Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Frist Targets Women and Babies

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    conyers, GA, United States
    Posts
    253

    Frist Targets Women and Babies

    I am scheduled to return to DC the week of the 20th. This NEW bill, though expected, was thrust as a surprise, and has NOT gone through normal congressional 'protocols". Frist, Bush and the AMA have their private agendas for this, and needless to say, their own purposes for slipping this under the table sort to speak.
    I'll forego many of the details, but heres the gist,

    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is bringing
    to the Senate floor a medical malpractice bill on
    Feb. 23, the day Congress returns from a weeklong
    break. This is a new bill that was just introduced
    yesterday.

    In many respects, it is the same bill as H.R. 5
    and S.11, including a $250,000 cap on non-economic
    damages.

    But what is different is that it ONLY applies to
    cases against obstetricians and gynecologists! It
    protects not just the doctors in those cases, but
    the hospital, HMO and any drug companies that may
    be involved.

    In other words, after badly losing the Senate vote
    last July on the broad med mal bill, Frist has
    decided to specifically target women and babies.

    To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    conyers, GA, United States
    Posts
    253
    OK OK..I never can get the difference in political and legislation..to me one and the same

    To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other

  3. #3
    sherry, thanks. In my opinion, you have posted to the right place. Legislation is all about politics but not all politics is about legislation. So, when politics is about legislation, it should be posted here. All politics unrelated to legislation, e.g. elections, should be posted in the politics forum. I know, it is a fine line but this forum should be reserved for serious discussion of legislation and what you have posted is very serious.

    Although Senator Frist is a doctor (a colleague in arms, I suppose), his primary role now is to press the Republican agenda in the Senate. As you know, obstetrics is probably the most lucrative source of malpractice of all areas in medicine. This is in part because both the damages and punitive awards are bigger when a baby is injured or killed than almost all other kinds of malpractice. In obstetrics, the situation has become critical because so many obstetricians have left the field or have abandoned high-risk pregnancies due to malpractice costs. I am not sure what the solution is.

    While I have now become convinced (partly due to your influence, I think) that capping insurance is not the way to go, something must be done to rectify the critical situation in obstetrics. In the long run, unless something is done to retain good obstetricians, there will be many more deaths and injuries to babies. In the case of obstetrics, I am not sure that death or injury to babies is always the fault of the obstetrician. If one delivers hundreds of babies a year, there is always a chance that one or more of the babies will be injured. Unfortunately, every time this happens, there will be a malpractice suit. In other words, even the best obstetrician will have one or more suits per year.

    As a doctor, I believe that it is bad medicine if one does not take risks in one's practice. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. There are times when a doctor should go beyond standard practice to deliver the best care to his/her patients. At the present, there is such rampant fear of malpractice that most doctors are too conservative and spend too much time in defensive medicine. It is a very difficult problem.

    Wise.

  4. #4
    Wise
    If one delivers hundreds of babies a year, there is always a chance that one or more of the babies will be injured. Unfortunately, every time this happens, there will be a malpractice suit.
    Why is that unfortunate? A lawsuit doesn't automatically make the doctor or hospital guilty, that's why we have courts. With the high rates one pays for medical and hospital care you would expect better outcomes anyway.

  5. #5
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Dr. Young said:
    At the present, there is such rampant fear of malpractice that most doctors are too conservative and spend too much time in defensive medicine.
    I must strongly disagree with you on this Dr. Young. Unless you mean by conservative: withholding any medical treatment! Because, the vast majority of medical malpractice cases involve this type of negligence: failing to provide care according to standard medical practice.

    As in any profession there is incompetency in Medical care. It's how the medical profession deals with this that is different than in other professions.

    Of course you probably mean by conservative: running more tests than necessary and withholding beneficial treatment in the more complex cases for fear of adverse responses in patients.

    Again, from the hundreds of cases in Florida alone, I know that it generally is simple carelessness in treating relatively simple cases that cause the vast majority of medical malpractice.

    [This message was edited by Faye on 02-13-04 at 04:47 PM.]

  6. #6
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    One of the women and baby cases from Florida that was on the Oprah Winfrey show:

    A 45 year old woman was having twins conceived after IVF. Her water broke and one of the twins was in distress on a Thursday. The pregnancy had already proceeded to about 33 weeks, so the couple asked for a C-section.

    The doctor refused, claiming that the distress was nothing to worry about: just due to the other twin "sitting" on it. He was out of town over the weekend and on Monday came back for a vaginal delivery of the twins.

    "Defensive" medicine would have been to proceed with a C-section as soon as one of the babies came in distress.

    Four days later the one baby was born blind and paralysed (from anoxia). This could have been prevented by performing a timely C-section, as is standard medical practice.

    The parents now claim that the doctor was trying to set a record for the hospital: a vaginal delivery of twins by a 45 year old mother.

    This case has been settled.

    The doctor has since been promoted.

  7. #7
    Bigbob, it is unfortunate because every lawsuit costs a lot, regardless of who wins. For every lawsuit that the doctor loses, there are probably a dozen that he/she wins. It is not only a waste but dreadfully taxing. I don't know whether you have ever been sued. It is neither pleasant nor satisfying. The doctor loses whether you win or lose the suit.

    Faye, I know a lot of doctors who are reluctant to operate on people with chronic spinal cord injury and chose to wait because they think that the risk of surgery would expose them to lawsuit. I also know a lot of doctors who have been sued by frivolous lawsuits. Almost every doctor that I know has been sued for something that was not the fault of the doctor. What I think that people don't understand is how much these lawsuits affect behavior of doctors. They do practice defensive medicine.

    Wise.

  8. #8
    That is where the law can be changed to release doctors from risk takers. If I needed surgery then there should be exclusions to not litigate a lawsuit if the patient could waive his rights. This should be a part of the constitution. Most people benefit from medicine so why hang the physician if you don't have the knowledge to help yourself. This system is counter productive. Forgiveness would go a lot farther.


    ~ David

  9. #9
    Wise, The answer is not to excuse the Doctor. That would not take care of the harmed patient. We can't ignore the victim. Maybe something needs to be done, but I thought they already prevent frivilous Lawsuits. You mention what it is like for the doctor to go through the legal process. I think we need to consider the bad experience a patient could have, from the lack of good medical care. Something is wrong with the system. A patient pays a fortune for medical insurace, the doctor pays a fortune for medical mal-practice insurance, get my point? Why aren't the insurance companies regulated better? The answer is not to put a cap on a lawsuit. If we did the Insurance companies would find another excuse to maintain their high rates anyway. For sure they wouldn't lower their premiums if a cap went into effect. Read the posts on this forum, if some of that pain was caused by neglect of a doctor is it only at a value of $250,000. Also most lawsuits pain and suffuring settlements are less than 250,000. So the cap would have very little effect, and the small nuisance suits would still go ahead full steam.

    [This message was edited by bigbob on 02-13-04 at 10:34 PM.]

  10. #10
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    bigbob posted:
    I think we need to consider the bad experience a patient could have, from the lack of good medical care.
    100,000 deaths from medical malpractice every year, according to the Institute Of Medicine. This is as many as die from AIDS, breast cancer and motor vehicle accidents combined.
    More than a million deaths a decade from Medical Malpractice.

    That doesn't even include people who become severely disabled, like my son Jason who at the age of 7 became quadriplegic because of a missed bloodclot. Would have been easy to see if the doctors had practiced "defensive" medicine by ordering an MRI/MRA in a timely manner, when he presented with major textbook neurological symptoms.

    [This message was edited by Faye on 02-13-04 at 10:57 PM.]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •