NationStates Jolt Archive

Guns:


1. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
2. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
3. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.


Doctors


1. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
2. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
3. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.


(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)


Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.


Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."


FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.


Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!


Out of concern for the public at large, statistics on lawyers have been withheld on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

ban doctors!!

"Guns don't kill people, doctors do." :D

Seriously, judging by the calibre of medical practitioners that I have had dealings with, they are pretty dangerous due to their sheer incompetence. I know this does not apply to every single doctor on Earth, but most of the ones I've met to date are dozy bastards.

It would be interesting to see what the tats were like for other countries. Or are US doctors better at killing than others?

When you say doctor, do you mean a GP who I go to for my cold medicine, or the surgeon removing the bullet from my brain?

Either that or all unitedstatesian gun-owners are pshycopaths. :p

When you say doctor, do you mean a GP who I go to for my cold medicine, or the surgeon removing the bullet from my brain?
The statistics are for doctors across the board.

I imagine that being in surgery is far more dangerous. But a GP who fails to diagnose your cancer in time for treatment has just as effectively killed you.

A doctor is like any other human being. Some are quiet good, some are average, and some are chimpanzees in white coats.

I hate doctors! There only good for two things really. Diognostic (usually) and dispensing drugs (which a lot of the time cause as much harm as good). Fortunately, I don't need either of them now.

To this end, I've become my own doctor. I do this by practising preventative medicine, that's right, preventative medicine! - the only real medicine! That and I have a naturalpath.

"Physician heal thyself" as I always say.

I'll wager the ratio of:

lives saved by guns:deaths caused by guns

is a lot lower than the ratio:

lives saved by doctors:deaths caused by doctors

Although a better analogy would involve surgical implements and medical equipment, rather than doctors, since the doctor is more analogous to the one holding the gun than the gun itself.

;)

all of them. doctors are in a rather good spot for causing accidental death

hospitals are full of sick people. they have germs that you dont find most other places. the chances of picking up an infection that will kill you are significant. it happens thousands of times a year.

its not so much the doctor who keeps you alive as the nurse. the nurse is the one who notices the bad reaction to the drugs the doctor prescribed. she is the one who notices you crashing from the undiscovered internal bleeding. she is the one who alerts the doctor to the raging "flesh eating bacteria" infection on your leg.

good nurses can work anywhere, dont go to a hospital where they dont pay nurses well and dont treat them with respect, the best ones have already left. always treat your nurse well. she will always do her best but lets face it, she is only human when it comes to people she dislikes.

The statistics are for doctors across the board.

I imagine that being in surgery is far more dangerous. But a GP who fails to diagnose your cancer in time for treatment has just as effectively killed you.

A doctor is like any other human being. Some are quiet good, some are average, and some are chimpanzees in white coats.

Better a chimpanzee than nothing.

Guns:


1. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
2. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
3. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.


Doctors


1. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
2. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
3. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.


(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)


2002, United States
Adverse effects - Medical care Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: Y60-Y84,Y88(.1-.3)


Number of Deaths 2,596



2002, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34




Number of Deaths 762


http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Uh-huh.

ban doctors!!Yes!! Doctors are evil!! Read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Guess who killed Roger Ackroyd and then faked the medical evidence!


We should ban doctors. However, doctors also help save people's lives when they're sick. Therefore, we should outlaw disease. People are not allowed to be sick or they go to jail. That will settle everything!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Carelessness with anything powerful, whether it is a gun, a scalpel, a medication, or a car, will kill.

As far as medical accidents, I believe one thing that might help is limiting the length of shifts worked by residents. I would like to see data on the propensity for lethal mistakes made by rested and alert doctors vs. those made by doctors on the tail-end of a 36 hour shift.

Carelessness with anything powerful, whether it is a gun, a scalpel, a medication, or a car, will kill.

As far as medical accidents, I believe one thing that might help is limiting the length of shifts worked by residents.Exactly. My boyfriend was left blind in one eye, because the guy administering the anaesthetic gave him too much during what should have been a relatively routine operation to remove a cataract. The doctor in question had been working for far too long when this happened. ('Luckily' ((in the loosest sense of the word)) for my boyfriend, this occurred when he was a baby so he has no recollection of having normal sight). While I have some sympathy for this particular doctor - mistakes can and do happen, especially in these circumstances - that doesn't do my boyfriend any good.

My own problems with doctors stems largely from lousy GPs, assuming I'm a hypocondriac, when there have actually been quite clear problems. However, in light of the above, I suppose I should consider myself lucky.

Is nobody else iritated by the fact that what we have here is just another cut-and-paste job (fair enough) which uses spurious numbers which don't stand up to even the most cursory fact-checking?

Is nobody else iritated by the fact that what we have here is just another cut-and-paste job (fair enough) which uses spurious numbers which don't stand up to even the most cursory fact-checking?

Or that this particular bogus argument has been raised and rebutted several times?

C'mon WL, you know better. :)

Um... is there a reason you're parodying Mark Twain, or did you arive at that acidently?

Um... is there a reason you're parodying Mark Twain, or did you arive at that acidently?

The text of the original post has been kicking around on Usenet for about three years: Whispering Legs wasn't the original author.

These types of threads are getting old. I am opposed to gun bans, but saying "doctors kill people, ban them too!" or "cars are bad, ban them too!", just aren't reasonable arguments. The utility provided by guns is just not near that provided by doctors or cars.

Don't believe me? Next time you get a really bad headache shoot yourself in the head.

These types of threads are getting old. I am opposed to gun bans, but saying "doctors kill people, ban them too!" or "cars are bad, ban them too!", just aren't reasonable arguments. The utility provided by guns is just not near that provided by doctors or cars.

Don't believe me? Next time you get a really bad headache shoot yourself in the head.

:D


Not to mention that, because various forms of medicine are dangerous (especially if you include failure to prevent as WL does), it is heavily regulated.

I propose that everyone be required to do the following to get a gun: get an undergraduate degree, apply for and qualify to get into a special school (there should be some 20,000 slots per year), spend at least 4 years of intensive study of firearms at the special school, take and a very difficult national exam spread out over several years, spend at least 3 years in an apprenticeship (for which you must compete to obtain) where your use of firearms is supervised, you then must obtain a state license and insurance.

Then you are free to purchase and use a firearm -- but still subject to strict regulations. :D

Although applying a post-graduate level of training to firearms would certainly be something to see, there might be some opportunity cost for non-ballistic disciplines (gee mom, I'm dropping out of business school, I scored in the 97 percentile on my Small Arms GRE, so I'm going to the grad program at Texas G&A).

Seriously, joking aside, I think a higher standard of training for firearms might not be a bad idea for either side of the debate. I worry sometimes that too many Americans buy a weapon, load it, and leave it in their underwear drawer, like its some magic talisman that will exude a field of protection around them. For or against, a gun is a tool, and it will perform commeasurate with the care, responsiblity, and diligence that it is given.

Would it be out of line to propose that a standard of storage, accuracy, judgement, and maybe training in use-of-force law might benefit gun owners?
Seriously, if you're going to have one, why object to being trained?

EDIT: I realize that people with a background in military and law enforcement may already have training, and certainly that should add to their proficiency.

Is nobody else iritated by the fact that what we have here is just another cut-and-paste job (fair enough) which uses spurious numbers which don't stand up to even the most cursory fact-checking?

Honestly? No. It just seemed silly; we regulate the living daylights out of doctors, but the NRA typically resists any attempt to even provide basic safety gear for firearms. At the same time, we should no sooner ban all guns than we should ban all doctors.

The argument here, even if it has flawed numbers, is sound in theory. Doctors wield great power and responsibility, and should be checked, tested, given guidelines and safety regulations. Gun owners have great power and thus the responsibility to be checked (background checks), tested (gun safety courses), and given guideline and safety regulations (self-explanitory).

I fully support saftey locks for doctors, and Doctor-safes for families with children. I believe that no doctor should be allowed to practice if he's shot someone without going through due process, and in order to make sure of that doctors should have background checks into their medical records, to make sure they aren't killing patients.

Out of concern for the public at large, statistics on lawyers have been withheld on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA! :D

Carelessness with anything powerful, whether it is a gun, a scalpel, a medication, or a car, will kill.

As far as medical accidents, I believe one thing that might help is limiting the length of shifts worked by residents. I would like to see data on the propensity for lethal mistakes made by rested and alert doctors vs. those made by doctors on the tail-end of a 36 hour shift.


Interestingly, most places have now limited shift lengths for interns and residents. They don't seem to want to limit actual doctors though. Thus, your anesthesiologist or surgeon may have been through 3 12-hour surgeries in the past 4 days. Scary?

I really hope this wasn't posted in seriousness...

It's just a twist in statistics, by showing stats in a certain light they can appear different to what they actually mean! Whoever first wrote this (in my opinion) had no intention that Doctor's are actually more dangerous than firearms. It would be like saying:
'Toyota Yaris cars are more challenging to drive than Ferrari's because there are more accidents in Yaris's'
I think it was written in humour :)

no really
doctors are dangerous.

even good doctors make mistakes. they are human eh?

you should no more go to a doctor without checking him out than you should buy a used car without checking it out. you should find out what the standard treatment is for whatever you have. if your doc wants to do something unusual you should research it rather than taking his word for it.

you should get a second opinion on anything serious. this means going to a different doctor in a different practice on the other side of town or a different town if necessary. this is especially true when you are using a family doctor for something that can be referred to a specialist.

dont go to the doctor or the hospital alone. take someone with you who can listen to what the doctor says without being panicked. many mistakes are made because the patient didnt really understand what the doctor said. in the hospital you need an advocate who is goint to make sure you get the correct treatment.

of course doctors save your life. that doesnt mean you give your life over to them. this is your LIFE, you need to be careful with it. dont trust anyone blindly. even the best doctor in the world can make a mistake.

This is true, but it is still better to go to the doctor and take his advice than just take your own advice. In most cases I'd take the doctor's advice over my own instincts (in a purely black and white scenario)

I really hope this wasn't posted in seriousness...

It's just a twist in statistics, by showing stats in a certain light they can appear different to what they actually mean!

Can anyone actually proviude any evidence (other than previous posts of this piece) for this figure?

2. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

So, what are the rates for people deliberately killed by doctors as opposed to gun owners?

I don't think accidental rates alone tell the whole story.

So, what are the rates for people deliberately killed by doctors as opposed to gun owners?

I don't think accidental rates alone tell the whole story.

More to the point - how many people are accidentally killed by Physicians with guns?

:D


Not to mention that, because various forms of medicine are dangerous (especially if you include failure to prevent as WL does), it is heavily regulated.

I propose that everyone be required to do the following to get a gun: get an undergraduate degree, apply for and qualify to get into a special school (there should be some 20,000 slots per year), spend at least 4 years of intensive study of firearms at the special school, take and a very difficult national exam spread out over several years, spend at least 3 years in an apprenticeship (for which you must compete to obtain) where your use of firearms is supervised, you then must obtain a state license and insurance.

Then you are free to purchase and use a firearm -- but still subject to strict regulations. :D


Is it okay to import dangerously underqualified gun owners from abroad under and H1V visa then?

More to the point - how many people are accidentally killed by Physicians with guns?

Small aircraft are usually the physicians weapon of choice.

How about we accidentally kill the doctors? That would be kinda fun. And do those accidental deaths include misdiagnoses? Such as saying that lung cancer is the common cold? That's what happened to my dad. Now he's dead. From lung cancer - not a cold.

Roflmao :d

I can't speak for all nations, but in Australia, if you earn a reasonable wage (lets say a little more than the fortnightly welfare sum) you can shop around for a good doctor.

I moved to this town about 8 years ago and I chose my doctor on the basis that her office was close to my house. After about 2 years, I changed doctors, not because of anything as dramatic as malpractice, but because I simply didn't feel as though she respected my medically naive concerns.

My current doctor is sensitive, empathetic, and can even make cheerful smalltalk while he's giving me a pap smear. He's one of the best doctors I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with, and his office staff are wonderfully obliging - they'll reccommend an alternative physician if he's unavailable, and are always cheerful and astonishingly patient with the numerous vomitting toddlers they deal with in the waiting room.

I've had some pretty significant medical problems since I was wee, and the majority of doctors and specialists I had to see were wonderful, but there are always a few obnoxious ones. I also think that people are too willing to assume that surgery and similar procedures are les risky than they used to be. Granted we have made progress in hygeine and treatment practice, but any surgery has the potential to kill. My mother and a family friend both had routine abdominal surgery around Xmas. She survived, but he died of a massive blood infection, which was totally unforseen. This was at a well-reputed regional hospital. People make mistakes all the time, and hospital staff are no exception.

If you can afford to choose your GP, do so. If you can't, at least try and respect your body and stay healthy, so that your medical intervention is minimised. You only have one body, and all the training in the world can't guarantee that you'll survive a surgical procedure.

Additional documentation and clarification:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/medical_mistakes.htm

How about we accidentally kill the doctors? That would be kinda fun. And do those accidental deaths include misdiagnoses? Such as saying that lung cancer is the common cold? That's what happened to my dad. Now he's dead. From lung cancer - not a cold.

Well, I believe that if you suffer some horrific complication from an actual act of negligence or incompetence on the part of your doctor (not an honest, unavoidable complication), then he should suffer whatever you're suffering.

Paralysis from the neck down, death, etc.

And I believe that lawyers should go to jail if their clients go to jail - they should be put in the same cell for the same term and conditions.

See... best solution.
Be in the UK, get *free* healthcare from (mainly) competent doctors.
Don't eat fast food so much (lose some weight)
Don't smoke
Don't pollute the environment as much

^ Best solution

"And I believe that lawyers should go to jail if their clients go to jail - they should be put in the same cell for the same term and conditions."

Are you being serious about this by the way? I hope not...

See... best solution.
Be in the UK, get *free* healthcare from (mainly) competent doctors.
Don't eat fast food so much (lose some weight)
Don't smoke
Don't pollute the environment as much

^ Best solution

"And I believe that lawyers should go to jail if their clients go to jail - they should be put in the same cell for the same term and conditions."

Are you being serious about this by the way? I hope not...

The healthcare is not *free*, as you are paying taxes for it. Even when you're not sick.

I'm betting that there is just as much fast food, and fat people in the UK - at least don't tell me all your women are looking like thin supermodels and all your men are marathon runners in excellent condition. And you smoke, too. And you pollute.

Your points are not a solution - they are merely an attempt to portray the UK as some idyllic location where no one is fat, no one smokes, and there is no pollution. Bollocks.

Taxes have the advantages of letting the Government choose the doctor, not the customer who instinctively goes for the GP he can afford... the cheapest.

FACT: UK people are not as overweight as US people - All you have to do is look at clothing sizes!

FACT: The US is responsible for the most pollution in the world - 80% off ALL carbon dioxide emissions at the last count. (possibly recently overtaken by developing countries but they have the right to at the moment)

And also in the UK lots of advertising is employed by the government to lower smoking rates - on every cigarette packet there is a big notice with smoking information on it.

Oh and I forgot - having a tax paid health service means that everyone can afford to go to the doctors - even disabled and unfortunate people.

And I believe that lawyers should go to jail if their clients go to jail - they should be put in the same cell for the same term and conditions.

Did you mean in the case of grossly negligent malpractice, or any time their client goes to jail? In the case of the latter, I think that would have a negative effect on the constitutional right to representation. Even the best lawyers don't win every time, and your proposal would leave the accused without their right to counsel. I believe termendous legal reform is necessary in America, but the above doesn't seem like a good solution.

No lawyer should be jailed for his client's problems. Everyone deserves a right to an unbiased trial.

Imagine a man had been framed for murder and was facing the death penalty... Who would represent him... even if it seemed quite likely he was set up....

Exactly.

Taxes have the advantages of letting the Government choose the doctor, not the customer who instinctivly goes for the GP he can afford... the cheapest.

I have insurance. I don't look for the cheapest doctor.

FACT: UK people are not as overweight as US people - All you have to do is look at clothing sizes!

UK Obesity Statistics
Trends in Overweight and Obesity
About 46% of men in England and 32% of women are overweight (a body mass index of 25-30 kg/m2), and an additional 17% of men and 21% of women are obese (a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m2 ).

Overweight and obesity increase with age. About 28% of men and 27% of women aged 16-24 are overweight or obese but 76% of men and 68% of women aged 55-64 are overweight or obese.

Overweight and obesity are increasing. The percentage of adults who are obese has roughly doubled since the mid-1980's.

Although you're below what the US numbers are, you're rapidly catching up - that's your trend - so your nation is getting MORE unhealthy over time.

FACT: The US is responsible for the most pollution in the world - 80% off ALL carbon dioxide emissions at the last count. (possibly recently overtaken by developing countries but they have the right to at the moment)
No one has the "right" to pollute. That's hypocritical, to say the least.

And also in the UK lots of advertising is employed by the government to lower smoking rates - on every cigarette packet there is a big notice with smoking information on it.

I guess that's why, just like the US, the UK is now selling more cigarettes than ever in the developing world - killing people left and right, which is OK by you as long as it isn't the UK residents.

Most popular cigarette in Vietnam - not Marlboro - it's 555, followed closely by Dunhill.

Any ideas on how to increase safety of patients under medical treatment? It seems to me that more litigation won't be helpful.

"No one has the "right" to pollute. That's hypocritical, to say the least. "

Developing countries will pollute as they follow the same timeline as us. In their culture they have no resources or money to cut back on pollution - why should they be stopped polluting when other counties polluted just as much at their stage of the life cycle.

The countries which can afford to take measures to stop polluting should, even if it means they will lose out on business slightly by putting more money into protecting the environment.

This amuses me. Id like to see some evidence of this, and Id like ot know the likely hood of one of thoes kids dying and how many they actually end up saving and the rest dying because they couldnt be helped any further.

*sigh*

biased information kicks ass doesnt it.

These types of threads are getting old. I am opposed to gun bans, but saying "doctors kill people, ban them too!" or "cars are bad, ban them too!", just aren't reasonable arguments. The utility provided by guns is just not near that provided by doctors or cars.

Don't believe me? Next time you get a really bad headache shoot yourself in the head.I'm reminded of the "Swimming Pool Control Now!" thread. It was really silly. "People can drown in water, so ban people!" "Ban water!"

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Any ideas on how to increase safety of patients under medical treatment? It seems to me that more litigation won't be helpful.

I agree, I'd like to see some medical tort reform coupled with meaningful efforts to reduce medical negligence. It could start with a breakdown of what kinds of medical accidents happen, like over/under medicating, cursory diagnosis, no second opinions, surgical errors resulting from fatigue or substance abuse by doctors, etc. I don't think we could ever completely eliminate mistakes (or even negligence, as some bad apples will always slip into practice), but I would like see more resources put towards analysis and solution then court cases (although in cases of true negligence, I believe in the patient's right to make a claim, but I think the current lawsuit process doesn't yield any more accuracy in determing guilt than our criminal process).

Saint, I agree. From memory I believe that the JAMA report concluded that there is insufficient peer review among MD's and an ineffective error reporting system. Essentially admission of error among MD peers is an opening for a malpractice suit. No error reporting = no learning from errors.

Saint, I agree. From memory I believe that the JAMA report concluded that there is insufficient peer review among MD's and an ineffective error reporting system. Essentially admission of error among MD peers is an opening for a malpractice suit. No error reporting = no learning from errors.

I've heard Doctors won't point out errors for eachother because of fear of countersuits for defamation, etc. Maybe litigation has gotten so out of hand, they have a code of silence even for honest mistakes, a code that then protects the truly negligent doctors.

Maybe if physicians were provided a sort "due diligence" shield for error reporting, a better error control system could be developed. Some kind of "An reasonable mistake properly reported to a peer oversight board shall be protected from civil action" or something. A board of physicians could then examine these mistakes to see if the Doctor should continue practicing.

A close friend who is an older, successful medical malpractice attorney (he defends MD's) assures me that the system is broke. Doctors can't risk admitting errors for fear of suit. But they can't improve safety without discussing errors. Stalemate. A little consumer outrage might help stir the pot. If as many people died in airplane accidents as die in medical care it would be all over CNN!

I've heard Doctors won't point out errors for eachother because of fear of countersuits for defamation, etc. Maybe litigation has gotten so out of hand, they have a code of silence even for honest mistakes, a code that then protects the truly negligent doctors.

Not true, at least not in general. The doctors I know who have testified in any cases have done so on either side, depending on what they saw in the evidence.


As for litigation, my solution is thus:

When doctors apply for a license to practice in a given area, they are automatically signed up for a committee pool (much like voters are signed up for possible jury duty). When a malpractice case is alleged, a committee of doctors will be randomly chosen (any working closely/related/etc. with the defendant excluded, of course). These doctors then review the documents in order to determine if a case is even warranted. Basically, did the doctor follow standard medical procedure? Is there clearly a case for negligence? Said doctors then make their recommendations to the judge, who can choose whether or not to throw out the case.

Any lawyer consistently bringing baseless cases gets disbarred.

As for litigation, my solution is thus:

When doctors apply for a license to practice in a given area, they are automatically signed up for a committee pool (much like voters are signed up for possible jury duty). When a malpractice case is alleged, a committee of doctors will be randomly chosen (any working closely/related/etc. with the defendant excluded, of course). These doctors then review the documents in order to determine if a case is even warranted. Basically, did the doctor follow standard medical procedure? Is there clearly a case for negligence? Said doctors then make their recommendations to the judge, who can choose whether or not to throw out the case.

Any lawyer consistently bringing baseless cases gets disbarred.

I like the idea of a group of physicians examing claims for credibility (I think we used to have one in Nevada), but I'm not sure I follow the last statement about disbarring lawyers. Is it part of the suggestion, or a separate observation?

I think, at least as it is now, baseless claimants seem to have no problem finding lawyers, and I would wonder if a few bad ones don't do it the other way around.

Still, I very much like the idea of a board of physicians examing cases for merit. If we aren't doing it here in Nevada, I think we should.

Not true, at least not in general. The doctors I know who have testified in any cases have done so on either side, depending on what they saw in the evidence.
.

That seems reasonable, but I'm concerned less with testimony and more with whether or not they will call eachother on errors during practice, not in the court.

I like the idea of a group of physicians examing claims for credibility (I think we used to have one in Nevada), but I'm not sure I follow the last statement about disbarring lawyers. Is it part of the suggestion, or a separate observation?

Part of the suggestion. If a lawyer is consistently bringing baseless claims, his own ethics are in question. If he is consistently unethical, he should not be allowed to practice. Even lawyers have an ethics section on the bar, right? ;-)

I think, at least as it is now, baseless claimants seem to have no problem finding lawyers, and I would wonder if a few bad ones don't do it the other way around.

The idea of the ambulance-chaser lawyer is nothing new. It is technically unethical, but that doesn't stop everyone. I don't know if it is an offense that could possibly lead to being disbarred.

Still, I very much like the idea of a board of physicians examing cases for merit. If we aren't doing it here in Nevada, I think we should.

Me too. And I have yet to find a doctor who would be unwilling. However, I don't think many places have any such system.

Excellent. How about shielding the physician's peer/case review process (I'm referring to the admission and discussion of medical errors) from the court? There has to be some freedom for doctors to learn from errors without legal penalty.

That seems reasonable, but I'm concerned less with testimony and more with whether or not they will call eachother on errors during practice, not in the court.

I know my advisor will. I've never seen her so angry as when a cardiac consult did something wrong with one of her patients. You can bet he ended up with some sort of disciplinary action. Luckily, she was checking on the patient herself (which was not her job) and nothing bad happened.

Unfortunately, the ones most qualified to call a doctor on poor practice are the nurses, and they are often ignored. My boyfriend's mother is a nurse in a neonatal ICU. Some of the doctors called in there are not specific to peds. There was one doctor in particular who consistently prescribed medication way over the doses that can safely be given to infants. The nurses were smart, and lowered the doses, while simultaneously consistently reporting the doctor - all to no avail. In fact, nothing was done about this dangerous doctor until a new nurse with less experience followed his instructions - and a baby died. Why did this happen? The hospital didn't listen to their nurses and take care of this doctor's incompetence.

Luckily, the medical profession as a whole is moving away from that viewpoint and paying much more attention to their nurses.

Me too. And I have yet to find a doctor who would be unwilling. However, I don't think many places have any such system.

Well, I'm certainly no doctor or nurse, but if I were, I'd much rather serve a few weeks a year on this kind of committee than pay ridiculous professional liability premiums and get sued 3 times a year (that may an exageration, but I've heard some high risk specialists find themselves as defendants that often).

Do countries with a National Health care system have a lot of frivolous medical tort actions?