| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2006 11:36:00 PM · #101 |
"Suggestions that the medical malpractice system is burdened with frivolous lawsuits are 'overblown,' Harvard researchers report in the New England Journal of Medicine, adding that 'disputing and paying for errors' comprise the majority of malpractice costs. In their analysis of 1,452 randomly selected closed claims, Studdert et al observed that other systemic problems, including an average five-year waiting period from injury occurrence to claim closure and a rate of 16% of cases in which a medical error occurred but no compensation was awarded. Reform efforts, they say, would be better focused on 'streamlining the processing of claims that do belong' in the system, rather than trying to reduce meritless lawsuits.
Clinician Reviews, Vol 16, No 6 (June, 2006) |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 04:38:55 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Suggestions that the medical malpractice system is burdened with frivolous lawsuits are 'overblown,' |
The item (from an extra-US perspective) that most appears to characterise the legal/medical relationship in the US is not the number of frivolous lawsuits, but the extremely generous awards that result from valid lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:03:46 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
The difference and to get back on point is, a free market can exist only in its natural state without govenment interference and that is Econ 101+ Poli sci 101. |
While this may be true, it ignores the fact that free markets on any significant scale require a degree of regulation in order to protect them.
The discussion about roads/contract law etc is a little off point. This relates to general provision of a framework within which a market can operate: this is of indirect application to the free (or not) operation of a market.
Of direct application are anti-trust (US) or competition (RoW) laws. Without these, competitors could collude to price fix, or create monopolies, or otherwise manipulate the "free" market. Some laws regulate highly limited resources where the free market cannot operate (such as regulation of airwave spectrum). Also, the government applies policies (such as trade tariffs) to protect the national market.
It would be more helpful, rather than just saying "the government interferes too much" to give some examples of areas where there is too much regulation.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 08:25:32 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Suggestions that the medical malpractice system is burdened with frivolous lawsuits are 'overblown,' |
The item (from an extra-US perspective) that most appears to characterise the legal/medical relationship in the US is not the number of frivolous lawsuits, but the extremely generous awards that result from valid lawsuits. |
... the few which get excessive publicity you mean. Let me repeat this part:
"... an average five-year waiting period from injury occurrence to claim closure and a rate of 16% of cases in which a medical error occurred but no compensation was awarded."
The part which seem to get the most publicity is large "punitive damages" awards, which are supposed to serve as a deterrent to future (corporate) misbehavior, since they don't seem to be under a threat of criminal prosecution. How much do you think it would take to "deter" a corporation with a few billion dollars in annual profit? |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 12:40:56 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The part which seem to get the most publicity is large "punitive damages" awards, which are supposed to serve as a deterrent to future (corporate) misbehavior, since they don't seem to be under a threat of criminal prosecution. How much do you think it would take to "deter" a corporation with a few billion dollars in annual profit? |
From a legal perspective, the US system is far more generous than the UK and easier to access. This is primarily driven by the presence of a jury in the US (in the UK, juries are reserved for criminal cases) and the likelihood in the UK that an unsuccessful litigant may be ordered to pay the other side's legal costs.
There is an analysis at para 6.2 here (found by a quick Google - actuaries are some of the best sources for this kind of information given their intense interest in future developments).
The fear of punitive damages (even if they are infrequent) is a significant factor in encouraging high settlements in the US.
Bear in mind that billions headline figures probably represent hundreds of business units. The people making the decisions in each business unit will often be very cautious of the risk of incurring any significant award against their profit line.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 01:02:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The fear of punitive damages (even if they are infrequent) is a significant factor in encouraging high settlements in the US.
|
Having worked in product safety, I know that the fear of a huge settlement/litigation is a significant driver for making products safe. Aside from simply trusting companies to do the right thing and ensure their product is safe, there really is no other way to encourage companies to turn out safe products. Regulation doesn't necessarily work, the pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated by the FDA and look at all the problems it's been having (Vioxx et al).
Some companies will behave ethically and make sure their products are safe, while others will simply look at the bottom line and evaluate the cost of litigation vs. the cost of making the product safe. It almost always costs more to make a product safe. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 01:48:51 PM · #107 |
| Problem is, there is no way to take the dumbass out of the consumer. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 02:09:45 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Problem is, there is no way to take the dumbass out of the consumer. |
... or the greed out of the CEO? |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 02:11:34 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Some companies will behave ethically and make sure their products are safe, while others will simply look at the bottom line and evaluate the cost of litigation vs. the cost of making the product safe. It almost always costs more to make a product safe. |
For example, the $5/car engineering/design change which would have kept Ford Pinto gas tanks from exploding when the car was rear-ended -- a type of accident where the victim is almost never at fault. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:44:01 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Problem is, there is no way to take the dumbass out of the consumer. |
... or the greed out of the CEO? |
Most CEO's are not involved in safety decisions, they are however responsible for the priorities of a corporate culture. If that is to focus on profit at any cost, then that will be the message handed down to the masses. Typically, it's lower level employees who will voice safety concerns about product to their management. Problems happen when the management decides to promote profitability over safety.
The CEO's feet are usually held to the fire over profits and not over safety concerns.
There's also the issue of individual responsibility. In most other countries, it's understood that an individual has responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Here in the US, it's not so much the case. A manufacturer in the US has to protect against all "foreseeable misuse" As an example, let's say a guy decides to use his washing machine to wash car parts so he fills the tub with a solvent, adds some car parts and switches it on. Since the motor is open and creating a spark, the result is explosive to say the least. In most of the world, the blame would go to the dummy trying such a thing. In the US, the blame would go to the manufacturer for not forseeing such misuse and placing a specific warning to NOT use solvents in the washing machine.
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 15:47:17. |
|
|
|
08/14/2008 04:44:54 PM · #111 |
TODAY IS A BIG DAY!
2 YEARS and 3 days after I originally posted this thread and 3 YEARS, 1 month and 3 days after I broke my foot...
I'VE GOT MY SURGERY DATE!!!
8th September 2008
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
08/14/2008 05:00:18 PM · #112 |
WaaaaHoooooooooooo!
I am so glad for you! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:14:25 PM EDT.
