|
Medical malpractice lawsuits have recently plagued the medical industry. This is true to the point that doctors may choose alternate, and sometimes less effective, methods of treatments out of fear of a medical malpractice suit. Some critics would argue that this simply provides an effective check on how a doctor will provide treatment. If they do not have the confidence in a procedure because of a potential medical malpractice suit, should they really be following that course of action in the first place? Admittedly, these critics do raise a valid point – one that should be in debate among doctors, lawyers, and the public. Conversely, there should be a minimum amount of trust between the patient and doctor. Trusting a doctor with your life is a big leap of faith, one that should not be taken lightly. However, the use of medical malpractice suits tarnishes this trust level. If a patient needs to use a medical malpractice suit, then how much trust can exist between the patient and doctor?
The creation of medical malpractice insurance for doctors, however, has caused the debate to get even more heated. If a medical malpractice suit is supposed to keep the doctor from performing treatments with excessive risk, than being able to insure them against this threat essentially defeats this purpose. It seems almost as though insurance companies have found a way to capitalize on the human tendency to not trust one another, especially in important situations. In some cases where a blatant mistake has been occurred, a patient does certainly deserve some compensation which will come from medical malpractice insurance. However, on a broader sense medical malpractice insurance takes away from the natural check that developed between doctors and their patients.
|
