[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 24 Jun 2002 16:26:37: I fear it's not that way at all.
As an answer to: Re: Marketing written by Aussie girl at 24 Jun 2002 07:04:25:
> Paul, do doctors in Australia receive newsletters or journals informing them of the legal consequences, or do they only find out about these things from the media, if at all?
AG, to be truthful, it hasn't quite hit yet. There are two groups of doctors (surgeons) - those who don't want to do it, and vary between subterfuges to avoid doing cruel procedures on kids, and simple refusal; and those others (minority) who are gung-ho, happy to do whatever someone asks to make a buck.
The first group do perceive a real threat of litigation down the track, but it hasn't happened yet. The second figure it won't happen, but if and when it does, will defect en-masse at which point the residual rate, quoted at 10% or so, will plummet.
> I wonder if the circumcisions have stopped since the insurance problems started.
Not really, since circumcision cases have yet to become a prominent feature. You see, the insurance problems are not about any increase in genuine claims regarding negligence or malpractice, they are about vexatious claims pressed simply because someone had a bad outcome, just as likely chance or often enough, of their own making. It is about the willingness of courts to see themselves as "Robin Hood"s, redistributing wealth from the "filthy rich" to the "poor battler", instead of administering justice.
It is exactly the same problem as all the rest of the public risk liability melt-down, and it as such, gives no reason for any doctor to question his practices. It therefore has the very opposite effect - it is functioning as a smokescreen by which all doctors can be painted as incompetent or malicious, making it far more difficult to discern which of them actually are. In fact, sadly, it will actually serve to inhibit any progress against RIGM.