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: Tort Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist Party
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: December 2482
Description[?]:
| This act will establish a medical regulatory body to prosecute malpractice cases. |
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 | 23:57:21, November 05, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | So a patient ending up permanently damaged as the result of malpractice has no recourse to suing the negligent doctor? How is that right? |
| Date | 00:29:01, November 06, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | They can present there case to a medical regulatory body. like duh |
| Date | 06:37:12, November 06, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Perhaps if your bill were drafted better, your intentions would be clear. As it is now, it appears to us that it is a matter of the body punishing the doctor, rather than a question of damage and compensation. Why then should the Courts not be given jurisdiction? They are trained to adjudicate, and are best-placed to enforce them. |
| Date | 15:15:47, November 06, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | You do realize that malpractice is investigated right? |
| Date | 15:16:39, November 06, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Oh and on top of that...whose better at deciding if malpractice took place? The courts which have no medical experience whatsoever or a medical regulatory body made up of doctors who do have medical experience? |
| Date | 22:48:46, November 06, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | The Courts, on the advice of medical professionals. There is well developed common law on the matter. |
| Date | 00:26:22, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Except that common law does not exist in this game. And what if both sides use medical professionals and they say different things? Now the courts have been made useless due to conflicting accounts. You cannot expect non-doctors to rule on medical malpractice. |
| Date | 00:54:05, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | The common law certainly does. We could hardly be a civil law nation, as there are no statutes available on matters such as murder. The common law must make up for such deficiencies. There is not necessary one standard for any particular issue. If there are multiple accepted standards (which two conflicting professionals would attest to), then the doctor in question would only need to attain one. The question in medical malpractice cases is whether the doctor was negligent, that is, whether they did what no reasonable doctor would do. If some reasonable doctors would do what they did, then they cannot be negligent. This is naturally a matter of law. |
| Date | 05:30:06, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | So a doctor can be found guilty for even the simpliest of mistakes? No wonder malpractice insurance is so high that doctors are leaving the area. No. This will ensure that the neglient are punished but leave genuine mistakes untouched. |
| Date | 05:40:51, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | It is obvious either you didn't read what we say, or you couldn't understand it. Either case would make for a negligent legislator. |
| Date | 06:25:07, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | But anything can be considered negligence. This is to protect the doctors from false accusation. Something I'm sure even you would agree is necessary. |
| Date | 08:20:08, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Certainly false accusations are important to determine, but regulatory bodies are no better able to do this than the Courts. Not anything can be considered negligence. The law relating to negligence is well developed to only find guilty those truly negligent. |
| Date | 15:27:38, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Actually...they are much better able to do it as they are doctors themselves. The courts are not. I take it then you know next to nothing of how medical malpractice actually works. |
| Date | 20:16:44, November 07, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | failed |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 174 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 325 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger." - Muhammad Ali, 1967, refusing to fight in Vietnam |