From a story reported in the NYTimes:


Do you think that doctors have a right to know of the malpractice lawsuits of their patients?

Do You think they should be able to turn down patients due to malpractice lawsuits?

Send me a PM if you don't have an NYTimes account.

Central to capitalism is freedom to do business with whom you wish, as long as it doesn't break some basic anti-discrimination laws.

I think it is an outstanding check to some behaviors.

Well how about this couple? Should they be denied treatment from the fields most prominent doctors because they had the audacity to sue a doctor that was hoped up on pain killers and ended up doing harm. Whatever happened to:

Should they add, but if we do we have the right to refuse service if they seek reparations?

Yes, but a doctor has a right to deny anyone as a patient as long as they can reasonably find emergency care elsewhere- and a doctor is not obligated in any way to take any patient that is forced on him if it is not an immediate life threatening situation.

I agree with your court case, and there should be a web site detailing HIM as well!

Do you think that doctors have a right to know of the malpractice lawsuits of their patients?

Yes! Not only has the cost of malpractice insurance escalated but so have the number of frivolous law suits. Combined with insurance regulations, malpractice insurance costs, and increasing law suits, some doctors are forced to go out of business or move and start over practicing medicine in another state where they have more protection.

Once again...there are some real jerks out to make bucks any way they can and what better way than to sue a rich doctor? Unfortunately, the rest of us are having to wade through the filters set up for the doctors' protection against these dishonest people.

Do You think they should be able to turn down patients due to malpractice lawsuits?

Yes! If the doctors are acting within the law of their profession and State law, they have every right to provide or deny their services. Unfortunately, this option will have an impact upon the innocents and the legitimates.

Well tell me, since you agree with the case why should he be blacklisted? He did not do anything wrong, it was a legitimate case. Would you include doctors with questionable practices on your list as well. For example, a doctor in the ER who has a large number of patients who die to the critical condition they arrive in?

Oh absolutely Rev- I would love to see that advertised, and there has been several attempts to do just that, they have been heavily lobbied against by the AMA as "unfair" to the doctors LOL

Since its public information anyway, yes.



This is a trickier question - I understand the very real economic reasons for doing so, but then the altruistic "I want to help people" side of me cries out that's ridiculous and no doctor should ever use such base reasons for refusing to care for a patient in need. Also, the few malpractice suits I have heard of outside of obstetrics usually sound like the case cited - they have very real merits. This is my limited experience of course, but just knowing about cases like this tells me just because someone is involved in a malpractice suit does not mean the person is just waiting for me to slip up in their care so they can sue me. I bet in the cases with real merit (especially those in which there was permanent physical damage), the patient will probably volunteer they were involved in a suit and probably would more or less interview the doctor to discover if s/he was competent. Anytime a doctor does something that seriously breeches the doctor-patient trust, the patient is bound to be hesitant about any future interactions with doctors.

In the end, I doubt most doctors would seriously look at a so called "blacklist" just because of the sheer number of not only those on the list, but the amount of patients - and few doctors outside of general family practice have the luxury of knowing who their patient will be before they show up.

Of course, the doctor does have the right to refuse care to any patient who s/he believes will reasonably be able to find care elsewhere, or if the doctor feels s/he would end up in physical danger by treating the patient. Thus, a dcotor is not obligated to run into the middle of a gun-fire fight to start treating the injured or rush into a burning building to help burn victims.

Yes, but a doctor has a right to deny anyone as a patient as long as they can reasonably find emergency care elsewhere.
-- CruisingRam

I think you mean the doctor can refuse to prescribe medication (as in birth control) or perform a procedure (as in a C-section at the woman's request) if either goes against their religious/moral beliefs. However, under law they are required to refer the patient to another doctor.

Do you think that doctors have a right to know of the malpractice lawsuits of their patients?

Tit for tat. Put up a website dedicated to singling out doctors that have botched up surgery or made other terrible mistakes. Question is, who does the qualifying? In this Texas site, did anyone check for the veracity of these lawsuits or were they treated with equal disdain? The government isn't allowed to put up names of dishonest patients and practitioners, and honestly, I wouldn't trust the government to that. The Texas venture sounds like vigilatism to me, and that never has a nice ring. :)

Do you think they should be able to turn down patients due to malpractice lawsuits?

No. There could be very legitimate reasons to file malpractice lawsuits in spite of frivolous lawsuits. Everyone deserves their day in court, and doctors shouldn't penalize patients for using our legal system. Tort reform, IMO, is where we should start instead of getting caught up in the virtues and shortcomings of political ideology.

I agree with Lesly. Doctors have a right to know if patients have a history of malpractice lawsuits, but patients also have a right to know if their doctor has been sued for malpractice in the past. I would add one exception to each of these statements-ONLY lawsuits that were lost should be shown. For example, doctors should have access to a list of patients who have LOST malpractice lawsuits. Patients should ONLY have access to a list of doctors who have LOST malpractice suits. This will help account for the frivolous suits and not penalize patients who actually had a legititmate suit.

While dcotors should have access to a patient list, they should not be able to turn down patients simply because of this list.