Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I was thinking about this.

Rather than litigate a malpractice case, how about guilt or malpractice be settled by a tribunal of blind peers? In other words, they don't know who the doctor is - they are simply presented with the facts of the patient and the doctor's OR report.

Let them decide if mistakes were made. Then, when settled, arbiters step in and negotiate a reasonable settlement.

No courtroom, no juries, no expert witnesses.

This sounds like a really good idea, but self-regulated industries are notoriously bad at holding their own members accountable for bad actions. Seriously, in principal I like it, but in practice many people responsible for malpractice would get away with it. There's very little incentive for doctors to find malpractice--at the most basic level, it would increase their insurance rates. We see this problem in the legal community, which effectively regulates itself (most of the time).

Medina, if every government action regulating a market leads necessarily to communism, then every executive order leads to facism. Neither is true. But responding to criticism of our current medical system--which you just pointed out is a giant cluster--by accusing someone of advocating for communism and mass death is a bit much.

FYI, Pol Pot comes in a respectable 7th for worst mass murderes in the last 150 years. Mao, Hitler, the often forgotten King Leopold II (Belgium), Stalin, Tojo, and also forgotten Enver (of Turkey) were all responsible for more non-combat-related deaths. Hitler, Leopold II, Tojo, and Enver were not communists or socialists. Hitler was a facsist, and an enemy of socialism (and communism). Indeed, the USSR/Stalin saw England and Germany as the two biggest enemies of communism. Enver joined the side of the Whites--who fought against the Bolsheviks in the Russian civil war.

I know you say Stalin was a bad guy, but at least he was from Georgia.

My impression is that the French system is "OK" for France.  They want to keep it despite some issues.  Would it work here?  Maybe.  Hard to transition.

I think the primary reason we don't have it is the way our income taxes were structured back in the day.

I was raised Catholic and Confirmed. Married Catholic and divorced.

Same for my wife now, of over 28 years.

I'm not so sure I would require an annulment, as I was not confirmed until after my divorce. So...

We looked into annulments. She did not want to make her boys bastards, was one thing, but not a big thing. The others were the "donation" required and the fact that we were to write essays on our prior marriages, and all the details of same. There were a lot of hoops to jump through.

Nope.

I know you say Stalin was a bad guy, but at least he was from Georgia.

A dawg indeed

I was thinking about this.

Rather than litigate a malpractice case, how about guilt or malpractice be settled by a tribunal of blind peers? In other words, they don't know who the doctor is - they are simply presented with the facts of the patient and the doctor's OR report.

Let them decide if mistakes were made. Then, when settled, arbiters step in and negotiate a reasonable settlement.

No courtroom, no juries, no expert witnesses.

Going with pure “peers” probably puts a thumb a bit more toward doctors, less toward patients. But it we’re fine with that, maybe works?