The Hypocritic Oath
It’s now well established that tort “reformers” and hypocrisy go together like peanut butter and jelly. Just think back to one of my favorite examples: alleged newsman and tort “reform” champion, John Stossel, who railed against frivolous lawsuits, but had no problem bringing one of his own. It was during one of his hard-hitting, investigative pieces about professional wrestling. Poor John wanted to reveal the terrible secret about the sport–that it is fixed–even though the only person alive who was unaware of that seems to have been John. Nonetheless, he goaded one of the pros into bitch-slapping him (Stossel) upside the head during an interview, and promptly sued for “damages.”
But the hypocrisy takes on a deeper resonance when it comes from a physician tort “reformer” who specifically condemns “frivolous” medical malpractice suits, after having been a defendant in a meritorious action or two. And here I’m talking about the GOP’s own Rep. Phil Gingrey, of California. Injury Board shares the details in this recent post. Yes, Dr. Gingrey and his colleagues treated an OB patient less than optimally, to put it charitably, and were responsible for allowing her fetus to die, and the patient to suffer a debilitating stroke. So naturally, he would sponsor a bill that would arbitrarily cap damages, restrict legal fees for lawyers handling medical malpractice cases, and bar the ability to obtain punitive damages against negligent drug and device makers when the product has been FDA-approved.
Those darned, frivolous medical malpractice suits can be such a bother–especially when your failures as a physician are what instigates them. Thanks, Phil, and keep up the good work!
Medical “Justice,” or Just Us?
Have you heard about Medical Justice?
Trusted.MD abhors it. It’s worth reading why.
Ron Miller, at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, sees it as a cash cow run by fear-mongering MDs looking to profit off their professional brethren’s insecurities. Ironically, the folks who run Medical Justice, like their spiritual cousins, the tort “reformers,” devote extraordinary time and effort to fanning the flames of fear–of medical malpractice lawsuits; of medical malpractice crises; of the “clear” relationship between a malpractice claim, and the complete collapse of your reputation as a physician.
e-Patient Dave find its purpose to be repulsive. And his discussion of a major tenet of Medical Justice’s benefits package, the stomping out of patients’ reviews of their medical care, just in case the reviews are negative, provides ample justification for his disgust.
Medical Justice has been around for years now, and even the WSJ Health Blog has taken note of it’s aim to have patients sign away their rights to complain about poor care. In fact, as is pointed out in WSJ’s post, more and more of us are finding documents encouraging us to sign away our patient rights when we go to a new doctor’s office.
But one of the more insidious “benefits” provided by Medical Justice is this. The company will engage in active intimidation and character assassination of plaintiff’s lawyers, and expert medical witnesses who testify for plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits. Oh, of course that’s not how they characterize this benefit. To Medical Justice, these are just “effective response strategies.”
But Martha Gold, a plaintiff’s attorney whose own case was affected, provides the view of Tom Moore and Matt Gaier,who wrote about the challenges plaintiffs are facing in bringing actions to court–among them, those from Medical Justice.
And the whole thing is ugly: anti-1st Amendment; and anti-American. While the company claims to have provided a lot of “security” for MDs, it seems to have generated an awful lot of “security,” in terms of profit, for itself in the process, based on little of substance, and on a lot of “We’ve got your back, Doc,” complete with color-coded charts to drive home the graded levels of intimidation you can purchase.
So, really, who is benefitting here? Not patients who are gagged. Not MDs who have been frightened into purchasing “benefits” that are unlikely to be enforced, and which might not ”protect their online reputations.” No, the benefits all flow to the owners of Medical Justice. Just them.
The Thanksgiving Edition
In today’s post, MD WhistleBlower, a/k/a Dr. Michael Kirsch, discusses his sympathetic view of Big Tobacco. He believes that tobacco companies have been demonized by the government and press. I disagree, based on the reasons I discussed in my last blog post. In essence, Big Tobacco is the powerhouse behind the tort “reform” propaganda campaign that seeks to let corporations remain unaccountable to consumer/victims–even corporations like tobacco giants who market their poison to children.
And speaking of unethical behavior, Michigan’s Blue Cross Blue Shield has been caught in the act of fraudulently enriching itself, and is now facing several lawsuits, according to the Detroit Free Press.
Many doctors and hospitals have engaged in a type of unethical behavior for a long time. Here’s how it works. When a medical error occurs, instead of acting responsibly, they fall back on the policy of “deny and defend.” But apparently, this does not make sense, and continuing to utilize it is contraindicated, to use a medical term. Will it stop? Don’t hold your breath.
And because I, for one, am thankful for the good doctors who usually get it right, here is a tip for you if you are considering moving your work entirely to a hospital setting. Make sure you have liability coverage.
Happy Thanksgiving, Everybody.