Quote:
Originally Posted by ERCougar
You THINK you want defensive medicine...
Your 3 yr old falls off the bunk bed. No loss of consciousness, small lump on the head, vomits once, but is now acting fine. You're scared because it's your kid so you bring him into the ER.
In Detroit, your kid gets a head CT. No way your child leaves the ER without one. Doesn't matter what your kid looks like. Doesn't matter what you want. You sign out against medical advice if you don't want one, and your visit will therefore likely not be covered by your insurance.
In Indiana, your child is examined. The doctor decides that the likelihood of your child having a significant head injury is low (say <2%--it's NEVER zero) and gives you instructions for watching him at home and what to watch for.
Now fast forward 30 years. In Detroit, your child develops a deadly thyroid carcinoma. You've totally forgotten about that head CT that likely caused it so you're not suing the doctor--you just write it off as something that happens.
Oh...and I didn't mention the little old lady who feels a little dizzy and is in the waiting room waiting for your kid to get out of the CT scanner so the doc can examine her, send her to discover her cerebral hemorrhage that will kill her. If only the doc could have gotten to her sooner. Oh well...avoided the lawsuit.
Oh yeah...there's also the increase in insurance premiums due to your kid and a thousand others that's going to make the blood pressure medicine unaffordable to the man will die of a heart attack.
These are all huge issues that we face every day. I assure you I'm not painting the worse. I've worked in Detroit and that is EXACTLY what happens. I've seen people die in the waiting room because the CT scanner was tied up with bullshit. We've all seen insurance premiums go up. And there are studies coming out every day about the dangers of radiation exposure from medical testing.
Defensive medicine is good for no one. But our hand is forced.
|
You should have been a trial lawyer. THis is exactly the sort of emotional approach that results in the so-called outrageous results you so dislike. You know very well that the range of defensive medcine rarely includes a CT and frequently includes other types of screeingin (blood tests, etc) that are not likely to cause rare and deadly carcinomas. Moreover, I expect a doctor to tell me the risks that are known for all treatment. If a docotr believes that a possible test has risks that are equivalent to or greater than the risk of the injury that might be detected, I expect to be told that. Are you suggesting, btw, that the 35 year old with cancer should be able to sue the docotr for that test? Mayeb this would, over time, result in the elimination of dangerous defensive testing?