Well, in my defense, I was 5 years younger (and less experienced) when I first proposed this.
I do still think that it’s a topic worthy of discussion.
Drs protect Drs.
My father in law was killed by his dr. He was sick and hid dr kept telling he only had a lung infection. Several trips to the ER after several months x-rays showed spots in his lungs, dr conclusion he had gotten dirt in his lungs.
We ended taking him to an other dr in a different city. His conclusion was good and bad news. Good news He had single cell lung cancer, easily cured in the early stages. Bad news he was in the final stages.
Turns out his dr himself had cancer and was taking meds that caused him to not think clearly. Would the drs keep this sick man from praticing medicine or demand over sight, no they felt sorry for him and did nothing.
The dr in San Jose after finding out that my FIL was already seeing a dr that had diagnosed him wrong only refered him back to the same dr.
This happened this year to my mother in law. Her dr has lost hospital privlages in all the hospitals in the SantA Cruz county because he is dangerous. He miss diagnoses enough patcients that the hospitals are afraid of being sucked in on a malpratice case. Not only will the other drs not step in and start an investigation to see if he should have his licience pulled they are will to help him continue praticing medicine.
I do not know what the numbers are today but I will never forget a news story from 1973. That was the year that malpratice insurance rates began to climb. The drs in California were planning on a strike to force a change. The insurance companies countered by releasing some statics. In 1972 only 2 doctors were brought on charges by the AMA and lost their liciences in the state. Both went to jail because of what they did. but by the AMA’s by laws each could get their liciences returned by asking when they got out of jail.
Drs have covered vor each other for years and will continue to do so.
Go with juries and lets have each call their expert witness to explain what went wrong. Calling for only medical juries would be a bad start. A family member gets hurt in an escalator or elevator do you only want someone from the elevator company or the union on the jury? I would think not.
How about having jurors just made up of people who were injured by malpractice? That would be silly, as would just having medical professionals. The point is not to have doctors treated fairly, it’s to have both litigants treated fairly.
I wouldn’t fancy your chances. Sure, at least 3 of them would vouch that you’re the best buddy they’ve ever had in the world, but 3 more would be moved to tears by what you did and wonder what’s the point of letting you or *anyone *live after that, when all is said and done and you get right down to it, inna final analysis.
The rest would just rush the defendant stand to punch you in the face.