Standing up to the lawyers

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | April 1, 2010 | Editorial

[Graybeard58]

When even the far-left New York Times acknowledges the need for medical tort reform, if only obliquely — and in its news columns, to boot — the gaping hole in the newly minted health-care bill becomes clear.

The scandal begins with John "Two Americas" Edwards, erstwhile slip-and-fall lawyer, senator and vice-presidential candidate. He got rich "channeling" babies some hapless doctor didn't bring into the world quickly enough to suit Dr. Edwards' vast medical knowledge. The babies were born and, in the fullness of time, were diagnosed with cerebral palsy. And the doctors were punished for causing this condition by failing to resort to Caesarean section as fast as Dr. Edwards thought they should have. Largely as a result of this tactic, more women insisted their doctors perform C-sections, and more litigation-shy doctors recommended the procedure to their patients. In the meantime, obstetricians fled the field or retired in droves. This resulted in a decline in quality of care for pregnant women, and many had to travel great distances or endure long waits to receive obstetric treatment.

But Mr. Edwards and other trial lawyers did some good, right? Surely they saved some babies from the pain and disability of cerebral palsy? Well, no. "A study last year evaluated almost 1,000 live births to see if CP or other problems could be affected by type of birth," Michael Fumento, a lawyer and syndicated columnist, wrote in 2004. Conclusion: The delivery mode, vaginal or Caesarean, "was not associated with any of the outcomes that were evaluated.'"

In a story March 23 on the veritable epidemic of Caesarean births — 32 percent of American babies were delivered via C-section in 2007 — The Times reported: "Obstetricians, fearful of being sued if there is harm to a baby after a normal labor and delivery, are quicker than they used to be to perform a Caesarean. ... In an article last month in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the obstetricians' college reported that a poll of 5,644 of its members found that 29 percent said they were performing more Caesareans because they feared lawsuits. Eight percent said they had quit delivering babies, and nearly a third of those said it was because of liability issues."

The consequences are, to put it bluntly, horrible. New mothers are dying from blood clots resulting from the surgery; unborn babies and their mothers are suffering injury and death from hemorrhages in pregnancies occurring after Caesarean births. "The Caesareans also pose a risk of surgical complications and are more likely than normal births to cause problems that put the mother back in the hospital and the infant in an intensive-care unit," the Times reported.

Trial lawyers say malpractice litigation accounts for just 2 percent of health-care spending, so the benefits of tort reform would pale against the role lawyers play in protecting patients and their families from incompetent or inattentive doctors.

But what of the women, babies and families who are hurt every day by trial lawyers whose greed led to the explosion in needless, sometimes lethal Caesareans? Who is standing up for them?

The trial lawyers are co-owners of the Democratic Party; that's why tort reform didn't make it into Obamacare. It still can. Washington is a highly partisan town, but tort reform need not be a partisan issue if driven by awareness and abhorrence of the role the trial lawyers played in explosion of needless C-section births.

[Graybeard58]

Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.

If you want on or off this list, let me know.

[woodro43]

“Trial lawyers say malpractice litigation accounts for just 2 percent of health-care spending” >>>>>

Yeah right - I have some beach front property on the moon for sale if you believe that BS

[USNBandit]

I would like to see what they count for the 2 percent. If it is just trial awards, then what about malpractice premiums and the practice of defensive medicine.

[susannah59]

C-section births are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “defensive medicine.” I haven’t seen any numbers or actual studies addressing this but anyone in the medical field knows that a lot of unnecessary testing, treatment, and so forth are done to cover the providers’ backsides, legally. (And that sort of coverage is unfortunately very necessary).

[Graybeard58]

Trial lawyers say malpractice litigation accounts for just 2 percent of health-care spending

Even if that number were close to the truth and I do not believe it for a minute. It leaves out the untold million$ spent by medical professionals to buy insurance against these vultures.

[woodro43]

Agree, we haven’t seen anything yet

[kbennkc]

We need smarter jurors .

[Condor51]

'Trial lawyers say' malpractice litigation accounts for just 2 percent of health-care spending,

And 'I say' that the planet Neptune is made of Blue Cheese. And both statements are bullcarp. However the difference is that I'm not trying to push my Bull onto the sheeple.

I've talked to my MD about things that aren't typically supposed to be talked about between patient and Doctor. So I KNOW what type of Medicine he's forced to practice.

[SpaceBar]

I lay much of the blame on the various State Bar associations who are supposed to be the ethical watchdogs of their profession and police their own but do no such thing. If plumbers and electricians who require licensing behaved the same way most lawyers do there would be no plumbers and electricians. Law schools don't produce experts in jurisprudence anymore, they crank out ambulance chasers, and professional hitmen who use letterheads and lawsuits instead of guns.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “defensive medicine.” I haven’t seen any numbers or actual studies addressing this but anyone in the medical field knows that a lot of unnecessary testing, treatment, and so forth are done to cover the providers’ backsides,

A couple of years ago a friend of mine went to a doctor, and mentioned to the doctor a stubborn pimple on her shoulder (which was not the purpose of the visit, just a by-the-way). The doctor wouldn't touch it, but wanted to do tests that would have cost, by her (the doctor's) estimate, around $700. My friend then went home and had her husband look at it. He popped it out no charge.

This is just one example of why I won't go to doctors for less than a broken neck.

[Hardastarboard]

LOL!!

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the pings Graybeard.

[parsifal]

Here’s a link to the numbers. Payouts to “greedy” lawyers and their “frivolous” clients are about $5 billion per year. Last time I looked, Medicare Fraud, by doctors and health care providers, was about $60 billion per year. In this article is a link to an article by Dr. Gawande, who went to Texas to find out why medical costs INCREASED after tort reform.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/TrueRiskF.pdf

parsy, who says its interesting

[taxesareforever]

I read an article that stated that the U.S. is the only country that does not have “loser pays” for lawsuits. Will we ever see this change? Not as long as lawyers continue to fill the pockets of politicians.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[. . .Largely as a result of this tactic, more women insisted their doctors perform C-sections. . .]

Also, doctors began doing more C-sections as “defensive medicine” in response to rising malpractice insurance premiums caused by Edwards and his ilk. The theories Edwards and his highly paid “witnesses” spouted were later proved to be hogwash. But by that time Edwards had enriched himself enormously and chased highly-skilled OBY/GYN’s into other specialties. Statistically the C-sections Edwards’ blind greed encouraged raised the mortality rate of mothers.

Hopefully Edwards will spend some time in prison for campaign finance fraud and perjury. Maybe some convict will perform a C-section on him.

[ballplayer]

Sorry trial Lawyers are on the List of untouchables along with the Unions ,Gays,Communists