To the Editor:
Philip K. Howard describes a medical profession driven by providers’ self-defense rather than by patients’ needs. But I disagree that the answer is specialized courts for malpractice claims.
The front-page articles in the “World of Hurt” series (March 31, April 1 and 2), about New York’s flawed workers’ compensation system, demonstrate that adjudication outside courts of general jurisdiction guarantees neither justice nor efficiency.
The biggest reason for bringing the most expensive malpractice claims—for example, adverse incidents at birth—is to find some source to pay for long-term care. A single-payer system would provide that care without threatening any doctor’s personal wealth.
We use the courts to allocate yesterday’s fault so that tomorrow’s bills may be paid. If tomorrow’s care were assured, care review could focus on quality assurance rather than on fault. We need to overcome the ideology that prefers private profit to universal security.
Clifford D. Allo
South Hill, Wash., April 2, 2009
Note from KBJ: Au contraire, mon frere! We need to overcome the ideology that prefers universal security to individual liberty.
