|
Everyone wants to untagle the medical malpractice mess-but balancing justice and medicine may be a risky procedure
With the possible exception of trial lawyers, most everyone involved with medical malpractice-physicians, patients, insurers, hospitals-complains that the system is seriously flawed. … As for jurors' lack of medical expertise, jury advocates say this is precisely their virtue. "The great feature of the jury is that they are not hardened or callous," says Nancy Marder, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law who has studied the US jury system. "When the jury is working well, it represents a fair cross-section of the community, which we rely on for common sense judgments. . .. That seems better than relying on an elite group who all have similar training and biases that go along with that training-whether in law school or medical school." …. Professor Charles Silver of the University of Texas School of Law wonders why, when defendants already win 75 to 80 percent of cases, doctors and insurers are so keen to reform the system. "How much better do they think they are going to do? I think what's really going on is that they are trying to capture the judges," says Baker. "Doctors' groups and insurance companies and hospitals and other health care providers who get sued will have very significant interests to lobby the people who appoint judges or to support candidates should there be elections for those positions."
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |