» » home » » about » » pictures » » law school » » talk-back











Blogroll Me!

3.10.2004

Irish Law responded in depth to my post on whether or not it was best to banter back and forth between our blogs. Though she responded in substance (about France and Tort Reform) but not in procedure (about whether its good to have cross-blog conflict.)

There's a lot in her post which I still disagree with, especially about Medical Malpractice Tort Reform which she claims creates, "a 'right' not to have a negative result from a medical procedure, even though good outcomes are never guaranteed and can occur in the absence of any negligence by physicians, can create a sense of entitlement to compensation for unfortunate medical occurrences." But maybe she's forgetting that in the absence of negligence by a physician, the claim is not actionable. What every patient should have the right to redress is action by a physician which falls below the applicable medical standard and results in damages. Consequences in the medical field are too severe, life-altering, or life-ending to not be regulated by the incentive-oriented goals of the civil liability system. Tort actions simply simply provide all too needed incentive to guard against negligently-made mistakes and reckless conduct. This is where we disagree. 
.. | @ 3/10/2004 04:11:22 PM » » (talkback)