Comments about ‘Malpractice bill passes Senate’

This is another example of government's misuse of power. The government has no business whatsoever using its power to put money in litigant's pockets. The government's sole purpose is to protect us from crime and foreign invasion, not to promote civil law suits.

It seems pretty stupid to sue a Doctor who has just done their best to save a life! Emergency rooms can be hectic and very stressful. While working that hard to save a life, it wouldn't be too hard to mis something. They have no medical history or any reasonable way of knowing the victims medical history. It appears that many lawsuits are built on fabricated things, anyway. Their may be some REAL cases of malpractice, but I think protection is needed for the doctor that does their best to provide everything possible to save the life. Otherwise, doctors need to smarten up and realize no ones life is worth saving, if their are going to be sued for it!

The reason for run-away healthcare costs today is mostly due to the trial lawyers. Defensive medical care and the threat of a lawsuit exponentially raises the cost of care for all patients. It's long past due that lawmakers summon the courage to confront and cap the predatory practices of trial lawyers. The measure actually doesn't go far enough! Keep frivolous lawsuits and their greedy lawyers in check!

"Greedy" lawyer here. I'll tell you something: if it were about "greed," I'd be doing corporate litigation, securities transactions, or intellectual property law. The fact is, that there are already plentiful deterrents to "frivolous" lawsuits. It makes no sense for me to pursue a case that has no merit, as procedural safeguards written into the Rules of Civil Procedure will get such claims thrown out.

The truth is, this is special interest legislation sponsored by IHC and the medical lobby. I appreciate and understand that ER doctors--indeed, all physicians--generally try to do their best. But when they are negligent--that is, when their actions fall below nationwide standards of medical care--then they must be responsible to the injured patients.

Why should patients, who put their trust in these doctors, bear the economic burdens of professional negligence? Nobody is arguing that doctors ought to pay a price when they've done nothing wrong, but they must be held accountable when they fail to adhere to the same standards as other doctors.

By giving doctors special protections, the quality of health care suffers. Without accountability, quality decreases. Ultimately, citizens pay the price.

good to see a trial lawyer here. I honestly can't see how protecting doctors from the threat of lawsuit so they can practice can be a bad thing. It's obvious "trial lawyer" has even fooled himself into believing the same idea that somehow they're protecting people from professional negligence.

What doctor would provide anything less than his best care regardless of whether there was a threat of lawsuit? ACCOUNTABILITY? Lawyers are lining their pockets with this fear-mongering and predatory litigation. The only effect of these lawsuits is to raise the cost to the public and force doctors into unnecessary defensive care.

If doctors have honestly been negligent, then let it be proven through arbitration and let that doctor pay the cost of repairing the ACTUAL damage. The health care "lottery" has to end.

How come everyone in the country can see this except for the trial lawyers? Because they're the only ones benefiting from the status quo. "Ultimately, citizens pay the price."

"Proven through arbitration"? You clearly do not understand the civil justice system, nor the implications of this bill.

It does not "protect doctors from the threat of lawsuits," and nobody--certainly not lawyers--says doctors can't practice or must practice "defensive medicine." That's talk radio nonsense. The notion that doctors are being sued just because they're doctors is just silly. They are only sued when they render substandard care, resulting in a demonstrable injury to the patient.

This bill changes the burden of proof, and puts a higher threshold for prevailing on the merits. In other words, it makes proving a case of negligence against an ER doctor more onerous than proving any other case. Why are these physicians--professionals on whom the public relies to simply provide health care consistent with the industry standard of care--entitled to special protections? Why don't you or I enjoy the same protections for our negligence? Utah doctors should be held to national standards. That's it.

I'm afraid that most will not begin to understand the effect of this legislation until they, or someone they love, has suffered a catastrophic injury due to medical negligence.

Doctors are no different from anyone else. A few are sometimes negligent and injure some innocent patient. Negligent physicians should have to fully compensate their injured patients, just as they would have to do if the same people had injured by their driving negligently instead of practicing medicine negligently.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a malpractice victim, but I don't think the problem with medical malpractice is caused by trial lawyers; it is caused by malpractice itself. Data from the National Practitioner Data Bank show that half of all malpractice payments result from the negligence of a tiny proportion of physicians with multiple malpractice payments in their records. If physicians, lawyers, and the public worked together to restrict or revoke the licenses of these few physicians who are causing the bulk of the problem, the malpractice problem would be greatly reduced and the public would be much safer from medical negligence.

I believe Bob's assertion about the National Practitioner Data Bank is an urban myth. The data I've seen really only shows that certain specialties are more prone to lawsuit than others. It would be a terrible source for trying to weed out the "bad" doctors.

After reading three stories on this issue, I keep wondering why the Deseret News doesn't ever quote anyone but the lawyers and an occasional legislator. Have the doctors refused to comment or is this just lazy reporting? I must assume the latter since there is no mention of a "no comment" from the other side.

I used to think that doctors should be given special protections for all of the good that they do, and I believed that if a doctor did make a mistake, he or she would do what was right to correct it. Then about a year and a half ago my husband went to the emergency room at St. Mark's Hospital complaining of chest pain. He was told that it was anxiety and a pulled shoulder muscle and sent home. That night at 11:00 pm he had a near fatal heart attack. He was taken to LDS Hospital where thankfully he was treated, but the doctors told him he had lost 20%-30% of his cardiac function.

When we talked to the administrators at St. Mark's and the doctor there, they were stone cold to us, and refused to even release my husband's medical records.

I was shocked, to say the least, and have now come to understand why people need lawyers. It isn't about the doctors, it is about their insurance companies and thrifty hospital administrators.

Matthew 9:12: "On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

To paraphrase Jesus, it is not those who receive competent health care that need lawyers, it is those that have been harmed by malpractice. Lawyers are despised, until you need one. This move by the legislature is protecting those in power at the expense of those who are victims of negligence.

Am I missing something here? I have looked through the entire printed edition of the Deseret News for both the 9th and today and I can't find this article printed anywhere. Is this normal to have articles online that do not actually appear in the paper? Can we infer from the lack of print publication that this article was deemed less worthy of publication than those that did make it into the paper?