There has always been tension between doctors and lawyers. Doctors would like to have limits on medical-malpractice lawsuits. Lawyers resist such limits. President Obama seems open to limits, which will antagonize trial lawyers, many of whom donate large sums of money to Democrats such as Obama. A cynic would question the motives of the various protagonists in this debate, saying that both doctors and lawyers are motivated by self-interest and that President Obama will do whatever it takes to get health-care reform that moves the country toward universal coverage. But there are arguments on both sides. The job of a philosopher, as such, is to analyze these arguments, not question the motives of those who make them. The reason is simple: Good people can make bad arguments and bad people good arguments. It might be, for example, that doctors get the better of the argument, even though they are motivated, in large part, by self-interest. Do you think there should be limits on medical-malpractice lawsuits? If so, why? If not, why not?
Law and Medicine
–––––––
