PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 6950913

Plaintiffs' view of malpractice litigation.

Abstract

All of us want to improve the quality of practice in our professions and develop methods for ridding ourselves of the incompetent practitioner. Unfortunately, PSROs and state licence review committees have proved completely inadequate. Committed dentists, doctors, and lawyers are as frustrated as the general public when they attempt to establish reasonable standards by which to police their respective professions. Although no one likes to be sued, I would suggest that the private lawsuit has developed into the most helpful tool for accomplishing mutual interprofessional aims and upgrading all of the professions. Certainly the competent individual who makes an honest mistake that causes harm should be financially responsible to the injured party. More importantly, especially since most lawsuits involve in minority of practitioners who hurt the public and the profession, both in stature and financially through increased insurance rates, the malpractice lawsuit provides a fact-gathering process upon which both education and discipline can be predicted. Individual dentists, when they see examples of consistently poor work, are still understandably reluctant to file charges. They have enough to occupy their time in keeping up with their own practices and continuing education. They are understandably reluctant to become self-appointed policemen or keepers of the community conscience. Where, however, the information can be brought to the attention of a dental society, with the facts already marshaled through the litigation process, such groups have in recent years been much more ready to act. Since their action comes as a response to demands and pressures external to the profession, it is more easily accepted by other dentists, and therefore more likely to be effective.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Warshafsky. 1982. Plaintiffs' view of malpractice litigation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6950913/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan.

AIM: To clarify the prevalence of defensive medicine and the specific defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. METHODS: A survey of gastroenterologists in Hiroshima, Japan, was conducted by mail in March 2006. The number of gastroenterologists reporting defensive medicine behaviors or changes in their scope of practice and the reported defensive medicine practices, i.e., assurance and avoidance behaviors, were examined. RESULTS: A total of 131 (77%) out of 171 gastroenterologists completed the survey. Three (2%) respondents were sued, and most respondents (96%) had liability insurance. Nearly all respondents (98%) reported practicing defensive medicine. Avoidance behaviors, such as avoiding certain procedures or interventions and avoiding caring for high-risk patients, were very common (96%). Seventy-five percent of respondents reported often avoiding certain procedures or interventions. However, seasoned gastroenterologists (those in practice for more than 20 years) adopted avoidance behaviors significantly less often than those in practice for less than 10 years. Assurance behaviors, i.e., supplying additional services of marginal or no medical value, were also widespread (91%). Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported that they sometimes or often referred patients to other specialists unnecessarily. CONCLUSION: Defensive medicine may be highly prevalent among gastroenterologists throughout Japan, with potentially serious implications regarding costs, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.

Defensive Medicine↗