…Medical malpractice is, at its heart, a tort. The doctor has harmed you. He is no different than a neighbor who drives into your living room when he is drunk. He did something he had no right to do, something which caused you grievous damage, and while money cannot right all wrongs, those who cause harm have a moral and ethical obligation to mitigate the damages. They ought to have a legal obligation as well.
When you limit medical malpractice suits, you are rewarding wrong-doers at the expense at their victims. Why stop there? Why not eliminate the requirement that drivers carry BI/PD insurance? Why not allow bank robbers to keep the proceeds of their enterprise? Why not prohibit judges from requiring that shoplifters, scammers, and vandals from making restitution to their victims?
Tort reform? What we need is stop people from committing torts! “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
And yes, I am aware that doctors don’t, as a rule, “deliberately” harm their patients. On the other hand, when my youngest daughter was stillborn, I requested an autopsy, and requested that the doctor performing the post-mortem look at the records of my wife’s visits to her doctor during the pregnancy. Her death could have been prevented, the doctor told me, and the attending physician should have taken steps to prevent it. Did I sue? No. Years in court wouldn’t get me my daughter back. But if I’d ended up with a daughter with birth defects, it might have cost millions of dollars and still given her a lesser life than she should have had.
There are only two essential functions of a government: to ensure justice, and to preserve itself, and if it doesn’t get the first function right, the second function doesn’t really matter. When we pass laws saying that doctors need not make restitution for the damage they do, people will start claiming justice with a Winchester, and that’s something none of us should want.
