Unfortunately, I do understand how this works. And no, you are not always liable for costs. A doctor who is sued, might win, but two things happen. Firstly, they cannot work while they are in court. This means they don't get paid for work they could otherwise be doing. Also, even if they win, they pay for their defense. And even if they do win, which most the time they do (because most suits are frivolous) they still have their name attached to a lawsuit, which hurts their future job prospects and insurance costs.Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia
If doctors had the ability to choose their patients, then I could maybe agree with you. With EMTALA the government makes seeing patients a requirement. What this means is that a doctor must see a patient that is probably going to die anyways. Maybe they will save their lives, maybe they won't. I agree with you, if you agree that doctors should be able to see who they give care to. If you can't agree to that, then doctors should have some liability protection that is equal to the risk they take by working on patients that are probably going to die.Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia
A person's life is invaluable. I don't think anyone can argue with that. What I have a problem with is someone who thinks that because a doctor didn't save someones life, or *gasp* made a mistake at some point, that they should be able to sue for whatever they see fit. You go to a doctor you should not be expecting perfection. Unfortunately we as humans are not capable of that. If you want to take the risk, it is your choice. Do you want to risk it with this doctor, who may or may not save you? That risk should be on the patient, not the doctor. Duke, unfortunately, you obviously have no experience from the medical side, and can only see this as a political maneuver, but for many doctors, it affects their ability to practice medicine better.