|
I recently read an article that proposed a drastic change to the way in which a medical malpractice attorney would operate in the United States. Currently, any medical malpractice attorney has to try their case in a regular court of law before a full jury. The proposal suggests that a separate ‘health court’ be set up where a medical malpractice attorney would represent both sides before a judge, not a jury. The basis of this proposal is that due to the expertise required to understand many of these cases, expertise evident in an average medical malpractice attorney, a separate court should be established to satisfy this need. This proposal has been met with intense criticism, is it not likely to be followed in the near future, but it does spark an interesting debate.
A medical malpractice attorney undergoes extensive education in both law and health care in order to practice in this field. Any of their clients would expect this as a minimum standard. Is it unreasonable for the judge to have the same level of expertise as the medical malpractice attorney? I have no doubt that there exist many judges with this knowledge level, but I do question the level of expertise among the juries that have the final decision. Based on the ideas I read in the article, I am shocked that more medical malpractice attorneys do not support this proposal. From the view point of either the doctor or patient, the expertise they receive from their medical malpractice attorney would be a welcomed change in those that are deciding their fate. The debate of this proposal is far from over, but having it discussed more publicly is a good first step.
|
