The Pros And Cons Of Medical Malpractice

1870 Words8 Pages
There were 127 medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania last year. An example of these cases could be an exploratory surgery to diagnose a patient and the incision became infected because the patient failed to clean the incision sight properly. Seems to me that the doctor was just doing his/her job but in the end, he/she got sued. Medical malpractice can be described as an act or omission by a doctor or physician that lead to the harm of a patient (Kindy). Certain laws and bills have been put in place to discourage people from suing doctors for problems that are completely out of the doctor’s hands. The AANS, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, states that a “Bill is common sense, proven, comprehensive medical liability reform that will help contain health care costs” (Kindy). Doctors are constantly afraid and fearful that they will get sued for reasons that they can not explain. No doctor is safe from lawsuit abuse (Pear). Lawmakers understand this and they wanted to begin to put regulations on…show more content…
When looking at medical malpractice lawsuits, they can be classified into a civil or a criminal case. A bill could include the limitation of civil cases, not criminal (Leonard). A bill like this would eliminate the unnecessary lawsuits and focus on cases that involve criminal charges. There is a major difference between civil and criminal cases. Civil lawsuits are based on precedents and principles; does not have written codes and penalties (Kowalczyk, Donnett 65). Criminal cases punish the criminal, in this case, the doctors. Civil cases would just compensate the patient (Kowalczyk, Donnett 68). This would take the confusion out of the medical malpractice cases. Cases that have criminal actions would fall under a criminal case, not civil. For example, sexual assault is different than a medical malpractice case and would be looked at as a criminal case
Open Document