and balances once offered to patients is being severely eroded. [0] http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/suing-for-justice/ http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/suing-for-justice/ [1] http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/suing-for-justice/6/ http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/suing-for-justice/6/

brownbat 10y ago
> Remarks like this are really counterproductive and frankly bizarre. I think that's both untrue and unfair. Typical tort reform discussion focus on how doctors can have their lives ruined without ever mentioning how patients can have their lives ruined. You cannot make a fair cost benefit comparison without understanding both sides. Most people don't understand both sides. Judging by your point about unlikable plaintiffs, perhaps you misread me. I'm not trying to argue that anecdotal experiences should replace facts in our cost benefit calculation. What I see in this area, though, is that people intuitively know what it means to lose a business, but have no intuitive grasp of what the consequence of a common medical error is (perhaps because there's no typical medical error). I'm essentially just saying that "People should know more about the details of this issue, they commonly misunderstand the harms involved," which is just how careful decisions should work. > per-capita, Americans file fewer law cases now than in the 1840s. Exactly so, and another reason the need for tort reform is overstated. > Gross negligence is literally the problem in the medical industry. The Johns Hopkins study found "medical errors account for more than 9.5% of all fatalities in the US." Gross negligence is a term of art, it's not literally equivalent to any fatal mistake. Though I was saying, metaphorically, that we should treat it that way in this industry. I think we actually agree on most of these points... just in the most heated way possible.

brownbat 10y ago

> Remarks like this are really counterproductive and frankly bizarre. I think that's both untrue and unfair. Typical tort reform discussion focus on how doctors can have their lives ruined without ever mentioning how patients can have their lives ruined. You cannot make a fair cost benefit comparison without understanding both sides. Most people don't understand both sides. Judging by your point about unlikable plaintiffs, perhaps you misread me. I'm not trying to argue that anecdotal experiences should replace facts in our cost benefit calculation. What I see in this area, though, is that people intuitively know what it means to lose a business, but have no intuitive grasp of what the consequence of a common medical error is (perhaps because there's no typical medical error). I'm essentially just saying that "People should know more about the details of this issue, they commonly misunderstand the harms involved," which is just how careful decisions should work. > per-capita, Americans file fewer law cases now than in the 1840s. Exactly so, and another reason the need for tort reform is overstated. > Gross negligence is literally the problem in the medical industry. The Johns Hopkins study found "medical errors account for more than 9.5% of all fatalities in the US." Gross negligence is a term of art, it's not literally equivalent to any fatal mistake. Though I was saying, metaphorically, that we should treat it that way in this industry. I think we actually agree on most of these points... just in the most heated way possible.