Patient Liability Waiver

[BuddhaCanooda]

I was thinking about the liability waiver forms I had to sign on a scuba diving trip I took and wondered whether this is something anesthesiologists and other docs should have their patients sign?

The statute of limitations in my current state (GA) is three yrs and is higher in other states. Total BS to have that long a "liability period". No other industry in the US is expected to or does perform at a level of perfection, however we are held to near-perfect standards (well except at the VA).

As far as I can tell there is nothing illegal (at least here in GA) about making people sign such waivers. But it is poor form from a public policy perspective. Should we care that other industries do have such waivers but we have to expose ourselves fully to all kinds of BS? After all, why not sue to get something for nothing, it's the (new) American Way!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Apollyon]

After all, why not sue to get something for nothing, it's the (new) American Way!

a/k/a "Jackpot Justice"

 

[coprolalia]

Patients don't sign waivers. It's unethical and not permitted by law. The only liability waivers patients can sign is one that releases the hospital from the actions of an independent contractor.

You have a fiduciary responsibility to your patient. If you commit malpractice, then the patient does not have to waive their legal rights before an incident if subsequent damages occur. What a lot of people don't understand (including many juries) is what constitutes malpractice.

These are the four elements of medical malpractice (from Wikipedia, which is an excellent article everyone should read):

A plaintiff must establish all four elements of the tort of negligence for a successful medical malpractice claim.[1]

1. A duty was owed - a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient.
2. A duty was breached -- the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard of care. The standard of care is proved by expert testimony or by obvious errors (the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor or 'the thing speaks for itself').
3. The breach caused an injury -- The breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury.
4. Damages -- Without damages (losses which may be pecuniary or emotional), there is no basis for a claim, regardless of whether the medical provider was negligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice

How you fix this problem (i.e., the one you are alluding to) is to demand payment up-front before services are rendered. If we could re-invent the system so that patients would not be seen before a retainer was paid, just like lawyers get, then the new legal argument could be that no duty was owed. First, though, you have to completely do away with EMTALA.

-copro

 

[deleted126335]

.