Reply to The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare. [/quote]

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the [b][i]5 rights[/i][/b] first. [b]Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit.  She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b][i]choose[/i][/b] to hire an attorney to get what they want.[/quote]

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics