Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Like I said below, opponents or advocates of a particular position/policy can always find a tear-jerker to illustrate their point. However, in this article, "Son's death personalizes tort reform," I don't see that it works. I feel horrible for the family. But the article doesn't describe what the surgeon did wrong or what the act of malpractice was.

After the surgery, it says, regarding the surgeon, " 'Then he took the weekend off,' said Patty." Well, gee, Patty, do you really expect all docs to work 24/7? This suggests that nobody was around to take care of her son, not a reasonable suggestion.

The article described this comment by the Skolniks, "Suing medical providers for malpractice isn't about the money, they said. It's about accountability."

This isn't an article about tort reform. If it was just about the accountability, there is nothing in tort reform law that says you can't sue. It just limits the MONEY!. Hello! You said it wasn't about the money. You can still hold the physician accountable if there is malpractice.

The opposition to tort reform is about the money. Plain and simple.