This does not change the fact that these claims are covered by insurance has to make an doctor less fearful of medical malpractice claims, all things being equal.

“less fearful” I certainly agree with, but you’re using it to mean “not fearful”. The enormity of the difference would be difficult to overstate.

Without med-mal insurance, the feal level would be so high that many doctors would simply leave practice (we’ve seen the beginnings of such things in many areas). Certainly, med-mal makes them “less fearful”. I would never say otherwise.

But “less fearful” than “completely fearful to the point of not participating” still leaves room for lots of fear.

Let’s say that I have a gun, and I threaten two people with it (this would be the lawsuit). One of them has a bullet-proof vest, and the other doesn’t (this would represent medmal insurance). Certainly, the one with the vest should be “less fearful” than the other, but to claim that the behaviour of the one with the vest should be unaffected by my threats is still quite ridiculous.

“Months-long bureaucratic torture with a side of ongoing slander to my reputation” is quite sufficient to alter behaviour even without adding “followed by possible financial ruin” on the end.

As to moderation, it really depends on the topic. In my opinon, “painfully obvious injustice” and “moderation” don’t play well together.

This is not a reasonable minds could differ point.

But Dexoy, please do start reading my Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. I don’t get 50 comments on a post the way Walter does so I’d be particularly glad to argue with you over there.

Tell me what you think of doctors who risk injury to a mother and a unborn child to avoid medical malpractice claims that are covered by insurance by giving them a c-section that is harmful to the baby or child?

“Normal.”

Risks from C-section are small. Malpractice risk for not performing a C-section in some cases, even if the medical risk is low or non-existent, is high. Outcome: C-section. Duh.

It’s really a very simple issue: C-sections have gone WAY up, CP has not gone significantly down. If birthing issues were a significant cause of CP, CP would have gone down.

It’s like the issue with Thimerosal. It has been repeatedly shown to not cause autism (by many different methods of proof), but it has been eliminated anyway, simply to get the liability issue to go away.

Let’s pretend I’m a doctor. There are certain readings on certain sensors that make a CP case against a doctor very easy. If I get those readings, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to perform a C-section ASAP.

That is what has happened, but CP hasn’t gone down. If those readings had ANYTHING to do with CP, CP would have gone down.

How hard is that to understand?

As a side note: “that are covered by insurance”. Congratulations, you have successfully ignored the entire point made by me and other posters about BEING SUED being punishment in and of itself, regardless of monetary issues.

(I’m assuming you meant vast majority…)

I suspect a large percentage of OB/GYNs make their calls based at least in part by directives from their superiors, whether those superiors are hospital executives, insurance company orders, or from whomever. That statement is not meant in any way to denigrate the doctors. It’s simply a statement that doctors do not have nearly as much freedom to do whatever they think is right, and not do whatever is not necessary, as you might think.

Okay, Deoxy. Tell me what you think of doctors who risk injury to a mother and a unborn child to avoid medical malpractice claims that are covered by insurance by giving them a c-section that is harmful to the baby or child? What percentage of doctors do you think fall into this category? Delivering babies is a really tough job on a thousand levels, one of the least of which is malpractice worries. I don’t think the fast majority of OB/GYNs make calls based on malpractice because they are too concerned with the welfare of their patients.

Sorry Melvin. We use the old Frye test still in Maryland.

1) This isn’t a Dalbert motion, it’s a blog comment, and (as I mentioned), that was simply the fastest thing. I’m not going to sit around and do your research for you, when it’s clear you haven’t done any.

2) For sake of argument, let’s say it’s 25% of cases. It’s STILL unreasonable that the only evidence needed to get money from the doctor is that the kid has CP, as it’s still only a 1 in 4 chance. Other evidence should be required to rule out the other 3 out of 4 chance that it was something else. To say that this doesn’t pressure doctors to perform unnecessary C-sections is the equivalent of holding your hands on your ears and screaming, “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

3) You ignored the rest of my arguments.

4) “One reader, Deoxy, blames the sub prime housing market crisis and the kidnapping of Patty Hearst on tort lawyers.” OK, now you’re just resorting to ad hominem. The only “lawyers” I blame the subprime mess on is the ones in Congress (and actually, they only bear some of the blame – complete idiots that ran some of the large investment banks are the primary culprits). I am quite open to the possibility of blame in other places besides lawyers, but I do ask for evidence. I’ve placed blame on them based on the evidence as best I can find it, and I’ll be glad to change my mind if that evidence is wrong.