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: Patient Protection Bill 2192D3
Details
Submitted by[?]: Black Magic
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: January 2194
Description[?]:
| While medical evidence is absolutely necessary to establish malpractice, the fact that it IS malpractice makes it a case for the court. Giving a medical regulatory body sole discretion leads to the likelihood of conflict of interest allegations and improper handling of what may in fact be criminal charges. Judges are not doctors, it is true - but neither are doctors judges. If a cap were to presume all of the possible costs and outcomes of a case, it might be fair - however no such presumption exists and therefore those who incur costs above and beyond the cap suffer hardship which is not only unfair but also unjust. |
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.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Tort reform on non-civil lawsuits.
Old value:: There is a cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Current: There is no cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Proposed: There is no cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:26:16, February 28, 2006 CET | From |  KSP - Kazulia Socialdemokratisk Parti | To | Debating the Patient Protection Bill 2192D3 |
| Message | No, in this way all doctors will not try difficult operations, due by the fear of lawsuits. |
| Date | 00:06:22, March 01, 2006 CET | From | Konservativ Monarkistpartiet | To | Debating the Patient Protection Bill 2192D3 |
| Message | Support. |
| Date | 08:59:06, March 01, 2006 CET | From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Patient Protection Bill 2192D3 |
| Message | This is where more detail would help. Difficult operations have known risks and in such cases failure should not be interpreted as malpractice. Malpractice is forgetting instuments and materials in the patient, confusing left with right, that sort of thing: this is where a regulatory medical body can help with guidelines and facts. If prosecution is justified a professional body is just as suspect as a government or any other body conducting an inquiry into its own actions as a whole or on the part of a fellow member. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 64 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 35 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we." - George W. Bush |