Medical Economics magazine takes a look at proposals for "no-fault" compensation for iatrogenic (doctor-caused) injury, and the difficulty of keeping such arrangements from getting bogged down in factual disputes over injury causation (or ballooning into general schemes for the compensation of bad results in medicine generally, at untold expense). Includes a sidebar about how two very different systems of no-fault work in New Zealand and Sweden (Gail Garfinkel Weiss, "Malpractice: Can no-fault work?", Medical Economics, Jun. 4). Last year the same publication explored lessons from other countries' medical liability systems (Robert Lowes, "Malpractice: Do other countries hold the key?", Jul. 25, 2003).
Med-mal: no-fault, and lessons from abroad
- Medical malpractice reform passes House
- Federal constitutional challenge to Texas tort reform rejected
- HR 5
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Arafiles update
- Around the web, July 27
- Around the web, June 24
- Around the web, June 16
- Illusory medical malpractice reform in New York
- "Intent to Harm"
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Around the web, May 23
- The constitutionality of HR 5
- Trial lawyers lobbying heavily to block federal medical liability reform
- "Have Policy Debates on Liability Reform Overemphasized States' Rights?"