10-23-2020, 02:53 PM
(10-23-2020, 01:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I never claimed there wasn't.
Usually, not. I've never had to put anyone in physical or chemical restraints. I've only be subjected to yelling and threats to the point other patients asked if they should leave because they feared for their safety.
The hospital has malpractice insurance for me that protects the hospital. It does not protect me personally. If I want to protect my "house, life savings, and college fund" I need to purchase additional malpractice insurance individually on my own.
Yes, I was aware of this, but I suppose I didn't make the distinction clear.
Quote:Maybe. Maybe not. I was under the impression the lawyers sue whomever they can sue including both the individual and the institution. Since doctors in general earn more than police officers I don't see a financial incentive to sue police officers individually, but not doctors. But, as you know, that's just speculation on both our parts.
There isn't one right now because you can't. If you could then you'd see organized crime, e.g. gangs, Mexican mafia, cartels, etc. paying large sums of money to people to set up effective LEO's for personal law suits. That kind of organized opposition is not something you're going to see in medical malpractice
Quote:There is an idiom among medical providers which goes something like this, "Patients lie." Don't take my word for it. Ask around. I'm sure they don't lie as prodigiously as criminals.
I have no doubt. Especially during a lawsuit.
Quote:I chuckle at the idea there is no "he said, she said" at a malpractice suit. Lawyers are gonna do their lawyer thing.
Also, to be sure. There are some key differences though. One, you have a record of what was done and when. You have lots of witnesses to such records. While I know it's not as cut and dry as this, there's a far difference between actions taken within a hospital or clinic and what occurs in an alleyway at three in the morning when the only witnesses are the officer and the plaintiff.
Quote:I can only imagine your reaction if I had actually suggested ending qualified immunity rather than pointing out just one other profession that could lose their "house, life savings, and college fund" due to an on the job decision or action. But, I'm kinda sick of seeing cops shoot suspects in the back running away from a traffic stop, or punching a reporter in the face with a riot shield for no reason, or body slamming the wrong suspect into the ground breaking their arm over a case of mistaken identity because the officer didn't take 30 seconds to ask what was going on, or destroy a half a million dollar house to arrest an armed shoplifter and then offer $5000 in damages. So I'd like to see police officers show a little more responsibility.
I can understand your point of view, but for reasons I've hoped I've come close to adequately explaining, I don't see the risk to medical practitioners as being as extreme. I could add that medical malpractice kills over 100,000 people per year, which is more than ten times the number of people killed by law enforcement in any fashion (traffic accidents, shootings, etc.). Of course a large percentage of those killed by law enforcement were justifiably killed.
No one, especially a good LEO, wants to see LEO's abusing their position. It's not as widespread as is currently claimed and it didn't occur every time it is alleged. That doesn't mean there isn't work to do in this regard, but ending qualified immunity is not one of the steps that should be involved in that process.
