NationStates Jolt Archive

Advancement of Industry, Tort Reform

REALIZING the negative effects of frivolous lawsuits on medical practices;

RECALLING WITH REGRET the failure of the UN to effectively protect the health field;

EMPHASIZING the hard labour of all nurses, doctors, and technicians serving the health needs of the world;

AFFIRMING the need for international protection of medical practices;

CALL FOR:
1. Member states to implement caps on jury awards in lawsuits against medical practices;

2. The United Nations to form the Medical Lawsuit Oversight Committee(MLOC), which shall be an appellate body for all parties involved in the cases set out in section one of this resolution;

3. Any ruling of the MLOC to be final and unable to be repealed or overturned by any court of any member state;

4. Those in the medical to be ensured of the wages necessary to maintain their livelihoods

I'm not sure a committee is necessary for this. Nations have their own courts, and I don't see why those aren't sufficient. Ceorana definitely supports the goal, but we're not sure about if or how to go about it at this level.

Art Webster
UN Ambassador

Nations have their own courts, and I don't see why those aren't sufficient.
Lol!

The point of the Committee is to provide a standardized way of enforcing the resolution.

Lol!

...for what this resolution wants to add on to them.

And, the main thing I want to ask here(This is my first resolution), is everything in here legal and in accordance with the rules? Have I missed anything?

The point of the Committee is to provide a standardized way of enforcing the resolution.

Yes, but is it really necessary? Couldn't you just have national courts change to accommodate this? The new court just seems to be for a very limited purpose.

Well, see the MLOC would have discretion on which cases it accepts and such. All nations are indeed required to comply with UN Resolutions, this is just the UN making sure it has a direct way to enforce its resolution. I do find it necessary, but if you think it may get it to garner more support I shall consider removing it.

It's a good thing that the frivolous lawsuits epidemic had not reached the Kingdom of Brutland and Norden, and I agree with this Resolution.

Physicians are humans and may make mistakes too. To damage their entire career or job they worked their whole life for is simply unacceptable. And besides, suing healthcare professionals is now becoming another great way to get rich, from what I'm gathering from other nations. If we allow it to continue this way, less and less noble people would be inclined to join a profession that not only entails sacrifice and a lot of hard work, but would be burdened with lawsuits for the slightest mistake.

The Kingdom of Brutland and Norden fully supports the principle of this resolution.

Frivolous lawsuits don't work if a large part of your medicine is partially socialized or free. Unfortunately, this bill would not pass muster in many nations who have a different medical and legal system where it is very hard to sue.

This is an internal matter inside nations. It represents an attempt at micromanagement. Most nations do not allow this kind of activity.

Also who is to determine when a lawsuit is frivolous. It is not frivolous where there are real medical concerns, asbestos litigation, lead paint litigation. There are enough of these kinds of things happening where a damage cap is a bad idea.

Frivolous needs to be better defined. If someone didn't get big enough breasts in their breast enlargement surgery, or something similar it might be frivolous.

I agree with Commonalitarianism that "frivolous" is a term needing to be defined here. For this to gain acceptance, the term must be defined. For me "frivolous" would include those that are not firmly based in scientific observations, such as cell phone use causing acoustic neuromas (ear tumors). Those things are not rooted in firmly proven scientific evidence and thus considered frivolous.

Medical lawsuits can also occur if your medicine is socialized or free. In fact, your problem can be compounded because the person can sue not just the health care professional, but the entire health system too. That will earn them bigger damage rewards. Being free won't guarantee that you won't be sued because there are people who are just plain greedy.

Frivolous lawsuits don't work if a large part of your medicine is partially socialized or free.

Yes they do, it's just that then it's the taxpayers (rather than the doctors or their insurance companies) who have to supply the money for the payments... (OOC: the National Health System in the RL UK has been required to make some ridiculously high payments...)

There are also other ways than a cap on payments. There could be a form of lawsuit insurance like car insurance required for doctors... Also medical standards to reduce the most common lawsuits could be introduced.

I'm not sure that I'd agree with limiting the ability of people to sue for medical malpractice. Mistakes in this field are rarely the responsibility of the patient. In most cases they are unconcious at the time, or trust their doctor/nurse to know what they are doing and not give them the wrong meds, botch surgery ect.

Yes, I know that medical personel aren't robots, and sentient beings make mistakes, but medical mistakes impact directly on the patient and can kill or seriously maim them. While I don't believe people should be able to sue over things that are their own fault due to negligence or stupidity, medical malpractice doesn't fall into that catagory. Patients should be able to seek compensation if they injured through mistakes, and the families of those killed.

You really do need to define frivolous, and give some examples of what would fall under that. I seriously hope things such as this RL Doctor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4080164.stm) wouldn't.

Good day.

There are also other ways than a cap on payments. There could be a form of lawsuit insurance like car insurance required for doctors... Also medical standards to reduce the most common lawsuits could be introduced.

I respectfully disagree. A malpractice insurance is costly, if I must say. Also, if you require (or force doctors to) get those insurance I'm sure private practitioners' fees would go up. Doctors working for the government would be more hard-pressed because they have fixed wages. Also, even if a doctor has those insurances, we still are not sure because the awards that may be given to the complainant may still be bigger than what the doctor can get from the insurance. A cap is really necessary.

I'm not sure that I'd agree with limiting the ability of people to sue for medical malpractice....

Nowadays, the patient is the one given to power to decide for his/her treatment. The doctor's job nowadays is only to fully inform the patient on his/her treatment choices. It is ultimately the patient who would choose. Unfortunately, every treatment has its risks. Most of the time, when the patient catches this risk, they'd sue when in fact that risk is inherent in the treatment s/he chose.
Let's give a hypothetical example. The patient has a malignant non-metastatic tumor in the uterus. The doctor fully explains her two choices: chemo + radiation therapy, and surgical removal of the entire uterus (hysterectomy). She chose the latter. Two days after the surgery, her lungs suddenly shut down and she died despite the best efforts to resuscitate her. Her husband sues, and wins in court. Justified?
Probably no. Because surgeries always run the risk of pulmonary embolism (blockage of the pulmonary artery) due to the clotting process. It was a risk involved in the patient's choice and therefore they could not sue.

Jury-based systems is especially frightening in deciding cases like this, because most can be easily swayed with emotional statements and that the medical facts are glossed over, especially by experienced trial lawyers.

The examples given are really extreme ones. We should not see all of our doctors as if they don't know things and fit to be punitively punished like a schoolboy who forgets to do his homework.

..medical mistakes impact directly on the patient and can kill or seriously maim them. While I don't believe people should be able to sue over things that are their own fault due to negligence or stupidity, medical malpractice doesn't fall into that catagory. Patients should be able to seek compensation if they injured through mistakes, and the families of those killed.There's also a major difference between medical malpractice and negative outcome of treatment. Many people sue for the latter as well choosing to ignore the fact that medical treatment is not a sure thing even under the best of circumstances. I don't think there should be any limits on litigation where malpractice is concerned, but there should be some dampening on suits for other cases.

I don't think doctors should be sued just because they fail, despite their best efforts, to help their patient. I realize that shreet (see footnote 1) happens. However, there is malpractice so extreme that the only rational response is to sue the pnats off the doctors involved, and I would not support any proposal that doesn't recognize that.

1. Shreet is a natural fertilizer, made from the excrement of a Siratian yak.

I don't think there should be any limits on litigation where malpractice is concerned, but there should be some dampening on suits for other cases.The problem isn't the compensatory awards, it's the punative ones where juries can go nuts and utterly ruin people. Let's run with a hypothetical example.

Bob's 20 years old. He gets into a car accident and needs his right arm amputated. The doctor screws up and removes the left one. When everything's sorted out, he has no arms, and is understandably upset about this. Obviously, he sues. Compensatory damages might be figured thusly:

Over the course of his life, if he had both arms, his average wages would probably be $50,000 per year until the average retirement age of 55. Thus he is first awarded $1,750,000. Then, we add in another $500,000 which is the flat "cost" of an arm. He should thus be awarded $2,225,000. And, in many nations, that's all tax free, alimony free, and basically untouchable. It's also largely unaffected by juries. You open the book, grab your calculator, and crunch numbers.

However, that goes directly to him, which means his lawyers don't get their grubby hands all over it, so they need punative damages to pay their salaries. Er... I mean... to "punish" the doctor so he doesn't do that ever again, the naughty boy. To help pad this number (er, I mean, remind the jury of the trauma), the add in "The Intential Infliction Of Emotional Distress". Oh lawdy. Emotional Distress. Can I sue my boss for this?

Any way, this boils down to how much the lawyers can get the jury to soak the doctor for. So instead of actual numbers and rational though, we're directly appealing to emotions. Those rich bastard doctors! They'll just cut you up and don't give a shit! Look! They maimed Bob! He's got no arms! And those fuckers are only going to give him 2 million bucks!

Nevermind the fact that Bob would probably never amount to two mil in his life. Juries don't care, and if they do, lawyers find an area where they're more likely to give big numbers (RL example: There's a reason that more and more doctors (especially neurosurgeons and OB/GYN) are fleeing Illinois). Lawyer cooks up a sob story, makes Bob wave his stumpy arms, and paint the doctor as a bum. Jury cries, clucks their tongues, shakes their heads and awards Bob 100 million bucks.

The lawyers are thrilled. They just made a cool 35 million. Bob's filthy rich, but he still doesn't have his arms, and the area lost another doctor. And the remaining doctors have their malpractice insurance premiums go up again, likely driving more doctors out of business.

If I wanted to be really manipulative, I'd start going on about how many doctors are driven out of business by that reward, and about how many people die due to there being not enough doctors, but I'm not a trial lawyer.


Punative damages, of all kinds, need caps. Having clueless people throwing around money that isn't theirs is a dangerous system to have in place.

It seems to me doctors are the ones who are most punitively punished for doing just one single mistake. Though I agree that *stupid mistakes* need to be *punished* [corrected], we shouldn't destroy their lives just because of it. I recognize about the amount the trial lawyers get. Perhaps that is the reason why they really try to increase the damage awards?

Here, our justice system is not jury-based, so those punitive damages are not a problem; but in those countries that are jury-based, it has morphed into a horrifying epidemic.

Well, if the problem is with greedy lawyers, then why not deal with the lawyers instead of punishing the victims of malpractice? Put caps on how much they can earn per case ect.

If a doctor, or other medical professional, makes a mistake through negligence or abuse that kills or maims someone, then that person, or their family, should have the right to sue. I'm afraid my sympathies rest much more with the parents who have to bury their child because a doctor pumped him full of potassium instead of pethadine, than with the person responsible, and if their life is ruined through paying for that mistake, then so be it.

Medicine is a life or death profession and patients put their lives into the hands of these people trusting that they know and will do their job properly.

Yeah, but the person's life is only worth so much. Unlimited punative damages don't match the error, don't match the person's life, and don't do anything except bankrupt people.

Nobody complains about compensatory damages. It's the punative damages that are the problem.

I understand what you are saying, and see your point. If the proposal was changed to reasonably cap punative damages payouts, and put some brakes on greedy lawyers while leaving actual compensation payouts alone, then my opposition to the idea would diminish greatly.

Not disappear though. I just can't think of medical malpractice in the same vein as some idiot putting a cup of hot coffee between their legs while driving, and still believe doctors who kill or maim through negligence ect should be forced to pay the price.

Not disappear though. I just can't think of medical malpractice in the same vein as some idiot putting a cup of hot coffee between their legs while driving, and still believe doctors who kill or maim through negligence ect should be forced to pay the price.I still maintain that compensatory damages, plus criminal prosecution will largely fulfill any need for them to "pay the price".

From where I see it, we are starting to have some undue bias against doctors. For example, take the case of your regular politician - YES, your regular MP or congressperson. There is a bill pending to require all dogs to be chained. S/he cast the deciding vote against the bill. Weeks later, you got bitten by a dog and lost your arm. Shall you sue your politician because s/he made a mistake in voting and get awarded huge punitive damages?

You asked for a plumber to fix your sink. He opened the U-tube underneath the sink but forgot to close it tightly. Water leaked on the floor. When you went inside the bathroom, you slipped and broke your hip. Shall you sue, and if you win, will you be awarded millions in damages?

From what I am seeing, we now treat our doctors as if their motives is to hurt and harm people just like felons even if they committed just an honest mistake.

I agree that we have to do something about those mistakes, but it shouldn't be punishing them punitively that their entire life is ruined. You must not be ruined for your mistakes, but rather be allowed to learn from them. That's all we say.

some idiot putting a cup of hot coffee between their legs while driving.
Everybody loves to cite Stella Liebeck and the McDonalds coffee cup example, but have you ever read the actual results of the case? Before you continue to blithely toss your fifth-hand sound-bite-based indignation around, take a moment to read about the whole chain of events. There's a highly truthful version at stellawards.com (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html), as collected by Randy Cassingham of This Is True.

OOC: I'll save my ambassador's more expressive remarks for a floor debate, if there is one.

Why is this a matter of international interest? Do we know that every nation has problems with litigation? Or are we just assuming that doctors are getting the stuffing knocked out of them by shyster lawyers everywhere and that we must interfere with peoples' legal systems in order to assure that this is not happening?

Until you can explain to me why this is not strictly a national matter, I see no need for this resolution - and will oppose it as an unfair burden on those of us who have already dealt with this issue internally, for the sake of nations that can't or won't address the issue themselves.

Until you can explain to me why this is not strictly a national matter, I see no need for this resolution - and will oppose it as an unfair burden on those of us who have already dealt with this issue internally, for the sake of nations that can't or won't address the issue themselves.

I think this is directed towards nations that have been affected severely. If your nation (like mine) have already addressed this issue, then why could it be an unfair burden?

Everybody loves to cite Stella Liebeck and the McDonalds coffee cup example, but have you ever read the actual results of the case? Before you continue to blithely toss your fifth-hand sound-bite-based indignation around, take a moment to read about the whole chain of events. There's a highly truthful version at stellawards.com (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html), as collected by Randy Cassingham of This Is True.OOC: While waiting tables about 10 years ago, I had a pyrex coffee pot shatter while I held it due to a fault in the glass (probably from a scratch that was exacerbated by repeated heating and cooling). For reference, the pot just broke in my hands while I was walking; it didn't bump into anything nor did it strike anything.

The coffee struck the (short) waiter's apron I was wearing and my slacks; it hurt, but I suffered nothing more than some irritation on my thighs (first degree burns) that never blistered or peeled; I did not go to the hospital or even leave work, but rather finished my shift. As a further FYI, our coffee burner wasn't defective, although we may not have been keeping our coffee at the “prescribed” 185ºF that the “purists” say it should be kept. Nor do most restaurants; coffee turns rancid too fast at that temperature, so most places don't crank the burners up to full blast.

The “conventional wisdom” surrounding the Liebeck case has always ticked me off because so much of it is misinformed.

Anyway. enough of that. If there's a point pertaining to this resolution, it's that frivolous litigation is frequently in the eye of the beholder - and every litigant (plaintiff or defendant) who loses a case thinks that outcome a miscarriage of justice; it's just that some voices speak louder than others. So you have to ask yourself: is the problem here really what you think it is?

We don't need international tort reform, unless you can show me that it's an international problem.

I think this is directed towards nations that have been affected severely. If your nation (like mine) have already addressed this issue, then why could it be an unfair burden?Because it forces us to implement “solutions” that only make sense if our legal systems are broken:Member states to implement caps on jury awards in lawsuits against medical practices;If I don't have a problem with frivolous lawsuits, why do I need caps? Or must we assume that only nations with caps don't have these problems?

If I don't have a problem with frivolous lawsuits and you force me to cap damages in medical malpractice cases, then – unless I've already adopted such caps – you've just broken my legal system. Thanks a lot!The United Nations to form the Medical Lawsuit Oversight Committee(MLOC), which shall be an appellate body for all parties involved in the cases set out in section one of this resolution;If I don't have a problem with medical malpractice, why do I have to add yet another layer of appeal? That's an unfair burden on my people – and yours, too, if you don't need it.Those in the medical to be ensured of the wages necessary to maintain their livelihoodsAside from the question of whether this illegally duplicates the UN Fair Wage Convention, why should I be ensuring just “the medical (profession)” from the problem of inadequate income?

This last clause doesn't belong here and should be dumped.

Besides, rather than impose a “fix” on everybody's system, broken or not, wouldn't it be better to just have nations with “broken” legal systems fix them for themselves? What, are their fingers broken, that they can't write their own corrective legislation?

I really think that there is a problem, it's getting out of hand, and it isn't just in one country. But I agree too, that we must look at it objectively.

I think the rationale behind the resolution is to make member states do something pertaining to this problem. You don't have to fix something that is not broken.
If you have caps, then you don't have to implement a new one.
The new court, if I understand it correctly, is not national but international in scope. If you don't have a problem with *frivolous* lawsuits, then you wouldn't have to use the new court.
I agree that it's a duplication, and it's not just medical professionals who must get reasonable wages, but everyone.

If you have caps, then you don't have to implement a new one.And if you've fixed the problem without caps? That is possible, you know.If you don't have a problem with *frivolous* lawsuits, then you wouldn't have to use the new court.Not true: the resolution does not say that you can only appeal frivolous lawsuits to the MLOC: it says that you can appeal to the MLOC in any case involving “jury awards in lawsuits against medical practices”. Besides, how do you know it a lawsuit is frivolous until (or unless) it's dismissed? Every attorney labels his opponents' cases “frivolous” or “specious”; that goes with the territory.

Again, why can't nations with this problem (assuming they even see it as a problem) fix it for themselves. And why shouldn't they?

And if you've fixed the problem without caps? That is possible, you know.

I agree that it is possible, but then if you've solved the problem without caps, that goes to say you don't have the problem. And if you don't have the problem, even if you have the cap on your books, it won't be used ;) . That is actually our situation here. We don't have a jury system and so we don't have those kinds of problems, but we don't mind if we have to put a cap in our books because we will not use it anyway. And besides, it will be up to the nation to decide what would be the amount of the cap.

It seems to me you don't want to make nations to tackle this problem. One alternative, which I believe would gather a lot more support, is a declaration of principles. That's just to make nations notice the problem, but wouldn't force them to take steps for it. I don't know if it can be done here, since I'm very new here.

Okay, Ellelt will be voting against this tripe if it comes to the floor. Why? Because it is matter of National rather than International concern. Even though we do agree with and support the sentiment that lead to this draft proposal.

There are civil courts in most nations and those courts are competent enough to award just damages. In those nations that do not have civil law, I would imagine they would use common law, or perhaps just common sense to deal with this problem.

In either case, I am not aware of any nation that would allow gross damages caused by incompetence to go unpunished. We don't, although one can not actually sue the health care system in our country as it is governmentally run--complaints are however reviewed and the government does give compensation to those who are the victims of incompetence, on the part of medical staff.

Although we did have an interesting case where compensation was not awarded...a man tried to bring a law suit against an appliance company because he had to have his hand amputated after he tried to test to see if his blender was working by putting his hand in the blender and turning it on. The Civil court ruled that he was an idiot and was not due any compensation what-so-ever

We are however, shocked that Ceo's remarks about the court systems of nations. It seems she believes civil courts competent to deliver fair punitive damages and medical compensation but that criminal courts are somehow incapable of awarding a fair sentence that fits the crime committed. I would like to know by what form of logic that can be justified.

Vladimir "keep your filthy hippie hands off my court system" Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Alxei Pasterniak
Department of Interpretation for International Law, Ministry of Justice

And if you don't have the problem, even if you have the cap on your books, it won't be used ;)Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Who says it won't be used? What if your solution is to hold litigants to higher evidentiary standards, as well as to issue more directed verdicts? That might well mean that you could have a multi-million dollar settlement in a particularly egregious case (e.g., the medical equivalent of the Ford Pinto case), but not have that be a problem because you don't see many - if any - bad verdicts.

The thing about caps is that they presume that no rightful finding can ever go beyond their artificial limits - which is bunk. You can think of caps as being like no-fault insurance: people with really good claims get shafted, for the sake of protecting your health care system from a plague of bad claims.

You can fix the system without caps (winnow out the bad claims!), and yet still have huge settlements.It seems to me you don't want to make nations to tackle this problem.No, I want nations that have a problem to tackle it themselves; why is that an issue?

Everybody loves to cite Stella Liebeck and the McDonalds coffee cup example, but have you ever read the actual results of the case? Before you continue to blithely toss your fifth-hand sound-bite-based indignation around, take a moment to read about the whole chain of events. There's a highly truthful version at stellawards.com (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html), as collected by Randy Cassingham of This Is True.

It's not fifth hand, it's about tenth hand, and that incident was just the first thing that popped into my head when I was writing that post. It is used as an in joke in Aust to explain why McDonalds don't serve their coffee hot anymore.

But ok, I like the quiet life and don't want to get into an arguement, so scrap that one and insert this example instead. Man in his early 20s goes to a mates place with a few friends while the mates parents are away. They all get drunk, and this guy decides to try and tightrope walk their back fence, not knowing there is a six foot drop on the other side of it. He falls, breaks bones and then sues the homeowners for not having signs up to warn drunken idiots that walking along the top of the fence could be dangerous. Not only that, but he wins (decision was overturned on appeal).

I have to agree that we have to winnow our the bad claims and that your proposed solutions might be better. We have to suggest that.

For us, two things must be considered: intent and gravity. If the intent is to cure or help and the mistake is not that grave, then by all means let the person learn from that. If the intent is to harm, this is the time I'd agree to punitive damages.

Note that gravity does not equate to the consequences. The mistake may be slight but it may lead to death; or the mistake may be grave but it won't have any effect.

No, I want nations that have a problem to tackle it themselves; why is that an issue?

I apologize for forgetting a few words that my statement is misunderstood. I meant that the sentiment I'm seeing is that "you don't want to have the UN make the nations tackle the problem."

Hope it's much clearer, which would actually lead us to the same point. I apologize.

We can put forward alternatives to this thing. While some still believe this is a matter of grave concern, some believe that it's a matter better left to the states. Surely there must be some way to reconcile their wishes.

If this Resolution does not make it to the floor during the next cycle, I will work on developing a sort of declaration of rights as proposed on this board. I see this problem as hurting the overall medical industry. If doctors are afraid to do even routine surgeries and prescriptions, then how will they ever consider attempting break-through experimental methods, even with the consent of the patient? This IS an international problem. Every nation where medical professionals are being decimated from frivolous lawsuits declines the health of the people, prevents the development of better medicines, and slows down the world's medical care.

If this Resolution does not make it to the floor during the next cycle, I will work on developing a sort of declaration of rights as proposed on this board. I see this problem as hurting the overall medical industry. If doctors are afraid to do even routine surgeries and prescriptions, then how will they ever consider attempting break-through experimental methods, even with the consent of the patient? This IS an international problem. Every nation where medical professionals are being decimated from frivolous lawsuits declines the health of the people, prevents the development of better medicines, and slows down the world's medical care

Apparently you have never been to an Elleltian hospital. Should a doctor make a mistake, his mistake will be reviewed upon a complaint by the patient which of course would arise out of an actual problem. Our medical review professionals can make the determination if a procedure was malpractice or not..they arent stupid. If there is malpractice found the Ministry of Justice, Department of Torts, Fraud and Civil Law, will make a proposed deal to the patent as compensation. They have the choice to take it to court or not. Usually they dont.

This is not a international problem at all. It may be a problem in your country, but it isnt in mine, nor is it a problem for many other nations.

We oppose this measure.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

OOC: I'll save my ambassador's more expressive remarks for a floor debate, if there is one.

Why is this a matter of international interest? Do we know that every nation has problems with litigation? Or are we just assuming that doctors are getting the stuffing knocked out of them by shyster lawyers everywhere and that we must interfere with peoples' legal systems in order to assure that this is not happening?

Until you can explain to me why this is not strictly a national matter, I see no need for this resolution - and will oppose it as an unfair burden on those of us who have already dealt with this issue internally, for the sake of nations that can't or won't address the issue themselves.
Careful there CP, you're starting to sound like a sovereigntist.;)
OOC: As a further FYI, our coffee burner wasn't defective, although we may not have been keeping our coffee at the “prescribed” 185ºF that the “purists” say it should be kept. Nor do most restaurants; coffee turns rancid too fast at that temperature, so most places don't crank the burners up to full blast.

Gee, the ones we have where I work have only two settings: On and Off.

Careful there CP, you're starting to sound like a sovereigntist.;)Past life flashbacks.

More seriously, you don't need to be a sovereigntist to see that some legislations is so particularly tailored to one system (e.g., Due Process with its talk of grand juries) to be something we shouldn't impose on everybody.

In that light, I think we need a “There's more than one way to do it/No Americanisms” card. :pGee, the ones we have where I work have only two settings: On and Off.OOC: Depends on the model - and I'd lay odds on those jobbies (Bunn, perchance?) that a thermometer would'nt register 185ºF. The big multi-pot brewers (like you find at <Fill-in-the-name's> Big Boy are the ones with the dials.

<snipped...click the link>Just a couple of things...

Victorious malpractice attorneys collect a portion of the compensatory award as their fee... even in that mythical place of Illinois. State statute limits it to 33.33% of the compensatory award. An additional (and negotiable) portion of punitive damages is also allowed for fees. That tort litigation is taken on a contingency basis is both good and bad in that most people, even with reasonable cases don't have the funds to mount a successful case--it's not the doctor they have to fight, but a well-fed team of corporate defense attorneys. The bad, as you've noted, is that the payoff becomes more important to some attorneys than achieving a good outcome for the plaintiff and defendant. Keep in mind that a losing attorney collects nothing, even when fronting litigation costs.

In your hypothetical... are you seriously saying you think a physician who amputates the wrong limb should be allowed to continue the practice of medicine? There are medical mistakes and then there is malfeasance, Bob's doctor definitely falls into the latter category and not only should lose his case, but have his license stripped.

Punitive damages, where allowed, are in place to make a statement that gross negligence has occurred. There was a time that punitive damages were "reasonable" until it became apparent to judges and juries that the individuals and corporations were calculating lives against bottom lines. Ford MotorCo literally asked themselves how many deaths they could afford before it became more economical to recall and fix the exploding nightmare that was the Pinto. Do juries "go nuts" with punitive damages? You betcha. But what doesn't make front pages is that most of those awards (both compensatory and punitive) are subsequently reduced to something the court feels is more reasonable.

Are there places that are over-litigious and jury awards are ridiculous? Ayup. But slapping the lawyers, and in the process preventing a legitimate claimant their constitutionally guaranteed access to redress isn't the answer.

OOC: ...The coffee struck the (short) waiter's apron I was wearing and my slacks; it hurt, but I suffered nothing more than some irritation on my thighs (first degree burns) that never blistered or peeled; I did not go to the hospital or even leave work, but rather finished my shift.OOC: Something to keep in mind though is that Liebeck was ~80 years old at the time of the incident. Her aged skin was particularly susceptible to burns and her reflexes were probably impaired making it difficult for her to respond to the burning liquid. Glad you avoided a bad injury though.

This IS an international problem. Every nation where medical professionals are being decimated from frivolous lawsuits declines the health of the people, prevents the development of better medicines, and slows down the world's medical care.There is a difference between a problem that is international in occurrence and one that has an international solution. The problem you describe is one that afflicts that mythical place, the Western Hemisphere almost exclusively (and most especially the mythic land of the U.S.A.), so may not even rise to an international problem. As for solutions, creating a no-fault system has done more to decrease lawsuits without depriving the truly injured person access to the courts, but even that is only one way to address the problem.

In your hypothetical... are you seriously saying you think a physician who amputates the wrong limb should be allowed to continue the practice of medicine?If only there was another type of court for such things. They could call it... oh... I don't know... the "criminal court system." And if only there was a kind of licensing set up, where doctors could have their right to practice medicine revoked.

Ah, but those are just pipe dreams. Nothing like that could possibly exist.

If only there was another type of court for such things. They could call it... oh... I don't know... the "criminal court system." And if only there was a kind of licensing set up, where doctors could have their right to practice medicine revoked.

Ah, but those are just pipe dreams. Nothing like that could possibly exist.Heh. I'd be gloriously pleased if there were a system to keep the few that do become revoked from just crossing state lines and continuing to practice.

I don't think I could agree with criminal prosecution except in the most heinous of situations. The doctor who cut off Bob's wrong arm may have done so out of gross incompetence, impairment, or any number of reasons, which he shouldn't get away with. But criminal?

The biggest problem that I see is that prosecutors are lawyers, too. And like malpractice attorneys, push cases for all the wrong reasons. Gotta get a promotion, get re-elected, get an appointment to the bench. I honestly see little real comprehension of the practice of medicine in prosecutors--they're just as bad as Joe Citizen at thinking physicians should always know the answer. And they don't. Docs, like everybody else are just flying by the seat of the pants half the time, hoping they've seen something like this before and hoping your body reacts like everyone elses.

Where I do agree should be subject to criminal prosecution are malpractice with intent to defraud: the pharmacist who waters down cancer drugs, the physician who makes claims for procedures that aren't performed, the radiologist who sends out all-clear letters rather than working through his backlog of films. Those guys deserve a trip to the Gray Bar Hotel.