Xequecal wrote:
It is almost impossible to know whether a bad outcome is due to malpractice. The doctor can do everything right and the outcome can still be bad. By the same token, the doctor can be horribly negligent and everything can still turn out fine. It all comes down to probability, which does not mesh well with the jury system.
When there's a bad outcome, all the plaintiff's lawyer has to do is go through the records and find one small mistake. This is easy, because nobody is perfect. He will then suggest that this mistake caused the bad outcome. Most of the time, it is possible that it did. But where is the cutoff? At what probability is the doctor guilty? There's no guidelines, the jury has to decide on their own. So malpractice cases come down to which lawyer is more eloquent, how many Robin Hoods you get on the jury, etc. It's really not a problem you can solve while we use the jury system.
I think you need to learn more about the distinction between malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence. No offense intended.