Litigation vs. Irresponsibility/Incompetence

[ABM]

I've heard many times over that we're an extremely litigious society.

That said, I saw yet another TV spot related to some type of medical procedure gone wrong. Hence, an ensuing (no pun intended) class action suit.

Hey, I'd be the first one to say there are way too many law suits out there, but shouldn't there also be a concern about incompetence (not to be confused with incontinence) upstream, as well?

I've heard it said that, it's much more prudent (less costly, as well) to have a fence at the top of the hill, rather than a hospital at the bottom of one.

Medical procedures-wise, how much testing (involving long-term evaluations) is done...and by whom?

Who are the guardians?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

 

[ABM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

Interesting.

Insurance companies in the United States and public insurers in other countries usually wait for drug use approval based on evidence-based guidelines before funding a treatment. Where approval for a drug has been given, and subsequent evidence based findings indicating that a drug may be less safe than originally anticipated, some insurers in the U.S. have reacted very cautiously and withdrawn funding. For example, an older generic statin drug had been shown to reduce mortality, but a newer and much more expensive statin drug was found to lower cholesterol more effectively. However, evidence came to light about safety concerns with the new drug which caused some insurers to stop funding it even though marketing approval was not withdrawn.[30] Some people are willing to take their chances to gamble their health on the success of new drugs or old drugs in new situations which may not yet have been fully tested in clinical trials. However insurance companies are reluctant to take on the job of funding such treatments, preferring instead to take the safer route of awaiting the results of clinical testing and leaving the funding of such trials to the manufacturer seeking a license.[31]

Sometimes caution errs in the other direction. Kaiser Permanente did not change its methods of evaluating whether or not new therapies were too "experimental" to be covered until it was successfully sued twice: once for delaying in vitro fertilization treatments for two years after the courts determined that scientific evidence of efficacy and safety had reached the "reasonable" stage; and in another case where Kaiser refused to pay for liver transplantation in infants when it had already been shown to be effective in adults, on the basis that use in infants was still "experimental."[32] Here again, the problem of induction plays a key role in arguments.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Rent the documentary Hot Coffee.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/