[pc86]

Probably because it's flat out wrong and shows a shockingly incorrect view of how things actually work.

> The patient can only sue if the patient has been harmed.

No, the patient can sue for whatever reason they want to. The doctor's malpractice insurance is going up regardless. Even a completely frivolous lawsuit will cost the physician real money out of his or pocket for years to come, not to mention the cost (if they choose to pursue it) of counter-suing the patient.

[mywittyname]

A frivolous lawsuit costs the patient (or patient's lawyer) a lot. Hospitals get sued all the time and they have an entire legal department staffed and ready to handle subpoenas.

You still have to prove damages. Which means getting treatment from another hospital for whatever mistake was made, then proving that the mistake was caused by the treatment you received at another hospital.

As stated elsewhere, my partner has been named in dozens of malpractice lawsuits and every one she was deposed for she felt was legitimate. There were a few where she told me privately that she hopes the people win.

[grasshopperpurp]

That part is incorrect; however, the overall message of the post is correct. In a for-profit system, it's the patient's only recourse. Don't like it? Fight against for-profit healthcare.

[pc86]

Whether healthcare is for-profit or non-profit does not change how the legal system works.

[sandworm101]

But it does change the math. Where patients do not have to pay for their own injuries, ie under a national health service, they don't need to collect in order to pay for later care.

[sandworm101]

>> No, the patient can sue for whatever reason they want to.

Check your rules of civil procedure. Patients cannot just invent reasons to sue. The case must hit several benchmarks before a doctor ever has to respond, let alone be deposed. Dismissal for failure to state a claim deals with the truly junk lawsuits.