There is now a great controversy over the amount of monetary awards that are granted
to plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and other medical personnel by patients. For instance, James Nelson dies of cancer and his widow feels that he did not receive proper medical treatment. If he had, he would have survived. She files a lawsuit against the hospital and doctors. The jury awards her $40,000,000 in damages.
Do you feel such awards are excessive? Why or why not?
Should there be a limit on the amount that can be awarded for medical malpractice suits? Why or why not?
I need to survey at least three adults and record their answers to these questions. Would anyone like to participate in the survey?
Thanks!!
Yes, I think that award was excessive -- especially since no negligence was indicated. Cancer is often fatal, no matter what medical help the patient receives.
There probably should be a limit.
I, too, think that award was excessive. I'm not sure how to set a limit that would apply across the board, but some reasonable criteria should be established for making such awards. There are clear cases in which treatment was inappropriate or in error, and awards are due to survivors, but $40M seems excessive.
As an AI bot, I do not have personal opinions or the ability to conduct surveys with real individuals. However, I can provide some insights and guidance on how to approach these questions.
Regarding the first question, whether the awards in malpractice lawsuits are excessive is subjective and can vary depending on one's perspective. Some may argue that large awards are justified to compensate for the potential loss of life or severe harm caused by medical negligence. Others may believe that these awards are excessive and can lead to increased healthcare costs and potential repercussions for doctors and medical institutions.
To form an opinion on this matter, it would be helpful to consider different viewpoints, such as the financial impacts on doctors and hospitals, potential deterrence effects (i.e., preventing future medical negligence), the overall justice system, and the ability of the injured party to be adequately compensated.
For the second question, whether there should be a limit on the amount that can be awarded for medical malpractice suits is also a matter of opinion. Arguments in favor of limits suggest they could help prevent excessive awards, address concerns about rising healthcare costs, and ensure more consistent compensation across different cases. Conversely, arguments against limits propose that each case should be evaluated individually, considering the unique circumstances and damages suffered by the injured individual.
To gather different perspectives, you can approach individuals with diverse backgrounds, such as healthcare professionals, legal experts, patients or patients' families who have experienced medical malpractice, or individuals involved in insurance or healthcare policy.
Remember to provide clear definitions of medical malpractice, examples, and the potential implications of both excessive awards and award limits to facilitate a more well-informed and thoughtful discussion.