●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bynuggz ( 69912 ) writes:
So we should wait till everyone is symptomatic?
Many conditions can be treated more effectively and cheaply if they're detected early.
Some conditions dont' even become symptomatic until significant damage is done.
The question really is how to balance the best treatment with the financial constraints.
byDunbal ( 464142 ) * writes:
And also to treat the patient and not a set of lab results. This happens all too often in my country.
For example my father in law, who has never been symptomatic, was being treated for gout because he had a uric acid score slightly greater than 7. Since I am also a physician I ordered a few tests to rule out other conditions that could result a slightly abnormal uric acid result, took him off the allopurinol and told him to eat all the red meat he wants. He is still not symptomatic, has no kidney trouble,
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
the unfounded fear of litigation that almost certainly won't actually happen
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
Sorry for using layman's terms.
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
It's not the layman's terms, I'm saying that it's easy to convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you; you have to show that the doctor did something that doctors generally don't do--that he or she either intentionally or negligently threw accepted medical practice out the window for this case and just basically didn't do his or her job.
bydemonlapin ( 527802 ) writes:
I'm actually quite aware of the legal standard. And I'm also aware that juries don't always follow that standard. Still, I should have said something like "if a plaintiff's attorney and his expert can convince the jury that your failure to order test X to investigate for disease Y breached the standard of care". The standard of care is, however, a very slippery thing. My (anesthesiology) group is currently wrestling with it in regard to obstructive sleep apnea - a relatively new diagnosis that lacks clear d
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
That seems like a very high burden to meet. If it was your car the mechanic would at least have to refund his charges to you. Of course mechanics don't normally bring home six digit incomes.
byTubeSteak ( 669689 ) writes:
Almost is a pretty important word there.
There are several doctors in my extended family, and they all say the same thing:
"It's not ifyou'll get sued for malpractice, it's when."
A few years back a doctor I know won an award because he'd never been sued for malpractice over his ~20 year career.
Of course, at the same time, I see the quarterly board reports detailing the steady stream of doctors suspended/fined/banned for an endless variety of misconduct.
As with most things, YMMV
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...