 |
| Who are you callin' a bloodsucker? |
Lawyers versus Doctors - the Eternal Struggle. If you have a teenage daughter or a thirty five year old son living in your basement, you may have a Twilight fan in your midst. From what I can gather, fans are broken into two factions: Team Edward (the vampire) and Team Jacob (the werewolf). Personally, I have never seen a Twilight movie. In my opinion, vampires should look like Bela Lugosi and not some messy haired kid that looks like he should be asking me if I want to supersize my lunch. Besides, I have my own struggle of woe. It is a struggle more passionate than even the forlorn battle between the Capulets and Montagues. More intense than centuries old battles between any number of warring religions or factions. It is the eternal struggle between lawyers and doctors. It rages on to this day.
Here in Connecticut, the state's General Assembly just approved the SustiNet Bill with the goal of providing affordable healthcare coverage to 98% of Connecticut residents by 2014. The problem was it included a provision that gave doctor's immunity from malpractice claims in certain situations. It was almost like winning an immunity challenge on Survivor or yelling "Ali Ali I'm Free" in a game of tag. Not surprisingly, the provision raised some concerns.
So herein lies the battle. In this corner, we have the Connecticut Trial Lawyer's Association. According to the Hartford Courant, the group objected to the provision stating that "clinical practice guidelines should never be the basis for determining whether or not patient harm was the result of negligence." In layman's terms: "Whadda ya mean we can't sue that quack for malpractice, he cut off the wrong leg!"
On the other side, we have the Connecticut State Medical Society. They have stated that they may withdraw support for the legislation if the bill does not include immunity. They maintain that the reasoning behind the legislation was to cut back on the amount of extra tests doctor's perform in order to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.
If doctors agree to reduce unnecessary tests, they will need additional protection from lawsuits if something goes awry. In a nutshell, the doctors want malpractice protection. Republican State Senator Jason Welch has already stated that he and other Republicans would offer amendments to give the doctors what they want.
So where do you stand? Team Lawyer or Team Doctor? As always, we welcome your thoughts...
7 comments:
Side me with Team Lawyer on this one.
Team Lawyer all the way.
I worked at a State LTC/mental hospital for 13+ years. I saw time after time, staff cover for one another's incompetence and negligence. If only the medical community would police itself, malpractice suits would diminish. Let's start with random breathalyzers for staff. Test everyone before surgeries or other procedures. Get rid of the drunk/high docs, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators, then see what happens to the insurance rates and malpractice suits.
Worked with doctors, nurses, PT, RT, MT, EMT, and all manner of health alphabets for most of my life. MOST are competent and caring people who abhor negligence with every fiber of their beings. Like the legal profession, there are the bad apples who poison the rest of the basket. Labeling the rest of the bunch with the same label as the bad apples, however, is logic that every single one of us knows is wrong-headed and downright fallacious.
I've worked healthcare-I KNOW what goes on there from the inside. I'm now working in the legal field. Want an insider's view? I can talk.
Definitely Team Lawyer
On the many times I go to doctor's ofices for depositions, I find myself pulling my Toyota into a row of Mercedes and Jags. When will my malpractice premiums go down? Huh? When?
Great article …Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting. I will be waiting for your next post.
Post a Comment