Full Table of Contents
_______________
Abbreviated
Table of Contents
Home Page
Patient Safety
Silence vs
Safety
Silenced
White wall
of Silence
Silencing
Conflict Of
Interest
Psychology of
Providers
Subjectivity
Blacklisting
Nurse survey
Loyalty
Mobbing and
bullying
Trust Us
Defensive
documenting
Report Rate
Risk
managemnt
SOAP
Management
Hospitals
Crime in
medicine
Sexual Abuse
Liability
Limitations
Free Speech
for Patients
Exploitation
OSMB Medical
Boards
Mammography
solutions
Medical errors
Medical Complaints
One number
Links
Injured patients who want to help and be heard, click here.
Thomas Jefferson said that given the choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he would choose newspapers.
In medicine we have government without newspapers. Patients cannot find out what they need to know to make informed choices. No one in medicine records or reports the information patients need to know the most. So patients will have to do it.
Patients' Voice?
The AMA's Patient Action Network
Did you seen the AMA's advertisements on television asking
patients to sign up at
www.amapatientvoice.com to help fight for patients rights? They wanted
patients to write to their congresspersons to urge them to pass liability
limitations that restrict the amount for which patients can sue
when healthcare professionals injure them.
Two comedians once put a sign on a table on a city sidewalk asking people join a movement to stop women's suffrage. When women asked them about it, they said that there just was too much suffraging. Women signed up. The AMA is doing the same thing. Unfortunately, the AMA is not joking.
Sign Up
They ask you to give them your email address so they can contact you when legislation is pending about which they want you to write to your government representatives. Liability limitations is not their only agenda. They also want you to get involved in stemming Medicare cuts and such, but what they are advertising on television is a plea for you to help them pass liability limitations that take away the rights of patients.
If you know better than to fall for that, signing up could be a way to be alerted when it's time to tell your government that liability limitations probably are a violation of our 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. And that the Wisconsin Supreme Court already ruled that their state’s cap on pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases violates the equal protection guarantees of their state constitution (more about that here). When the AMA writes to you to do the opposite, you could tell your government representative that the last thing he or she should do is pass a bill that will harm you in the way that the AMA is trying to.
Freedom of Speech for Patients
Right now in many places there are limitations on the amount for which a patient can sue if a physician assaults and disables him or her (that's the practical effect of the law), but there are no limitations on the amount for which the physician sue the patient if the patient talks about it (see freedom of speech for patients). If the federal government insists on passing the liability limitations, as the Bush White House's webpage urged them to, perhaps they could be persuaded to add a rider that makes things a little more equal by protecting the freedom of speech of patients by limiting the amount for which patients can be sued by healthcare professionals merely for speaking. Doctors can physically injure patients and be protected. Do patients not deserve similar protection when they speak about it?
The AMA says they want to end "frivolous" suits that are driving up healthcare costs. In fact, malpractice suits make up a very small fraction of healthcare costs. Almost none of them are frivolous. And physicians are not leaving the profession because of high insurance rates. All these issues have been studied. To suggest otherwise in order to dupe patients into defeating their own rights is a significant comment on why physicians do not solve patient safety problems. Healthcare is responsible for more accidental death than all other sources combined and what they seek legislation for is reducing their own liability for it. Self-interest trumps patient safety. That's why patient safety is an issue in the first place. Let's not pass liability limitations that insulate them even further from the consequences of their actions. If we did the opposite, perhaps then they would focus on reducing the number of accidental deaths, and perhaps the intentional ones too, rather than just protecting their wallets.