tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post4664922772847310896..comments2024-02-10T02:14:39.898-05:00Comments on Buckeye Surgeon: Self Regulation and Tort ReformJeffrey Parks MD FACShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15650563299849196122noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-18061464111342713472010-06-07T22:04:25.014-04:002010-06-07T22:04:25.014-04:00i imagine what we will actually get instead is som...i imagine what we will actually get instead is some bloated bureaucracy to police docs which somehow missed the point entirely and winds up just seeking to justify its own continued existence, and no meaningful reform of the med mal system to go with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-84869232769935841552010-04-05T09:26:27.258-04:002010-04-05T09:26:27.258-04:00JP,
Thanks for the response. I disagree with you ...JP,<br />Thanks for the response. I disagree with you that President Obama has migrated to any significant degree from President Bush’s nat’l security policy. Indeed, this is one of the explanations for the political left’s consternation with him. (Dropping cap and trade, losing the public option, backflipping on proceeding with criminal trials in NYC against KSM and a few of his henchmen and his new announcement about off shore drilling are a few others.) I believe that Obama made some rhetorical expressions of strengthenging civil liberties and following the rule of law, but I don’t believe has desired or implemented changes on the ground. The best example is that his government has continued the same policy of eavesdropping that was present under Bush. Why didn’t Obama simply disband this after he took office? He didn’t because the security folks told him not to and he had the wisdom to change his mind. Gitmo is another tough example. It’s easy to demand it’s closure, but what do you do with the detainees? We sent a few to Palau, and some to other countries and release a few, but we’re stuck with about 100. I agree that there may be some innocents there, but most are likely hard core terrorists that no country will accept. What do you do when the interrogators and lawyer tell the president that there is not enough admissible evidence to convict in any judicial proceeding, but that they are dangerous fanatics that will murder more people if they are released? <br /><br />I understand your points, but we are no longer debating civil rights, such as was the policman’s search of his care permissible? The stakes are so high, and the enemy is so intent on mass murder of innocents, that we need to relax some of our rules to survive. Keep in mind that the enemy has no rules to answer to. If fact, they seek protection under our rights to further their evil designs.<br /><br />As for world class bloggers like us, I’m okay with the government peeking at my e-mails, if this technique is deemed necessary to prevent an airplane from exploding. <br /><br />Cheers!Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-3509449989440304782010-04-04T22:40:04.182-04:002010-04-04T22:40:04.182-04:00MK-
Tarring as villains? Please read the OPR repo...MK-<br />Tarring as villains? Please read the OPR report. The original report recommended that they be DISBARRED for egregious dereliction of legal duty. I'm just a messenger here. Their conduct was <br /><br />And youre not correct about the Obama White House vis a vis the Bush war on terror policies. We no longer torture. We don't send suspected terrorists to secret Egyptian prisons. We grant habeas corpus to foreign nationals seized on foreign lands. Gitmo is still open and that's a blight on Obama's record. I have no doubt that there are bad people down there. And there are also innocent people down there (an unquestionable fact). But once youve tortured them and held them without counsel or appeal for 7-10 years, what exactly do you DO with them all? You can't convict them of anything in a court of law; all evidence obtained under such circumstances would be thrown out. Transferring them to American military stockades would set off a Tea Party firestorm (Dont bring those terrorists into my backyard!) Once again, a legacy of the Bush years. <br /><br />I don't doubt that the threats described in the President's daily intelligence briefing would scare the daylights out of most of us. Nevertheless, I don't accept unlimited executive power. That's not the way this country was structured. The rule of law applies equally to common citizens and elected officials alike. It's easy enough to cede powers of torture, rendition, and warrantless wiretapping to Big Brother when the targets are scary, bearded Muslims who live half way around the world. But power gained is not so easily relinquished. Someday, pain in the ass bloggers like you and I might become a target of a "federal investigation" and subject to enhanced interrogation techniques...Jeffrey Parks MD FACShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650563299849196122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-22741948140420160452010-04-04T21:41:11.576-04:002010-04-04T21:41:11.576-04:00Yoo and Bybee, legal scholars, are demonized as sy...Yoo and Bybee, legal scholars, are demonized as symbols of the perceived excesses of the Bush administration. Interestingly, the Obama administration has continued nearly all of the national security programs that President Bush implemented. Indeed, the WH was dismayed when a Federal judge last week ruled against our current eavesdropping without a warrant policy. Candidate Obama suggested that we needed to significantly recalibrate the balance back toward civil liberties. President Obama wisely reconsidered. Closing Gitmo is not quite as easy as it seemed during the campaign. We can only imagine the dire and threatening contents of his daily security briefing. The stakes couldn't be higher and the president, like his predecessor, wants every available tool. This is not an academic debate in a law school seminar. This is a life or death issue. While I'm not qualified to opine on Yoo and Bybee's conduct, I would suggest caution before tarring them as villains. Nice post.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-20634756541416655872010-03-31T16:00:59.770-04:002010-03-31T16:00:59.770-04:00At one time I thought health courts were a good id...At one time I thought health courts were a good idea. But I'm no longer sure whether we need to spawn another bureaucracy. In its own way, it could end up being almost as adversarial and process-ridden as the system we have now.<br /><br />Apparently the health care reform bill contains some grant money for demonstration projects aimed at patient safety, development of alternative dispute resolution models and so forth.<br /><br />My question is: Do we really need to "try" cases in which a patient has been harmed by their care? Or should the goal be to resolve these cases, be truthful with patients about what happened to them, compensate them fairly and not subject families and clinicians to months of anguish. If the physician really screwed up, that would then of course be an issue for the licensing authority, the credentialer or whomever, but this could be separate from the actual mediation with the patient/family.<br /><br />BTW, there appears to be nothing in the health care reform bill that precludes states from enacting their own tort reform. My sense with tort reform, however, is that we're flogging a dead horse and that we might be better off trying a whole new approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-84510135396389955612010-03-30T06:33:14.258-04:002010-03-30T06:33:14.258-04:00Right with you, up until the very end. Although I ...Right with you, up until the very end. Although I have no idea whether bile leaks always represent technical failures on the part of the surgeon, I can tell you that complications and elevated A1c's in diabetics are almost always a function of patient compliance (well, lack thereof), and not really an indication of an internist's abilities. The kind of plan you suggest will lead to lots of diabetics being referred from internists back to the family docs, both to make the internists' numbers look better (and collecting P4P bonuses), and because the FPs have a harder time dumping patients who just can't seem to stick to that diet (and lower incomes from time away from the office in mandatory "didactic sessions" on diabetes management). (More <a href="http://dinosaurmusings.blogspot.com/2009/09/problem-with-quality.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)<br /><br />Other than that, I agree completely.#1 Dinosaurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357845504444464397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-25559382084852514952010-03-29T12:28:34.440-04:002010-03-29T12:28:34.440-04:00Great Post Buckeye,
Umm you do know that under t...Great Post Buckeye,<br /> Umm you do know that under the current regime Medical Malpractice Reform is about as likely as a Dick Chaney appointment to the Supreme Court...<br />as likely as the Browns having a winning season,<br />as Al Gore flying coach to Cannes this summer...<br />and to prove I read your whole post...<br />How are Internists supposed to keep their patients HbA1Cs low??<br />Sneak into there bedrooms at 3am and stick em with some NPH????<br />It'd be like makin you responsible for preventing gallstones...<br /><br />FrankAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com