We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Medical Malpractice Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Alorian Free Democrats
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2450
Description[?]:
The workings of our current malpractice system, where anyone can sue their doctor for damages regardless of the factual basis for these claims, is not to the best interest of our citizens, medical professionals and state. If a doctor must fear malpractice lawsuits at every turn, then they will hold the wrong priorities and the quality of care will diminish greatly. The investigation of medical malpractice is a serious business which should not be open to cash grabbing opportunists and legal tricks. We therefore move that all medical malpractice suits be investigated and judged by a peer jury of medical professionals, from this point on. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Malpractice suits.
Old value:: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Current: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Proposed: Only a medical regulatory body can prosecute a doctor for malpractice.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 16:47:21, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa) | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | You have to hire scads of experts at great cost to prove a med mal claim now, and then it's only if the jury believes them instead of the defendant's hired guns that you'll win and recover any of your expenses. The notion that "anyone can sue their doctor regardless of the factual basis" for their med mal claim is a myth propogated by Aloria's health insurance fatcats to promote bad laws like these, which protect insurance corporations and bad doctors at the expense of injured patients. DRs oppose. |
Date | 18:19:51, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Alorian Free Democrats | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | Independent medical professionals would focus solely on the medical details of a case, ensuring a swifter, yet more thorough investigation. Saying that this would be to the detriment of patients and to the benefit of the "fatcats" is nothing more than grasping for emotional strings. It is a mystery why anyone who considers themselves rational would oppose this reform. After all, justice and efficiency would be served by holding malpractice cases up to the cold hard light of medicine, instead of the pastel of the legal system. This bill would remove the insurance and legal teams from the equation, creating a better atmosphere for doctors while guaranteeing a fair, factual investigation by people who have a vested interest in holding their profession to the highest of standards. We want a situation where the citizens are able to rely on the finest of medical care and confident doctors, not one where they have to rely on the possibility of receiving a check when a doctor who cares more about covering his legal back than about helping patients fouls up. |
Date | 18:53:32, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa) | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | Yes, and corporate executive officers should be the sole judges of the ethics and competence of other corporate executive officers. And politiicans should be the sole judges of the ethics and competence of other politicians. And lawyers should be the sole judges of the ethics and competence of other lawyers. Great systems. Let me know how they work out for ya. No, it's no mystery why anyone would oppose this reform. Empowering juries to resolve facts is a tried, tested, and true method of vindicating the public's interest in ethical and competent professional services of all kinds. Leaving those with vested interests to determine these standards is a recipe for dishonesty and incompetence. And if calling insurance executives who make hundreds of millions of dollars collecting insurance premiums and who make de facto medical decisions by refusing to pay out legitimate claims "fatcats" is emotionally manipulative, then insinuating that anyone who opposes this reform is "irrational" is an ad hominem. My you're riding a tall horse there, sir. |
Date | 19:17:13, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Republic People Party | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | We will say yes. |
Date | 19:43:20, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Industrialist Party of Aloria | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | Surely a jury and judge can see through lies. Anyhow, if doctors do fear a malpractice suit, they can just get another job or make sure they don't mess up. We respect your reasons for doing this, but it just won't work in the real world. |
Date | 19:48:32, September 03, 2007 CET | From | Alorian Free Democrats | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | A comparison with politicians and CEO's is highly inaccurate because of the vast difference in the kind of expertise and goals involved. Putting a case before laymen may work in other fields, but it does not make for the best solution in the medical field. Opening this to the vote. |
Date | 08:28:28, September 04, 2007 CET | From | Social Liberalism Party | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | My question is, where will the funds for this regulatory body come from? |
Date | 16:13:43, September 04, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa) | To | Debating the Medical Malpractice Reform |
Message | Politicians was a bad comparision, because you really can't sue them for unethical or incompetent behavior. The best you can do is vote them out of office. But CEOs and lawyers were not bad comparisons. Yes, there are technical medical issues involved in med mal cases. But there are technical business and legal issues involved in CEO breach of fiduciary duty cases, and in legal malpractice cases. We give these cases to juries to decide in order to prevent the regulation of these kinds of services from falling entirely to hands of the service providers, who have clear interests in diminishing the availability of relief for their own protection. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes | Total Seats: 104 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 496 | |||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations. |
Random quote: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." - Mahatma Gandhi |