The judicial system (particularly in the USA) has a significant role in the practice of "defensive medicine".
Defensive medicine is the tendency for physicians to perform unecessary and often more expensive test with little additional benefit. The desire or need to have an absolute certainty of a diagnosis to prevent claims of medical negligence ("malpractice")
The recent withdrawal of Vioxx, a medication with sales exceeding 1 Billion dollars annual - and literally thousands of individual lawsuits filed against the manufacturer (Merck) is an example of the risks physicians, hospitals, and manufacturers face in the courts.
One can argue that the courts act as a system to insure the quality of care, by threatning physicians, hospitals and manufacturers who do not maintain quality care with legal (financial) consequences. The problem with this argument, is the fact that legal decision are made AFTER the fact - when the answer is known, where medical decisions are made in a more urgent setting, when the answer is unknown. Also decision are made by a jury - based on their review of competing expert testimony - people who are poorly trained to review and evaluate highly technical data.
The case against silicone breast implants where billions of dollars were awarded with very little objective scientific evidence supporting the claims made by "vicitim", sympathetic "victims" were put up against a cold and "uncaring" multinational chemical industry...the "victims" won the case
__________________
Please click "ACCEPT" if I answered your question to your satisfaction so that I may get credit for my work.
If you AREN'T satisfied, please ask for clarification or more information.
