I liked how the title of this article refers to Robert Frost's poem and draws a direct connection to personal injury suits. The response to the perception of disintegration and decay parallels between the deep poem and subject of Engel's paper. It was hard for me to understand exactly how it connected, but I felt this article tried to keep the reader involved.
I found this article connected to the other one I read about why people sue. Engel examines a small rural community of Sander County in Illinios and their experiences with personal injury. In May and Stengel's article they do exactly the same thing for a diiferent community in Wisconsin. I just don't understand how those subjects would be a good group to prove anything. The subjects need to be varied, diverse and then the study would be a lot more relevant to Law and Society and the nation for that matter. Wisconsin and Illinois are not in my eyes a good representation.
That being said, this article was still interesting. The people of Sander County are described as sue happy and everyone goes to court all the time. Personal injury plaintiffs were viewed as trouble makers int he country, because wherever you looked someone was suing for something. They continued to try to make a quick buck and take advantage of the legal system. That's why I didn't disregard this article. Their goal may have been to take a look at this specific county where everyone sues, so the absence of variety can be overlooked.
I really don't agree with Engel's argument that the social change of Sander County made them more likely to sue. He says that the uncomfortable that the county felt as it started changing in the 1970s attributes to their sue happy nature and actions. I think there might have been some influence, but I also see someone trying to force a pattern and common theme. The community's reaction to "outsiders" coming into the county can't be connected to the notion of everyone going to court excessively.
This farm town once viewed personal injury as something that just happened...fate. That was in the 70s and 80s. Engel says that the ideas behind money and hard work were strict as well in that time. People were known to be "level headed" and "realistic" in these times, but then it just changed due to community pressures? I don't buy that.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Who syes their doctors?
I read this article too to get a connection with my first reading about medical malpractice. I thought that it would be good to see two different sources examine the same idea of who and why people sue their doctors and what exactly is medical malpractice. This article also uses the Felstiner, Abel and Sarat article from past weeks to analyze concepts.
This article first states the idea behind someone suing their doctor. When an instance occurs the patient always has a choice for their grievance. They can do nothing, avoid the problem and change doctors, make the claim against their doctor trying to gain some sort of remedy, engage is disputing with help or go to a lawyer for help, but end up not suing. These choices are explored in this article and shows the potential influences of why they would occur. I found it very interesting to see the different characteristics and styles of people and why they decide to sue or not.
Although I felt like the way the infromation was collected was not optimal. The surveying could have many discrepancies in it and may not as accurate because of the similar audience. I realize the limitation of this concept and its research, but I believe this article can only be relevant to specifics. It is in two cities in Wisconsin and may not incorporate a full understanding of a whole opulation. That's why I was very curious and careful in reading this article. It's a good study but only a small level and only gives some hypotheses at a small starting point in this issue. It was very detailed, which helped to give me some hope and gave the study a chance.
One thing I found interesting was how the article explained the doctor relationship with the patient. I have a great realtionship with my family physician at home and can safely say I don't beleive my family would ever file a complaint against him. I believe that the relationship status is very important. Most people are hesitant to file complaints against people they think highly of or has helped them in the past. My doctor has helped me and my famiy so much, developing a strong foundation of a relationship with the Cohen-Shikora family. Dr. Robert Rothernbergy is safe is my eyes. The effects that May and Stengel used to decipher the quality of the relationship was intersting as well. I think it has to do with more than just if the doctor rushes them, showed concern or always informed them as a patient. These are undoubtedly important, but doesn't tell the whole story except for this sole study. The only way to completely figure out the real relationship of patients and doctors is advanced studying of each individual. Each person is so different that a survey cannot hope to fully explore this topic.
The true factor I thought that had a direct correlation with whether patients sue or not has to do with the patient's knowldege level. This was shown in the article of whether the patient has knowledge of the medical practice, doctors and lawyers. Someone who realizes that they were seriously hurt and the doctors didn't follow procedures well would absolutely be more likely to file a grievance. If you are educated about this and can spot when the doctor is at wrong and you have a suit, then you will go ahead with it. It's the same for money. If you realize that you can make all this money by suing your doctor for something they did wrong, then chances are you will go ahead with it too. Patients who aren't informed or realize they have a clear problem with their medical care and doctor's actions, just won't even think of it.
This article first states the idea behind someone suing their doctor. When an instance occurs the patient always has a choice for their grievance. They can do nothing, avoid the problem and change doctors, make the claim against their doctor trying to gain some sort of remedy, engage is disputing with help or go to a lawyer for help, but end up not suing. These choices are explored in this article and shows the potential influences of why they would occur. I found it very interesting to see the different characteristics and styles of people and why they decide to sue or not.
Although I felt like the way the infromation was collected was not optimal. The surveying could have many discrepancies in it and may not as accurate because of the similar audience. I realize the limitation of this concept and its research, but I believe this article can only be relevant to specifics. It is in two cities in Wisconsin and may not incorporate a full understanding of a whole opulation. That's why I was very curious and careful in reading this article. It's a good study but only a small level and only gives some hypotheses at a small starting point in this issue. It was very detailed, which helped to give me some hope and gave the study a chance.
One thing I found interesting was how the article explained the doctor relationship with the patient. I have a great realtionship with my family physician at home and can safely say I don't beleive my family would ever file a complaint against him. I believe that the relationship status is very important. Most people are hesitant to file complaints against people they think highly of or has helped them in the past. My doctor has helped me and my famiy so much, developing a strong foundation of a relationship with the Cohen-Shikora family. Dr. Robert Rothernbergy is safe is my eyes. The effects that May and Stengel used to decipher the quality of the relationship was intersting as well. I think it has to do with more than just if the doctor rushes them, showed concern or always informed them as a patient. These are undoubtedly important, but doesn't tell the whole story except for this sole study. The only way to completely figure out the real relationship of patients and doctors is advanced studying of each individual. Each person is so different that a survey cannot hope to fully explore this topic.
The true factor I thought that had a direct correlation with whether patients sue or not has to do with the patient's knowldege level. This was shown in the article of whether the patient has knowledge of the medical practice, doctors and lawyers. Someone who realizes that they were seriously hurt and the doctors didn't follow procedures well would absolutely be more likely to file a grievance. If you are educated about this and can spot when the doctor is at wrong and you have a suit, then you will go ahead with it. It's the same for money. If you realize that you can make all this money by suing your doctor for something they did wrong, then chances are you will go ahead with it too. Patients who aren't informed or realize they have a clear problem with their medical care and doctor's actions, just won't even think of it.
Medical Malpractice, Social Structure, and Social Control
While reading this article I immediately thought of my Hebrew school principal. She was a large woman named Diane Berg and thus everyone called her Iceberg. Anyway, we were young at the time and didn't understand her situation. She took a leave of absence and noone knew where she went. It ended up that she went to get surgery to lose weight, whatever that is called. While getting surgery a doctor left an operating towel in her stomach. She got sick and ended up losing even more weight. After she recovered, she was at a normal weight, in the middle of winning millions of dollars and was on her way to being much healthier than before the ultimate operation.
I found this memory very comical while reading this article. Mullis talks of howthe malpractice plaintiff must show that the a duty of care was owed by the defendant, that they were negligent and thus caused an injury that affected the defendant. This of course happened in this case, but Iceberg ended up in better shape and lost more weight because of the negligence. Of course if someone left a towel in me I would be pissed and sue too, but this woman got a win win situatio
n. I'm not sure about how much she won, but she definitely lost a person from her weight.
This has to do with the current age that Mullis talks about. "The rate of litigation, the amount of damages awarded, the level of malpractice insurance premiums all reached new heights during this recent period." At one end Mullis is completely right that this has become ridiculous. Doctors are always at risk even doing intesne and advanced procedures. There's always the initial risk of doing something wrong, but the added pressure of the loss of reputation and money makes this occupation even harder.
I think of Kanye West, a multi millionaire suing doctors for the loss of his mother. She went in to get an unneccesary surgery of tummy tuck or something like that. There were complications and she died. Now, I'm not sure of the details, but suing is not going to bring Kanye's mom back. He is already loaded. So I feel as he is jsut following this stupid pattern Mullis is aware of. The concerns of this pattern are reaching an all time high and will just continue to grow. I think that these malpractices need to be taken seriously, but sensitively. There is no deviant behavior involved in one isolated accident, but repeated accounts can be targeted heavier. I think there should be a distinct difference set out in doctors just getting unlucky or severely doing something to hurt of kill or their patient.
The sociological questions that Mullis asks have to do witht he background of the case. He says that social control is a huge factor in the medical grievance. How does the person react? What's their first instinct after the fact? These are important because it can tell how legit the claim is. It will differentiate the person who si really harmed and the one just wanting to get money. The negligence must be proved well in my eyes. We can't continue to have sue happy people looking for a quick buck from any avenue.
I found this memory very comical while reading this article. Mullis talks of howthe malpractice plaintiff must show that the a duty of care was owed by the defendant, that they were negligent and thus caused an injury that affected the defendant. This of course happened in this case, but Iceberg ended up in better shape and lost more weight because of the negligence. Of course if someone left a towel in me I would be pissed and sue too, but this woman got a win win situatio
n. I'm not sure about how much she won, but she definitely lost a person from her weight.
This has to do with the current age that Mullis talks about. "The rate of litigation, the amount of damages awarded, the level of malpractice insurance premiums all reached new heights during this recent period." At one end Mullis is completely right that this has become ridiculous. Doctors are always at risk even doing intesne and advanced procedures. There's always the initial risk of doing something wrong, but the added pressure of the loss of reputation and money makes this occupation even harder.
I think of Kanye West, a multi millionaire suing doctors for the loss of his mother. She went in to get an unneccesary surgery of tummy tuck or something like that. There were complications and she died. Now, I'm not sure of the details, but suing is not going to bring Kanye's mom back. He is already loaded. So I feel as he is jsut following this stupid pattern Mullis is aware of. The concerns of this pattern are reaching an all time high and will just continue to grow. I think that these malpractices need to be taken seriously, but sensitively. There is no deviant behavior involved in one isolated accident, but repeated accounts can be targeted heavier. I think there should be a distinct difference set out in doctors just getting unlucky or severely doing something to hurt of kill or their patient.
The sociological questions that Mullis asks have to do witht he background of the case. He says that social control is a huge factor in the medical grievance. How does the person react? What's their first instinct after the fact? These are important because it can tell how legit the claim is. It will differentiate the person who si really harmed and the one just wanting to get money. The negligence must be proved well in my eyes. We can't continue to have sue happy people looking for a quick buck from any avenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
