[curt]

You can still sue a doctor or hospital for malpractice.

EDIT (answering the responses):

- Overseas you can buy a cheap insurance policy to cover the cost of a lawsuit. The underwriter determines your likelihood of success and charges accordingly.

- You really think regulations stop that from happening now? People still get the wrong limbs operated on and amputated.

[untog]

You really think regulations stop that from happening now?

Should we stop sterilising surfaces because it only protects you from infection 98% of the time?

Regulations are far from 100% successful, but yes, I do believe they reduce the number of accidents.

[gte910h]

Case law is still law.

Libertarians who think "SUE SUE SUE" is the answer really frustrate me: It's random judges picking the law instead of elected reps

[rayiner]

I've always found it a bit strange that libertarians' solution to everything is always "sue!"

[dreamdu5t]

I would rather have judges, in a court case where parties get to represent themselves, applying common law, with a jury of my peers deciding the verdict... than random idiots elected by a bunch of other random idiots I don't know make laws without my input.

[bane]

Consider this:

You just died because, during treatment for an easily treatable medical problem, a lack of regulation allowed some part of that treatment to have a higher probability of complications.

Now go sue.

[burntsushi]

That just doesn't make any sense. That's a problem with and without regulation. First of all, some medical procedures have risks. That's just how it works. Second of all, someone could die in a world with a ton of regulations by a problem that could have been "solved" by a regulation. So you're emotional retort applies here too: "Now go elect a new representative to pass a different law."

[bane]

It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure?

Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time.

You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours.

Now sue.

[burntsushi]

> It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure?

What? No. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I then went on to explain why.

> Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time.

> You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours.

> Now sue.

This is precisely the same argument as before, but with an example. My criticism still applies. I'll adopt your example so that my criticism is crystal clear:

> Let's say it's stitches, and since law makers didn't setup regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body is incompetent/ignorant/behind. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time.

> You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours.

> Now elect a different representative to change or add that regulation. Or lobby your existing one.

In either scenario, the end result is "you're dead, so ANY fix is moot."

[gte910h]

Judges create case law, over and over. Common law was created that way, and tons more is created that way every day.

I don't know why you assume this is better that popularly chosen law.

[dreamdu5t]

Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people. Statutory law (almost entirely with the exception of a few states and their referendums) isn't. Statutory laws applying to 350+ million people are crafted by 435 people.

[gte910h]

>Common law is popularly chosen law created by the people

No it's not. It's case law from England. It's created by judges.

[burntsushi]

People who think "throw more politicians at the problem" really frustrate me: they are a bunch of random people seeking more power for themselves.

[untog]

If you're still alive, yes. And even then, if you were paralysed from the neck down (for example), would you really be able to enjoy the millions you got in court? Financial compensation for crippling illness always struck me as quite strange.

[mseebach]

The point of financial compensation isn't really to compensate the victim (or their family), it's to push the cost of the externality created back onto the provider, giving an incentive to act sensibly.

[bane]

Good, the the incentive moves to kill the patient rather then try to save them from an accidental complication. Dead patients can't sue.

[kmfrk]

Lawsuits aren't free.

[wyager]

There are shitloads of lawyers who pick up malpractice lawsuits on contract, saying that they'll do the case for free if they get x% of the winnings.

[fancyketchup]

Just thinking out loud, not making a judgement: I wonder if the overhead from lawyer's fees would turn out to be any less than the overhead from government regulations.