Your suggestion about not paying when a doctor makes a mistake begs a few questions: (“The check’s not in the mail,” Editorial, Dec. 27).
Who makes the decision if the job is done “right,” the patient or her family? Certain mistakes are obvious, but what if after a bypass the patient still dies: Should the doctor not be paid because it did not come out the way the “customer” wanted it to?
What if the tumor is more serious than the doctor thought? Should the doctor not get paid then? If that is the case, I can see doctors not treating people at all, or performing so many tests on routine conditions that costs skyrocket.
What happens if the patient doesn’t take the medicine she is supposed to or doesn’t obey the exercise plan outlined by the doctor? Can the doctor then not treat the patient? Why not? Or in your world, will the doctor always be blamed no matter what happens?
And if you are not going to pay for mistakes by doctors, why not carry that over every job?
Lawyers should never get paid unless they win cases. Yeah, like that will happen.
Teachers should not get paid if their students fail standardized tests. You think the teachers’ union will agree to this? It’s a great idea, just like no pay for a bad doctor.
Economists who guess wrong about the economy should not get paid.
Weather forecasters who are wrong should not get paid (I suppose that means a lot of broke weathermen after last years “predictions” about hurricanes).
Chicago aldermen should not get paid if anything in their wards fails to work properly.
Highway construction workers should not get paid if potholes appear.
There are so many possibilities!
Don’t score a basket, don’t get paid!
Don’t win the Super Bowl, don’t get paid!
Don’t like the movie? Don’t pay for it!
Don’t like the newspaper? Don’t pay for it!
Oooh, maybe we are on to something here!
The problem really is that people expect doctors to be far more perfect than members of any other profession, but are unwilling to understand that doctors are human. I would be willing to bet that doctors make far fewer mistakes than reporters and editors at the Tribune, and are often blamed for “mistakes” that they could not possibly have prevented.
All the while, many who whine about the failures of doctors have no problem punishing them unreasonably when they even think a doctor made a mistake. Malpractice suits are a legal lottery, where lawyers make millions to “punish” doctors. And does that fix the problem? No, it just drives up everyone else’s costs. Do you care? Apparently not.
What do we do when lawyers file suits to prevent things that will save lives? Does anyone sue the lawyers for their participation in the deaths of patients? Of course not, and you would be foaming at the mouth if someone in Congress or Springfield ever suggested such a thing. Yet here you are, suggesting that doctors not get paid when someone even thinks she got bad service.
No wonder the editorial was anonymous; I’d hate to see what happens if the author really does need a doctor.
