4 ms·

What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve th

by Jun8 15y ago

What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) * The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard against suing by patients) and "the system" forces them to create such documents and have them signed. * The patients cannot be blamed because, well, you don't want to sign your consent to a document that you haven't read and that may (and will) contain clauses that are clearly adversarial to you. But the issue is not just having access to the document, 99% of the people won't have the knowledge, let alone the patience, to parse such a legal document. * The politicians are not to blame because they are just bowing to public pressure (and of course powerful lobbies) and many of these laws and practices are one way rachet-up, i.e. they can never be loosened (see, e.g. the overly strict sex laws in the US). * The lawyers are not to blame because they are just being employed by people, i.e. they are not evil by themselves but may be put to evil use (similar to "guns don't kill people" defense). For a recent example of suing madness (in a slightly different area) in the US consider that Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the clear nutritional sign (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/10/133565759/a-mom-sues-nutella-maker-for-deceptive-advertising?ft=1&f=103537970 http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/10/133565759/a-mom-s...). I don't know what the solution is. But the US healthcare industry is converging to disaster if we don't solve problems like this.

tzs 15y ago
> What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. Couldn't this have been solved by simply having a copy of the privacy policy available in the sign-in area for the patient to read?
- Jun8 15y ago
  I don't think so. As others have stated, perusing dense legal documents while people are waiting for you just doesn't work. Even if we remove the time constraint, many people wouldn't be able to understand the legalese.
raldi 15y ago
One solution might be to create a small number of standard documents. Then trusted experts could certify a few (like the UL seal of approval on electronics), and people could just ask the receptionist if their document has such an endorsement. Another would be to create a consumer protection law that prohibits doctors' offices from doing certain things even if patients explicitly signed those rights away.
- Jun8 15y ago
  I believe there are already standard documents, e.g. the huge binder the receptionist was referring to in the OP certified by a few "trusted experts", i.e. lawyers. The question is by whom are these experts trusted, which in practice means who employs them. How would people get a list of these experts (government intervention?)
jrs235 15y ago
Mostly agree. Except, the politicians ARE to blame! We need spined, "sensical" statesmen leading our government to workable solutions, not self-fish, egotistical wimps working towards "getting the meanest/loudest 'animal(s)' off our backs and getting re-elected". Tort reform is where I would start if I was working towards a solution. Tort reform is often not done because 90% (pulled from the air based on recollections of other vague memories of articles and statistics) of politicians are lawyers! This is also why I laws are so horrifically written with legalese making it next to impossible for a layman to understand. Returning to Common Law (over statutory laws) and trials with citizen juries would do wonders for dispensing "justice" the way "the people" see right and fit.
- Jun8 15y ago
  You are, of course, right but up to a point: I believe in situations where politicians are widely blamed, the real problem lies elsewhere (typical example: EU economic crises). Politicians are trying to operate under many different constraints, economic, populist, etc., some do a better job than others. In order to break the chicken and egg problem, a more effective way, I think, is to inform the public. For example, in this case how many people have even thought about what that consent signature means (I signed a form like that just yesterday) but if the consequences are made widely known than the public may pressurize the politicians to make changes. Nothing gets the attention of those guys as public opinion.
  - jrs235 15y ago
    Agreed. Our education system, K-12, is abysmal. We need to be teaching general law and legal issues to all people 16 and older! How many people understand the different law domains (natural, common, statutory, civil, criminal, etc..) and their orders of application? Additionally if the organizations obtaining signatures knew the people signing them knew the law and what's binding, they might actually ensure that things are done correctly and mindfully since the odds of a signature (and contract) being challenged is greatly increased.
- roc 15y ago
  Tort reform hasn't materialized very many benefits in the States where it's been attempted. I'm afraid it's a starting point at best [1]. And desiring simple laws that people can read and understand is like desiring simple code that people can read and understand. Sure, there's lots of code out there written with bad practices, acquiring years of cruft and in need of some refactoring, but there's also massive amounts of code that simply cannot be reduced to a 'simple' state. Some problems are complex and navigating them requires precise attention to numerous details. So it is with law. Some things can certainly be simplified. But the process of simplifying does not guarantee a simple result. [1] and a heavily politicized one, at that. What many advocate when they say 'tort reform' isn't a shift toward simplicity and fairness but a shift past perverse incentives to litigate and to a perverse disincentive to even pursue litigation. That is: instead of protecting, say, doctors from frivolous claims, it makes it increasingly difficult to sue doctors with even valid claims. And that's no better a situation from the neutral point of view.
tomp 15y ago
> Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the clear nutritional sign Did you even read the article? It clearly says that Nutella was sued because it had misleading advertising, saying/implying that it was healthy, when in reality it contains a lot of sugar. I know that Coca-Cola is bad for your health (it's pretty obvious that any sweet drink is bad for your teeth and makes you fat and probably not any less thirsty). But I would still want the company fined if it advertised Coca-Cola drink as being healthy.
- Jun8 15y ago
  All advertising is misleading in a sense, the question is where to draw the line: the legal complaint (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf) states that the moms were duped because they saw TV commercials that showed moms feeding Nutella to their healthy families. Although I think the ""An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast." label should be removed from Nuteall jars (which'll be done, http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company-to-pay-up-over-misleading-advertising.html http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company...) I don't the millions of dollars awarded (I misstated this, actually it was $3.06M) makes sense, but then I'm no lawyer. BTW, you can go to this site (https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQues...) and claim up to $20 if you've bought Nutella, no receipts asked (until the allocated $2.5M runs out).
  - calloc 15y ago
    In the time period listed I've bought WAY more than 5 jars of Nutella, but I don't honestly think that I bought it thinking "Hey this is healthy!".
- savetheworld666 14y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5OUhT0v30M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5OUhT0v30M coca cola is injurious to health it is a poison please see the video
- savetheworld666 14y ago

by Jun8 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

> What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to solve the problem. Couldn't this have been solved by simply having a copy of the privacy policy available in the sign-in area for the patient to read?

Jun8 15y ago
I don't think so. As others have stated, perusing dense legal documents while people are waiting for you just doesn't work. Even if we remove the time constraint, many people wouldn't be able to understand the legalese.

raldi 15y ago

One solution might be to create a small number of standard documents. Then trusted experts could certify a few (like the UL seal of approval on electronics), and people could just ask the receptionist if their document has such an endorsement. Another would be to create a consumer protection law that prohibits doctors' offices from doing certain things even if patients explicitly signed those rights away.

Jun8 15y ago
I believe there are already standard documents, e.g. the huge binder the receptionist was referring to in the OP certified by a few "trusted experts", i.e. lawyers. The question is by whom are these experts trusted, which in practice means who employs them. How would people get a list of these experts (government intervention?)

jrs235 15y ago

Mostly agree. Except, the politicians ARE to blame! We need spined, "sensical" statesmen leading our government to workable solutions, not self-fish, egotistical wimps working towards "getting the meanest/loudest 'animal(s)' off our backs and getting re-elected". Tort reform is where I would start if I was working towards a solution. Tort reform is often not done because 90% (pulled from the air based on recollections of other vague memories of articles and statistics) of politicians are lawyers! This is also why I laws are so horrifically written with legalese making it next to impossible for a layman to understand. Returning to Common Law (over statutory laws) and trials with citizen juries would do wonders for dispensing "justice" the way "the people" see right and fit.

Jun8 15y ago
You are, of course, right but up to a point: I believe in situations where politicians are widely blamed, the real problem lies elsewhere (typical example: EU economic crises). Politicians are trying to operate under many different constraints, economic, populist, etc., some do a better job than others. In order to break the chicken and egg problem, a more effective way, I think, is to inform the public. For example, in this case how many people have even thought about what that consent signature means (I signed a form like that just yesterday) but if the consequences are made widely known than the public may pressurize the politicians to make changes. Nothing gets the attention of those guys as public opinion.
- jrs235 15y ago
  Agreed. Our education system, K-12, is abysmal. We need to be teaching general law and legal issues to all people 16 and older! How many people understand the different law domains (natural, common, statutory, civil, criminal, etc..) and their orders of application? Additionally if the organizations obtaining signatures knew the people signing them knew the law and what's binding, they might actually ensure that things are done correctly and mindfully since the odds of a signature (and contract) being challenged is greatly increased.
roc 15y ago
Tort reform hasn't materialized very many benefits in the States where it's been attempted. I'm afraid it's a starting point at best [1]. And desiring simple laws that people can read and understand is like desiring simple code that people can read and understand. Sure, there's lots of code out there written with bad practices, acquiring years of cruft and in need of some refactoring, but there's also massive amounts of code that simply cannot be reduced to a 'simple' state. Some problems are complex and navigating them requires precise attention to numerous details. So it is with law. Some things can certainly be simplified. But the process of simplifying does not guarantee a simple result. [1] and a heavily politicized one, at that. What many advocate when they say 'tort reform' isn't a shift toward simplicity and fairness but a shift past perverse incentives to litigate and to a perverse disincentive to even pursue litigation. That is: instead of protecting, say, doctors from frivolous claims, it makes it increasingly difficult to sue doctors with even valid claims. And that's no better a situation from the neutral point of view.

tomp 15y ago

> Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the clear nutritional sign Did you even read the article? It clearly says that Nutella was sued because it had misleading advertising, saying/implying that it was healthy, when in reality it contains a lot of sugar. I know that Coca-Cola is bad for your health (it's pretty obvious that any sweet drink is bad for your teeth and makes you fat and probably not any less thirsty). But I would still want the company fined if it advertised Coca-Cola drink as being healthy.

Jun8 15y ago
All advertising is misleading in a sense, the question is where to draw the line: the legal complaint (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf) states that the moms were duped because they saw TV commercials that showed moms feeding Nutella to their healthy families. Although I think the ""An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast." label should be removed from Nuteall jars (which'll be done, http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company-to-pay-up-over-misleading-advertising.html http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company...) I don't the millions of dollars awarded (I misstated this, actually it was $3.06M) makes sense, but then I'm no lawyer. BTW, you can go to this site (https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQues...) and claim up to $20 if you've bought Nutella, no receipts asked (until the allocated $2.5M runs out).
- calloc 15y ago
  In the time period listed I've bought WAY more than 5 jars of Nutella, but I don't honestly think that I bought it thinking "Hey this is healthy!".
savetheworld666 14y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5OUhT0v30M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5OUhT0v30M coca cola is injurious to health it is a poison please see the video
savetheworld666 14y ago