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: Malpractice Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2132
Description[?]:
| A Bill to Reform the Medical Malpractice Compensation procedure. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Malpractice suits.
Old value:: Only a medical regulatory body can prosecute a doctor for malpractice.
Current: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Proposed: Malpractice suits may be brought against doctors.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:44:08, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | I wrote out a long formal response to your bill, but for some reason it was lost so here is it shortened up. We think it is more in the interests of the advancemnet of medecine in Jakania that malpractice allegations are handled and reviewed by an experienced body not a court. But we could be convinced, possibly. |
| Date | 00:49:53, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | Opposed. A medical regulatory body is a neccesity because, while it provides people with complaints an independant authority to approach if they feel a doctor is not competant at his/her work, it also protects doctors by ensuring they aren't having to spend time defending themselves at the hands of lawsuits for which they are undeserving of, which'll both decrease the effectiveness of our health system as professionals are forced to defend themselves in court and bury themselves in paperwork and bureacracy to protect themselves. Not to mention it'd serve to encourage the abuse of our legal system for personal profit by allowing people to sue each time they don't get exactly what they want. The medical profession isn't like car repair or any other service, simply because it's so much based on probability and variability. Our health professionals should always ensure they try their best to keep our populace healthy, and the regulatory body ensures this, but they won't always return a cure or successful treatment and can't be expected to in all circumstances. |
| Date | 02:44:29, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | A person ought to be able to sue and individual that has caused them harm, whether the individual be a doctor or a street thug. It is not government's responsiblity to regulate malpractice. |
| Date | 03:25:16, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | A doctor operates under the hippocratic oath and break no law in just carrying out their job. It is prepostorous to compare them to a street thug that can cause you harm. Should the same laws appeal to viscious ducks! |
| Date | 03:25:33, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | A doctor operates under the hippocratic oath and break no law in just carrying out their job. It is prepostorous to compare them to a street thug that can cause you harm. Should the same laws appeal to viscious ducks! |
| Date | 08:24:43, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | The JLSP would vote in favour of removing the legal immunity possessed by ducks. |
| Date | 14:53:27, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | Oath or no oath, any one who harms someone, purposefuly or inadvertently, needs to be held accountable for the damage done. I am no fan of medical malpractice lawsuits. However, I cannot allow infringement on our citizens legal rights to continue. |
| Date | 23:49:39, October 26, 2005 CET | From |  Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | OOC: You could change the bill description and RP an amendment to the proposition such that people can sue doctors, but they cannot be awarded some random sum of money. Instead, if the court decided in favor of the injured party, the doctor would simply be responsible for paying any medical costs associated with injury, income lost as a result of the injury and any legal fees. |
| Date | 23:25:00, October 27, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | ooc:RPing things sucks |
| Date | 00:59:42, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Malpractice Act |
| Message | OOC: Well, then you suck, Mr. AGS :P |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 73 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 61 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill |