Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Topics on medical malpractice
Topics on medical malpractice
Topics on medical malpractice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Before tort reform was passed in Texas, many doctors were being sued for medical malpractice and there was definite evidence of lawsuit abuse. According to The Heritage Foundation, doctors had become easy targets for medical malpractice lawsuits because there is no point in pursuing a lawsuit against someone who does not have the money. Doctors have the money and the insurance to potentially be able to satisfy a judgment. Over time, the amount of medical malpractice lawsuits have risen, which in turn has lead to medical malpractice insurance rates rising. With the cost of the insurance rising, many doctors retired early, left the business, or moved to new states. This in turn affected healthcare costs and other aspects for patients. In 2003, medical malpractice tort reform was passed through House Bill 4 and Proposition 12. New rules were created in order to fix this increasingly worsening situation. In an idealistic world, tort reform was passed to “create and maintain a fair, honest, and predictable civil justice system that balances the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants” (Houston Chronicle). There are many ways to measure how well it has actually met this goal. I believe that on some levels tort reform is a good idea that can be very helpful overtime, but I do believe that there are some issues with it that still need to be addressed. According to The Legal Examiner, medical malpractice insurance premiums are lower and the risk of being sued for negligence has also dropped. Knowing this, doctors in the state of Texas are feeling more at ease in their practice. The number of doctors, specifically specialists, has almost doubled since 2003, according to The Heritage Foundation. Tom Royer, CEO of Christus Health, c... ... middle of paper ... ...d was biased or skewed to present information that the author agreed with. I had to dig and find what the factual outcome of tort reform has actually been. After researching the topic, I have decided that the idea is one that is good on paper, but in practice still has some kinks to work out. One issue I came across was that the cap was the same for all lawsuits. I do not think this is “fair” or “honest”, as the Houston Chronicle put it. It is unfair to put the same cap on cases that involve the death of a loved one as cases that are not so extreme, for example. In Alaska, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Colorado, and West Virginia, the cap changes depending on the severity of the injury, according to The American Tort Reform Association. I believe Texas should follow the example of these states and allow the cap to be raised in specific circumstances.
¨ If I cannot give my consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?- Sue Rodriguez. If one cannot choose when they die and how they go out, then are we really the owner of our life and body? Physician assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. When the patient is terminally ill and is in a lot of pain they should be able to end their own life instead of waiting for it to end itself. Even though some argue that physician assisted suicide is not a humane way of dying it still stops the patient´s suffering and gives them peace of mind.
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
...ts to cover their mistakes. This is the exact opposite of what the country needs. Why should costs go up because of denied treatment? The big concern is whether or not government really understands the great difficulty in trying to control HMO’s and other health care programs without a nationalized program. Since there are some 6 million people using Medicare in HMO’s something needs to be done to ensure these patients the treatment that they need.
The number of doctors that present in the United States of America directly affects the communities that these doctors serve and plays a large role in how the country and its citizens approach health care. The United States experienced a physician surplus in the 1980s, and was affected in several ways after this. However, many experts today have said that there is currently a shortage of physicians in the United States, or, at the very least, that there will be a shortage in the near future. The nation-wide statuses of a physician surplus or shortage have many implications, some of which are quite detrimental to society. However, there are certain remedies that can be implemented in order to attempt to rectify the problems, or alleviate some of their symptoms.
The healthcare reform debate has been politicized in the United States for many years where there have been deliberate efforts by various stakeholders to ensure that they push for the reforms that are in line with the cost-benefit aspects that they have already envisioned. In this paper, I will attempt to prove that the reforms that have been witnessed in the healthcare in the recent years have not been effective and helpful to the society as a whole. When President Obama came into office, he promised to oversee great reforms in the healthcare which is his government he face much priority in the social policy aspects. The congress managed to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Imagine yourself laying on your deathbed, hooked up to countless machines. The doctors are constantly coming to check you while you're trying to get what little sleep you can through the agonizing pain. Even more you're suffering from the side effects of countless drugs, constipation, delirium, you can barely breathe and you've lost all your appetite. There no chance of survival and death is imminent, it's just a matter of time when. You just lay there fighting for your last seconds. Now, if you had the chance to choose how your life ended, wouldn't you choose how and when it ends? Hence, doctor assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients. This is a humane way for them to end their lives with dignity, without shame and suffering. We don't have the freedom of speech unless we have the freedom to refuse to speak. The same goes for our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can't have complete freedom unless we have the freedom to deny these things. We can't claim full control over our life if we cannot choose when to end it. Thus, people should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their unnecessary suffering, to preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate, and to reduce the burden on their families both, financially and emotionally.
Proposition 46 quadruples the limit on medical malpractice awards in California, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year (“Proposition 46 Arguments and Rebuttals”). According to the authors of this article, if the proposition is passed, than basically it will be harmful for the common citizen like us, because if the lawyers get their way with the proposition than the medical and jury awards are going to skyrocket as they mentioned, and we as tax payers will eventually have to pay millions of dollars for no reason. In this scenario, there is technically no actual role of any law firms, but all they want is money and so they are going to try their best to manipulate the people because they are expert in that. This is where you got to be smart and choose the paths wisely and carefully, it is in your hands whether to spend the rest of your income on the taxes that you don’t actually even have to pay or to spend it on yourself and your children’s education and in grooming your life in a better way. Not only these law firms are manipulative, but also they exactly know the perfect time to use their words as lethal weapons against common people, and you, not knowing anything simply get hypnotized by what they tell and start assuming it to be true and authentic. So, you as a respectable citizen have to think critically before taking decisions and look at both the sides in an efficient manner and always choose wisely and
Berman, M. L. (2011). From Health Care Reform to Public Health Reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(3), 328-339. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00603.x
Upon listening to the case, the Supreme Court contends that the uncommon insurances concurred by the fourth revision don't stretch out to open fields. Open fields don't give the se...
Here at Cigna we are leading the way in healthcare innovation. Gone are the days of waiting for a doctor to tell you when something is wrong. With our forward thinking approach, customers are rewarded for taking control of their own health. You are your own best advocate, and we are dedicated to giving you the tools and information to make the best possible healthcare decisions.
People will at least once, probably more, have to deal with insurance companies. For many, this typically results in a long, and heated struggle of figuring out what is covered, and what is not. It is also usually accompanied by negotiating something to be covered, and giving justification of why it should. Almost anyone will agree that handling insurance companies is as bad as pulling teeth. This is said to be true even when the medical diagnoses are concrete in the social construct of society. Many insurances will not cover things as dyer as cancer. If this is so commonly believed, imagine how it is for the illness that are not concrete; illnesses such as bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and schizophrenia. All phrases that are commonly heard in media, but widely accepted as untrue illnesses, or educated
Rising medical costs are a worldwide problem, but nowhere are they higher than in the U.S. Although Americans with good health insurance coverage may get the best medical treatment in the world, the health of the average American, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality, is below the average of other major industrial countries. Inefficiency, fraud and the expense of malpractice suits are often blamed for high U.S. costs, but the major reason is overinvestment in technology and personnel.
In the United States of America, people view health care as a product to be bought and sold. Therefore, anyone who could not avail the health care would not have any coverage. Without any form of health care, someone could not achieve their outstanding potential when sick. United States has spent so much money in trying to make this country as one of the best in the world. There is economic growth if the health of the citizenry is safeguarded. In this nation that is known for its wealth, it is very ironic to find people without proper insurance due to high cost and therefore are denied health care (Bergen, Fultz, Kessie, & Osburn, 2015). Society is denying them the right to live. Butts & Rich (2005) stated that in order to achieve social