How many patients have suffered as John Edwards cashed in?

[GWB]

Edwards used his slick talk and junk science to suck needed money from local medical communities. The patients in those communities suffered as Edwards lined his pockets with money that should have helped treat people.

Article (http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000778.html)

[HDPM]

Yeah, the money could have gone to stem cell research. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Chris Alger]

Edwards "sucked needed money from local medical communities?"

Your link doesn't say anything about that. Are you suggesting that Edwards got rich suing doctor's without insurance? Or that the carriers and their wholly integrated financial networks are just one big "medical community," suffering piteously at the hands of loaf-about palsy victims?

I suppose when the topic is junk science we couldn't ask for a better opinion than that of the Junk Science President.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
loaf-about palsy victims

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to attack people suffering from this condition.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that Edwards got rich suing doctor's without insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize I hope that junk science mega rewards increase premiums which get passed on to patients. Whether passed on to one community or nationwide, it still hurts patients.

Hospitals close because premiums are too high, and that affects a local community.

[jokerswild]

Suffered from Edwards' actions? zero.

[Malarky]

I have never heard of a politician doing anything even remotely non-atruistic.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards used his slick talk and junk science to suck needed money from local medical communities. The patients in those communities suffered as Edwards lined his pockets with money that should have helped treat people.

Article (http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000778.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
Victims of medical malpractice (and their attorneys) need to realize that there is never a need to sue someone. Doctors are here to help and those who take money out of the medical system are simply robbing others of medical care. People can learn to live without certain things that result from a doctor's negligence, like the loss of sight, an amputation, brain damage from a mistreated infection. These people need to realize that their impairment is a minor issue when compared to the monetary needs of the medical community.

[Utah]

I believe you're a lawyer correct?

Do you think the current state of malpractice suits are good or neccessary for the country? If not, what would you change?

Do you think there is a problem with junk science?

[Nemesis]

I personally think that doctors should do what this one was suggesting which is to only treat trial lawyers and people who are known bring trivial lawsuits in emergency situations. It is their RIGHT to refuse service to someone, they should use it. Medical treatment is a privilege not a right.

[jokerswild]

It's a right for the rich.

Western European working class citizens live better than the American counterparts .

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Medical treatment is a privilege not a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does one need to do in order to gain this privilege? I am not being condescending, just curious what you think.

[Nemesis]

Prepare for an emergency is all one needs to do to qualify for this privilege. Whether it is having insurance, or having money socked away in case of medical need. As far as trial lawyers and suit happy morons go... i think the saying goes don't bite the hand that feeds you. I realize there are legitimate instances of malpractice, but they are few and far between.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
It is their RIGHT to refuse service to someone, they should use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty moronic statement to make without knowing what being a doctor is all about. At one point at the beginning of their careers, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors have been doing this for thousands of years.

Here are portions of the oath:

[ QUOTE ]
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keeping people from harm and injustice and applying "dietetic" measure is part of their oath, it does not give them the RIGHT to choose who they treat. By not treating, they would be harming, wouldn't they?

[ QUOTE ]
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty powerful statement. If they do as they have been taught, then they will enjoy fame, etc...

As for trial lawyers, insurance companies, and the medical industry, I have my own personal and political opinions, of which I don't really care to go into detail right now. However, I will say that it is a shame that doctors close their doors every day because someone sued someone; and now the doctor has to pay $250,000 in malpractice premiums. That is the biggest joke of them all, and not a very funny one at that.

Joe

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Prepare for an emergency is all one needs to do to qualify for this privilege. Whether it is having insurance, or having money socked away in case of medical need. As far as trial lawyers and suit happy morons go... i think the saying goes don't bite the hand that feeds you. I realize there are legitimate instances of malpractice, but they are few and far between.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, people that cannot afford health insurance (maybe their employer doesn't pay for it, they don't make enough money, their PARENTS don't make enough money, etc....) should not get the privilege of having a doctor treat them? Is that what you are saying?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize there are legitimate instances of malpractice, but they are few and far between

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you are suggesting that legitimate malpractice claims are the exception not the norm. You must have an interesting definition of "legitimate."

[Nemesis]

I do feel that legitimate malpractice claims are the exception to the rule. By legitimate I mean... well i was about to die, but this doctor saved my life. Unfortunately in the process I was blinded. If he had done things diferently i MAY not have lost my sight. They forget to mention that they may have died as well. Legitimate cases of malpractice/neglect would be the pharmacist who diluted the cancer drugs something like 800:1 to make a profit. THAT is wrong/malpractice/negligence whatever... he deserves to be sued and put in jail.

*Edit* In respons to the Hipocratic Oath statement... I said only in non-emergencies. If someone is injured and needs medical assistance, by all means assist them regardless of who they are or whether they can pay. I'm speaking of regular non-medical emergencies. If someone is unable to afford healthcare there are MULTIPLE charitable organizations that will help them out, not to mention the government (that's another story).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I do feel that legitimate malpractice claims are the exception to the rule

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the "problem" is great as it's made out to be. Below is just some info I pulled from various sources (kind of disorganized):

Approximately 80,000 people die in the United States each year due partly to medical malpractice

Less than 1 in 200 doctors face any professional sanctions each year which represents about 3,000 serious disciplinary actions taken in total annually by state medical boards throughout the country.

According to current medical malpractice statistics approximately 1% of patients treated in hospitals are injured, and one-quarter of those may have died as a result of clinical negligence which represents almost 250,000 injuries in addition to 80,000 deaths from negligence in American hospitals. Of that number, 7,000 patients died as a result of prescription errors or drug dispensing errors

The National Practitioner Data Bank indicates that 5% of doctors are responsible for over 50% of claims.

Only 13% of preventable clinical accidents results in a claim and punitive damages are awarded in less than 1 percent of cases.



Medical malpractice statistics show that the cost to society is estimated to be between $17 billion and $29 billion whereas the medical insurance premiums paid by healthcare professionals are in the region of $ 7 billion. Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.

There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000.

While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time. Insurance costs to physicians have increased at less than half of medical services inflation over the last 10 years.

Only one malpractice claim is made for every 7.6 hospital injuries, according to a Harvard study. Further, plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue, according to Physician Insurer Association of America data.

[Nemesis]

a "hospital injury" can be sticking somebody with too big of a needle, or an "error" can be giving them their medicine at 10:30 as opposed to 10:00.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
a "hospital injury" can be sticking somebody with too big of a needle...

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of weird that you put "hospital injury" in quotes when that is a phrase that doesn't appear in the post to which you were responding.

[ QUOTE ]
an "error" can be giving them their medicine at 10:30 as opposed to 10:00.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only time "error" is used in the post to which you were responding is in the following context:

"Of that number (80,000 annual deaths in hospitals due, in part, to negligence) 7,000 patients died as a result of prescription errors or drug dispensing errors."

Are you suggesting that incorrectly dispensing medication that results in someone's death wouldn't be a potential case of medical malpractice?

[nothumb]

Thanks for the info elwood. I think the malpractice bogeyman is a great way for politicians from both parties to demonstrate how beholden they are to the insurance and health care industries. These companies make enormous profits and charge something like 20 cents on every dollar spent on health care for administrative costs, etc.

Simply unacceptable and immoral. Lawsuits are small potatoes by comparison. If we had a responsible and ethical medical establishment I think a lot of those frivolous suits (as well as a lot of legitimate ones) would disappear.

Show me a hospital and insurance industry committed to providing low-cost, high-quality care to everyone, and I'll support limiting patient lawsuits. And we ain't close right now.

NT

[Chris Alger]

The biggest problem with "junk science" has come from industry (tobacco, chemicals), not plaintiffs. If I recall, the D'Auberge decision has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to put on any "expert" they want, at least under the Federal Rules of Evidence (which are now largely followed by the states).

I think the malpractice system probably okay. I would be more aggressive in fee shifitng for frivolous suits (largely a problem in just a few states, maybe a few counties), would cap punitive damges and eliminate all caps on compensatory damages. I'd tack on the successful lawyer's fee to the compensatory award as a percentage, instead of making plaintiffs pay for it. As it is now, if you convinvce a jury that you'll be out of pocket $1 million as a result of your injury, you get no more than that for compensation, and the lawyer takes as much as 40%.

[adios]

I'm fairly certain that the plaintiff is at a substantial disadvantage in medical malpractice cases. Just an opinion based on limited experience, the quality of expert witnesses available to the defendends generally speaking is of much higher quality and there is a lot of sympathy for doctors on juries. Could be convinced otherwise though. Perhaps the system has changed a lot since I served on a jury in such a case and from other cases that have been related to me.