|
|
#221
08-14-2007, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
I've seen a lot of reference to litigation against quack doctors in an unregulated environment.
The question I have is how can you sue when there is no regulated framework which lays out what is malpractice and what is not? In the UK we have an organization called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). If doctors follow the NICE guidelines, they cannot be sued (for clinical reasons anyway). This is vital as many upset families will attempt to sue even if there has been no wrongdoing. With no approved regulations what is to stop a group of incompetent doctors drawing up their own guidelines, making them virtually impervious to the courts? Remember that desperate and confused people can me made to sign pretty much any kind of waver. 
|
|
#223
08-14-2007, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
okay let me rephrase that: the fact that I have empathy for other people and am not a horrible antisocial monster makes me, in fact, care that millions of people are not dying from bad medicine iron: can I really answer this question without flaming anyone? I mean, where do I start? [/ QUOTE ] Since you care so much you can be responsible for covering the cost of whatever level of care you deem acceptable.
|
|
#224
08-14-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just don't want to protect people from their choices. [/ QUOTE ] The choice to do no research and go to a quack? But you're spending all this time saying they're too smart to do that. Where's the 'choice', then? While you're answering this, what's the market for herbal remedies and faith healers for cancer treatments looking like these days? Yes, that's right, humans are not rational consumers when it comes to health care. [/ QUOTE ] Therefore government regulation is the solution....LOL
|
|
#225
08-14-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Since my field is highly technical and really requires a long apprenticeship, I'm not too worred about competition from an undercutting untrained person across the street. Consumers will demand outcome measures. Even after 10 years of practice I am still asked "Do you do a lot of these?" Let me be sued if I commit gross negligence, but realize that since the standard for education and licensing has been removed that this will become difficult to prove. What will become of the "standard of care?" [/ QUOTE ] I'm amazed that 40 posts can go by without anyone commenting on these paragraphs (which I've just rearranged for full effect). Okay, we've removed all licensing and government control of medicine so now anybody who wants to call themselves a doctor can feel free. We're obviously not too worried about people like, well, me, calling themselves doctors, because rational patients (never mind that people diagnosed with severe or terminal illness are not always rational and will latch onto anyone promising them a quick fix) are smart enough to doctor-shop for experienced doctors. We're also not worried about negligence becoming difficult to prove. But is anybody else worried that in this hypothetical universe, even the doctor supporting it basically presupposes that the overall standard of care is going down the tubes? "When doctors make big mistakes, people die. Now, because the AMA is a monopoly [okay], and is overly restrictive about opening new medical schools [seems reasonable]...let's scrap the whole thing and abolish all controls on the profession." [/ QUOTE ] Market regulatory bodies. The common objection to a lot of free market arguments is that it takes to much time to get to find out who's actually a reputable [insert now government provided profession here]. But how is that any different then having to know all the things that you have to know to vote for someone in office? [/ QUOTE ] Wow. I like this a lot. Will be stealing.
|
|
#226
08-14-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a lot of reference to litigation against quack doctors in an unregulated environment. The question I have is how can you sue when there is no regulated framework which lays out what is malpractice and what is not? In the UK we have an organization called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). If doctors follow the NICE guidelines, they cannot be sued (for clinical reasons anyway). This is vital as many upset families will attempt to sue even if there has been no wrongdoing. With no approved regulations what is to stop a group of incompetent doctors drawing up their own guidelines, making them virtually impervious to the courts? Remember that desperate and confused people can me made to sign pretty much any kind of waver. [/ QUOTE ] The doctors would be sued for malpractice according to the standards of the group that sponsors their training or manages them or ensures their quality. Its entirely possible that 5 such organizations would sprout up and all of them would have very similar "standards of care." Its also possible they would have very different standards. Your doctor would be held to the standard of his training/group.
|
|
#227
08-14-2007, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But how is that any different then having to know all the things that you have to know to vote for someone in office? [/ QUOTE ] Wow. I like this a lot. Will be stealing. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't. People generally know much more about the background of politicians than professionals serving them. Politicians get much more scrutiny in the press and I only have to keep track of a half dozen or so to handle hundreds of services.
|
|
#228
08-14-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But how is that any different then having to know all the things that you have to know to vote for someone in office? [/ QUOTE ] Wow. I like this a lot. Will be stealing. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't. People generally know much more about the background of politicians than professionals serving them. Politicians get much more scrutiny in the press and I only have to keep track of a half dozen or so to handle hundreds of services. [/ QUOTE ] People know a lot more about where their politician went to college, what party he claims to represent, what his wife looks like and if he's ever been caught banging a tranny. They know far less about his voting record or concrete positions, at least on average. Probably as much or more as they know about medical decisions, true enough, but thats only because they are currently coddled.
|
|
#230
08-14-2007, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 years of medical robbery
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But how is that any different then having to know all the things that you have to know to vote for someone in office? [/ QUOTE ] Wow. I like this a lot. Will be stealing. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't. People generally know much more about the background of politicians than professionals serving them. Politicians get much more scrutiny in the press and I only have to keep track of a half dozen or so to handle hundreds of services. [/ QUOTE ] then pay a guy to keep track of all the services. You already do something similar.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
