●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
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
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This discussion has been archived.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.
byturkeyfish ( 950384 ) writes:
Perhaps the title of the article should read lawyers and doctors create too many patients.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
As I understand the current situation:
1) If they don't do the tests and catch a problem, the doctor and hospital will be sued.
1a) The results of a trial may put licenses at risk, depending upon the State Board's agressiveness.
2) If they due the tests either tax subsidized insurance or a Medicare type program will pay for the tests and treatment.
Conclusion: How could the situation any different.......
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Wow, you're a lazy bum. Have you ever heard of this thing called Google? First search I got this link [wikipedia.org], with a bunch of statistics and links, including this statement:
Physician advocacy groups say 60% of liability claims against doctors are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. However even those cases have a price, costing an average of more than $22,000 to defend in 2008 ($18,000 in 2007). Physicians are found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial - yet more than $110,000 (2008 estimate, $100,000 in 2007) per case is spent defending those claims
A little more Googling found this: [wa.gov] which reports approximately 850 malpractice cases in a state with 19,000 doctors. That means on average each doctor will have to defend approx one malpractice case every 20 years. In other words, for a doctor, a malpractice case is more a question of "when" than "if."
There are more accurate numbers I'm sure
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
Even then he is only out 100k every 20 years. Oh no, however will a doctor afford $5k a year to save up for this little eventuality.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
I'm going to be charitable and assume you are drunk, and thus not as stupid as your incredibly dumb comment makes you look (sorry man, it's really that bad).
The $100k is court cost alone, it doesn't include settlement, which can be in the millions. In practice, medical malpractice insurance costs $30k a year or so. This is coming out of your pocket every time you go to the doctor.
byh4rr4r ( 612664 ) writes:
No it is not, free markets do not work that way. I go to the doctor and he bills what the market will bear. If he did not have to pay that he would keep the money as profit. Do you think he would give me a discount just because he is such a swell guy?
Besides you are talking about someone paying 10% of their income for insurance, not exactly a startling concept. Ever seen what insurance for a logging company costs? Mining operation? Any kind of heavy industry?
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
You are, quite frankly, the dumbest person I've ever met. You'd be way better off just saying, "I was wrong, wow, I learned something." Instead you've further made an idiot of yourself talking about mining operations. Go take a cold shower and sober up.
byjedidiah ( 1196 ) writes:
You are ranting and raving as if a multi-million dollar judgement is not infact proof that a doctor has made a dire mistake. You are really whining about doctors being held responsible for their mistakes. This is not a remarkable thing for any sort of professional or any proper adult really. Doctors need to be held accountable for their screwups and in some cases just plain greed and disregard. The same goes for incompetent nurses.
If there are too many malpractice suits, then it's time to consider cleaning up the profession in question.
Ignoring the problem will just ensure that quality of care degrades the the medical versions of Crassus never gets his due.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
No, my ranting, raving, and mocking is directed towards people who:
A) Can't do basic research to relieve their own stupid ignorance.
B) Don't have decent reading comprehension.
C) Are lost in the depths of some bizarre conspiracy theory, or are caught in serious logical fallacies.
I don't mock people who merely disagree with me. Read my posts again, and you'll see that.
You bring up an interesting point (although without any citation)
If there are too many malpractice suits, then it's time to consider cleaning up the profession in question.
This is something worth looking into. Preliminary research suggests tha
byDriedClexler ( 814907 ) writes:
You are ranting and raving as if a multi-million dollar judgement is not infact proof that a doctor has made a dire mistake
No, the fact that John Edwards could convinced 12 mouth-breathers through emotional rhetoric that a baby with birth defects is the fault of the doctor who was just around to pull the bugger out ... isn't very good proof that the doctor has made a dire mistake.
Of course, it doesn't help that the doctors make their art so resistant to scrutiny, either.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
Actually, that doesn't suggest that. An alternative interpretation says that malpractice is hard to prove. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you, for example, also think that the ~85% of rape trials that don't result in conviction mean that the reported rape wasn't really rape?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2009/rape-conviction-rates-toolow.html [martinfrost.ws]
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Do you have any reason to believe that the malpractice numbers are inaccurate, or are you just looking for a way to twist the numbers to support your preconceived notion? Because it really looks like the latter.
Do not be the man who uses statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
I just don't think that it's a realistic view, at all, to think that that many people are bringing merit-less claims. If you have a statistic that says a certain percentage of malpractice claims are fraudulent, that would be interesting to see. But unless you do, and again, I'd be interested to learn, I'd personally bet pretty heavily against it being more than 20%. The highest percentage claim I could find was 12.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
I just don't think that it's a realistic view, at all, to think that that many people are bringing merit-less claims.
OK, it's good to know you think things. Let me know when you have reasons for thinking them.
bySurt ( 22457 ) writes:
Same as you, but at least I had statistics on my side.
byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Statistics weren't on your side. The physician was found not negligent in 90% of the cases that went to court. You claimed, without evidence, that it was too high, that in fact the physicians were probably negligent in many more cases.
Your only statistic was about fraudulent cases, but just because a case is not fraudulent doesn't mean the doctor is negligent, or should pay.
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...