Talk:Medical malpractice in the United States

message: Needs some work.  This really slants toward one side.  Although the side opposing reform (for lack of a better term) is discussed in one paragraph, it is quickly rebutted.  However, the 'pro' slant in the following paragraph is not rebutted.  This is a very slanted article, still.  I will try to work on it, as time permits.MollyBloom 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First section (after the introduction)

message: This is NOT a tort reform article.  IF WIkipedia is to be taken halfway seriously as an encyclopedia, it should be written as one, and not a political debate forum.  IN fact, there should not even be an entry on 'tort reform'.  THe online Encyclopedia Brittanica does not have one, for good reason.  The tort reform article, for example, uses references - both for and against tort reform - that violate WIkipedia 'reliable sources' guidelines.  Almost ALL of them do, because the article is by defnition a political debate, and not an encyclopedic entry.jgwlaw 01:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article on medical malpractice should inform the reader  what the medical and legal definitions of medical malpractice are. It is not a propaganda opportunity to get one's point of view out on tort reform in the guise of informing. Accordingly, I deleted the external references as not really germane to this article. Most, if not all, were polemics regarding lawsuits. If I inadvertently deleted one that was not a polemic and actually was informative as to what malpractice is, how often it occurs, etc. feel free to put it back. Gfwesq 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an article on Medical Malpractice NOT TORT REFORM

message: This artilce needs a worldview, and statistics on actual medical malpractice, that are not political.  WIkipedia is not a vehicle for tort reformists or other political views.  IN fact, no *real* encyclopedia would even have an entry on tort reform -- I checked.  I would welcome international discussion on areas of the law, or statistics - I'm afraid I am not well versed in international law.jgwlaw 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Malpractice - worldwide

message: I made corrections to misstatements of legal process and the law as follows:
* The elements of medical malpractice (and cited a Yale reference) -- The basic elements (in US law) are virtually the same as common law tort, based on English law.  However, I again welcome legal differences, if any, in other countries about which I am unfamiliar.
* Settlement -- First, there is no need of an admission of liability, so I changed that.  Second, motivations for settling are varied, so I removed the speculation.  jgwlaw 05:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections to misstatements of law

message: I want any objective editor to look at this edit by Oliver and justify how this is accurate (with references and correct reading of such), and anything but POV.  I cannot comprehend how anyone would dare try to turn Wikipedia into a blatant political vehicle, but it appears to be happening.
The group, Common Good has proposed creating specialized medical courts to improve the American system where almost 60% of all plaintif judgments are now consumed by attorney fees & court costs. These specialty "Health Courts" (similar to existing administrative tax or workmen's comp court proceedings)whose hallmark would be medically-trained, full-time judges making precedent-setting decisions about proper standards of care, would remedy the unreliability of our current system.
Proponents believe that giving up jury trials and scheduling noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering would lead to more people being compensated, and to their receiving their money sooner. Support for this alternative comes from sources ranging from The National Law Journal [1],the USA Today editorial page [2], The Wall Street Journal [3], Forbes magazine, the AMA, and the American College of Surgeons. The Harvard School of Public Health has been working with the Common Good initiative[4]in conducting research to answer unresolved health court policy questions by analyzing individual state constitutional impediments to health courts, doing projected cost analyses, developing a tiered schedule for noneconomic damages-which would have upper limits-and working out the standards for compensation.
Opponents of tort reform object to the idea.[5]
Now, the entire paragraph is pro 'tort reform' with one sentence that "Opponents of tort reform object to the idea."   Can ANYONE justify NPOV on this?  Also, the 60% reference is from an uncited report and the 60% not only misrpresented, but it is also out of context.  THe actual report concluded that there was no effect on the cost of health care. jgwlaw 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you're anable to understand the relevence of this to malpractice, but it is indeed an increasingly popular idea being debated (this past week) in congress. This is an area where tort reform & med-mal overlap. There is not much POV in Common Good's ideas of pointing out the inefficiency, irrationality, and unpredictability of how we process med-mal claims American style.Droliver 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above says all that needs to be said about Rob Oliver's POV.  Common Good is a 'tort reform' advocate.  And, as usual, Rob does not provide references for his claims. I have explained the objection to the above paragraph in detail.  jgwlaw 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NOT Tort Reform; Political articles and POV

message: I am an administrator here on the Wikipedia and am functioning as a neutral third party.  Mike Teflon (talk) and I have been discussing linking to his site.  Specifically, he would like to add a link to [http://www.millerandzois.com/malpractice-complaint-medical.html this article on medical malpractice.  He believes it adds information which would be of general use to readers of this article. However, it is on a site that belongs to Mike Teflon so I suggested that he put the link up for discussion amongst the other editors of this page. Please speak up one way or another. If nobody objects within a week or so, I've said Mike can go ahead and add the link.  If people object, though, my understanding is that Mike will not add the link.  If you wish to reach me (that is, not Mike Teflon), please contact me directly on my user talk page.  Thanks.  --Yamla 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to a plaintiff's attorney's home page which actively solicits clients adjacent to this sample is inappropriate. There would seem to be many other sources if you want to demonstrate thatDroliver 01:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--that is a totally inappropriate link. And not that it should matter, but I'm also an admin here.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: I'm somewhat disappointed that the segment re. criticism of american medical malpractice has been neutered & now includes sentiments that in fact belittle the critical view. Laying out the arguments for the status quo: unpredictability, expense, and the fall-out effects of affecting available medical services is an important theme for providing context for the med-mal climate in the USDroliver 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: criticims section

message: I suggest that this article should be merged with medical error. Comments? -- FP (talk)(edits) 10:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no support and some opposition to a merge so I will leave the articles separate. -- FP (talk)(edits) 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is an entirely different article, although there obviously will be some overlap.  Jance 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: The criticisms section summarizes one criticism, that "an estimated 60% of malpractice lawsuit expenses are now consumed by administrative, or transaction, costs (eg, lawyer fees, expert witness charges, court costs), as compared with 25% to 30% for systems such as workers' compensation".  It then goes on to say that: "In contrast, trial lawyers have asserted that the medical malpractice crisis is a myth ... According to [a study], 'the vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them.'"  But of course the defense that a large portion of expenditures go towards litigation does not contrast with the criticism that a large portion of expenditures go towards litigation. --Delirium 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contrasting view doesn't really contrast 

message: I think it would be helpful to define what "outpatients" are in the Statistics section. It would also help to give examples of what the "outpatient settings" in the statistics refer to--are they homes? Kennard2 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Outpatient"/ "outpatient settings" undefined 

message: Both spellings are used on this page, and I'd prefer consistency within *this* article (even if it conflicts with other pages' use) rather than being only partly consistent. Choosing one makes it easier to change later :) 
timbo 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Healthcare" v. "Health care" -- which one? 

message: No explanation was given. There's no way to fix the article if you don't explain, and tags for the sake of having tags does nothing but clutter up the Wikipedia. Could you please clarify what the problem is? MoodyGroove 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not POV.  Originally, the article was almost all about tort reform and nothing about the purported subject.  I and others have since created an actual article on the subject of medical malpractice =- what it is, what the claim involves, and some statistics by NEMJ on medical error.Jance 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV tag

message: A couple of issues: first, I agree that medical error is not synonymous with medical malpractice, and these should be separated (after all, there's already a separate article on medical error). For example, when inserting a central line, there's around a 5% chance of causing a pneumothorax. Such an adverse event might qualify as a "medical error" in many classification schemes, but it would certainly not be malpractice: assuming that there was a valid indication for inserting the central line, pneumothorax is a known complication which occurs in a small number of cases and is discussed in informed consent. Second, there should probably be some more meaningful discussion of the shortcomings of the malpractice system (at least in the U.S.) - for example, the focus on individual screwups makes it very hard to effect systematic changes - it promotes a "bad-doctor" model of malpractice instead of a "bad-system" approach. Second, a jury of laymen is not necessarily versed enough to evaluate malpractice claims on their merits - it often comes down to whose expert witnesses are more convincing. Also, claims that have the potential for a large judgement (e.g. injured babies or children) are often prosecuted, while malpractice occurring in an elderly patient or one unlikely to yield a large financial outcome may be less likely to be litigated on the contingency system. I can source all of these viewpoints, and think they would probably be more meaningful "Criticism of malpractice lawsuits" that the somewhat strawman arguments that are currently listed. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Criticism of malpractice lawsuits" section can always be added to with the info you mention but I don't see why any of that section's info should be removed. --Alabamaboy 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't necessarily proposing to remove any of that section. I would propose to remove or drastically shorten the section on "statistics on medical errors", as a) medical errors and malpractice are not synonymous, and b) there's a main article on medical error already. MastCell 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the point of the JAMA analysis was that there's a lack of clarity on what we're talking about when we use the term "medical error". With the more dramatic estimates, some proportion are not clear-cut mistakes like those you describe, but are known complications of procedures. Besides, purely on Wikipedia grounds, when a main article (medical error) already exists, we should briefly summarize any relevant points and direct the reader to the main article. Right now the section is way too long. MastCell 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: A doctor who is on methamphetamine - a daily user - and perscribes drugs to non-patients... this situation would be considered malpractice, yes? He exchanges perscriptions for drugs. Could there be a case against this? I'm addicted to a few forms of pills, and I do not think he should have that power in his hands. It has caused major setbacks in my life, including mental anguish and a loss of opportunities, such as school and family life. I know I play a major part in the fault. I accept that blame. does anyone have any information they can provide? my email address is LaArana83@sbcglobal.net. The name is Carlos
Thanks, in advance 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.10.228 (talk) 
:I'm sorry, but this isn't the right forum to seek legal advice. MastCell Talk 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inquiry 

message: My dad went to the emergency room today when they found a growth in his lung.  It was caused by Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.  They went in to scrape it off with a tube thing they stuck down his throat and accidently punctured his lung.  Is this ample grounds to sue that place for every goddamned penny they have?  Or should I sue the government because they bombed there own men with a deadly toxic gas that started this mess in the first place?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage1989 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very sorry to hear that, but unfortunately this isn't a forum where medical or legal advice can be provided. MastCell Talk 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've raised this edit at the RS/N board. THF (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RS issue

message: After reading the Statute of Limitations section and this this talk section, I'm taking a bold step.  Any kind of list of statutes of limitations is either going to be VERY limited - to the point of uselessness, even - in this article.  I've changed the section to a small paragraph that links to the Statute of Limitations article, and added another link to a statute of limitations page on medical malpractice.  I'm not sure what it takes to create a new article, and there isn't nearly enough information in this article for me to do so, with my limited knowledge of the subject.  I've left a copy of the old text below--MutantPlatypus (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope Issue 

message: There's a section called
The case for medical liability reform
full of propoganda.   Where are the counter arguments?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.251.96 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  as biased as it gets.... 

message: This article seems to relate exclusively to the USA. Surely it should be called "medical malpractice in the USA" (if that merits an article of its own).
62.189.218.38 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the rest of the world? 

message: It's crazy that this article is largely devoted to explaining the *costs* of malpractice insurance, but then never actually gives any actual *costs* of malpractice insurance!  Sure, overall numbers are given for industry-wide dollar amounts, but no info is given about how much individuals and groups are ACTUALLY paying for this insurance.  I know that it varies based on state, specialty, etc., but certainly SOME info on this _must_ be given.  For instance, you can just include some ranges or averages, or even just a few random examples. For instance it could say that "in the US the average price that individual physicians pay for malpractice is $#0,000 per year."  Or you can just choose a few representative examples.   Maybe even make it a chart.  For instance it could say 
"The following are some typical US malpractice insurance prices: 
private OBGYN in NY = $#0,000 per year
private ER physician in KA = $#0,000 per year
group coverage for family physician in FA = $#0,000 per year"
... unless this info is already included in the article and I just missed it.  Which is possible.  But if it's not in here, then it really really must be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.101.145 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much does malpractice insurance actually COST?!  This is CRUCIAL information that MUST be included 

message: It would be beneficial to discuss medical malpractice insurance the specifics about the costs incurred by the doctors who have to pay for it. As medical malpractice has been presented, a doctor's protection from that, medical malpractice insurance, should be given. 
It would be good to discuss costs, limits, uses, and the market.
Medicalmaster123 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as long as you don't use commercial links to source it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Malpracitce Insurance Basics/Costs to doctors 

message: The article has an entire section that presents only one side of an argument.  Where is the other side?
"Reform" in this case means limiting patients' right to sue when they are injured.  Surely a case can be made that their rights should not be limited.
The Center for Justice and Democracy (http://www.centerjd.org) specializes in protecting patients' right to sue.  Their website has many arguments that support their position.
Likewise, Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2513) argues that "Policymakers should focus on protecting patients and reducing medical errors, not limiting patients' rights."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathPerson (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the section entitled "The case against medical liability reform"? 

message: The citation provided is Medical News Today citing a study by HealthGrades. This figure is disputed . The accurracy of HealthGrades statistics is disputed too, as demonstrated by its own article. That's why I put the dubious tag — MIRROR (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 190k victims/year 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Medical malpractice in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518101434/http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/novdec00/sox.htm to http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/novdec00/sox.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708041412/http://www.numberof.net/number%C2%A0of%C2%A0malpractice%C2%A0lawsuits%C2%A0in-the-us-per%C2%A0year/ to http://www.numberof.net/number%C2%A0of%C2%A0malpractice%C2%A0lawsuits%C2%A0in-the-us-per%C2%A0year/
*Added archive https://archive.is/19980123121236/http://www.mobar.org/journal/1997/novdec/bebout.htm to http://www.mobar.org/journal/1997/novdec/bebout.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104531/http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/press/aafpnewsreleases/april/malpractice.html to http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/press/aafpnewsreleases/april/malpractice.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128010535/http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3424/Towers-Watson-Tort-Report-1.pdf to http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3424/Towers-Watson-Tort-Report-1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810042003/http://www.business-journal.com/archives/20040611MedicalMalpracticeInsuranceRoundtableDoctorsPrescribeRemediesforCrisis.asp to http://www.business-journal.com/archives/20040611MedicalMalpracticeInsuranceRoundtableDoctorsPrescribeRemediesforCrisis.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I came to this page seeking information about the history of medical malpractice insurance. I wanted to know when it was first introduced, how soon it became commonplace, and what the costs have been through the years. Anyone care to take this on?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.71.163 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for this page