Author Topic: Yet another controversial topic  (Read 3759 times)

Offline Roberto1223

  • Posts: 466
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Yet another controversial topic
« on: May 29, 2009, 10:00:15 PM »
ok so, i didnt know that soldiers didnt have the right to sue medical malpractice until i saw this news report. it has a shocking video you have to see in order for the "emotional appeal" to get ya.

I think that this right dosent exist for soldiers most probably because military doctors arent really experienced doctors and or university graduates. im not sure about that though.

what do you guys think?

should soldiers have the right to sue medical malpractice?

Take into consideration that:
 This should be a human right, and soldiers are humans (duh).
 They fight for our country!

heres the article and the video (watch the video).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/31/eveningnews/main3776580.shtml



Type your Arguments.

Offline Verex

  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2009, 10:26:00 PM »
Thats really sad. That guy deserves more, alot more. I dont really have much to say but, if that guy serves his country, and all that, he should have the right to everything like a normal citizen and not used as just a disposable asset in the military.

Offline Tidenburg

  • Posts: 1050
  • Karma: +3/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2009, 11:34:52 PM »
In my opinion they give up this human right when they sign up. They are made AWARE this could happen (being injured and such). They may fight for our countries but whether what they're really doing is good or just is a matter of opinion.

Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2009, 11:56:39 PM »
I don't think it's very controversial.   I'm sure most people agree that it is unfair.  I would say it's unfair.  However, like Tidenburg said, it's kind of part of the job description.  Not saying it's a good thing, but that's the way it is.  Should it be changed?  Yeah.  Will it?  Not sure.

From what I gather this ruling was put in place because of one simple reason.  The medics on the field work in a hurry and work to save the life (regardless of what cost).  Now, if the medic had to amputate the legs to save a soldier's life, the soldier wouldn't sue if later it was found out that both legs didn't need to be amputated.  When in a hurry and under pressure (like the medics are) sometimes there is no time and sometimes there can be a bad choice made.  It's not fair to punish these medics, but it's also not fair to these soldiers who have to suffer.  The government doesn't want to lose money that it shouldn't.  This is the real controversy.  Where is the line?  Is there a line? 

I absolutely think that for things like this case (careless doctors at freaking military bases overlooking serious issues), there is a case for the soldiers who suffer.  Those doctors aren't being rushed.  Those doctors have a job to do, with plenty of resources and time I might add, and they don't do it.  In this case the soldier should have a right to sue.  Had the base been in the process of being attacked, and the doctor had to diagnose quickly, the soldier shouldn't sue.  (just an example)

What I'm getting at is that the resources and time the doctor had, basically the situation the doctor/medic was in, should be the deciding factors of whether or not the soldier has a case.

Offline Roberto1223

  • Posts: 466
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2009, 12:43:27 AM »
I completely agree with Papaskull.

"The government doesn't want to lose money that it shouldn't"  -- makes me think about a lot of stuff  ???


the governments misplaced budget plans

the 'priority' expenditures

etc.

shouldnt the misuse of the taxpayer's money be considered a loss of money by the government?

 :-[
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 12:46:18 AM by Roberto1223 »

Offline Spekkio

  • Posts: 1738
  • Karma: +7/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2009, 01:01:36 AM »
In my opinion they give up this human right when they sign up. They are made AWARE this could happen (being injured and such). They may fight for our countries but whether what they're really doing is good or just is a matter of opinion.
Actually, while I was made aware that my job is hazardous, I was not made aware that I had no recourse if mistreated by medical personnel.

Papa,

Your entire post is contradictory. This issue isn't controversial, but you then outline an example similar to the one the article gives in which a soldier should have the right to sue the doctor. Which is it?

One thing I will say is that military medical can be very hit or miss. Right now, I'm in an area that doesn't have a large base. If I have an issue with THE doctor here (that's singular, and many people have), I have no other options available to me. TRICARE, the military insurance company, will not cover a visit to a private doctor unless it's considered an emergency and military medical personnel are not available.

Another thing that the peanut gallery should realize: The act used to deny military members from suing the government is a Congressional law; it is not military created policy. That is an important distinction, and one which many people fail to consider when discussing "controversial" military topics (DADT, for example, is a Congressional law as well).
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 01:29:50 AM by Spekkio »

Offline Kubanator

  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2009, 08:37:14 AM »
First off, this wasn't a medic. It was a doctor. He's in an office. He has all the time in the world to diagnose. He exists for conditions like flu, or asthma or whatnot.

Secondly, medical professionals are ALWAYS liable. Maybe not negligent, but always liable. Even if the soldier collapsed and died in the office, and the doctor just finished saying hello, he's still liable.

Finally, this law won't be changed. As so as you allow negligence within the military, every single soldier who ever gets healed will sue. He has 7 years to do so, and I'm sure that there will be some negative byproduct of removing bullets from a person.

Honestly, my belief is that war is childish. It's simply created so that people who don't have the intelligence and tact to negotiate can simply attempt to force their wishes onto other people. The smarter people simply hide behind these soldiers, handing them orders, giving them views to follow.

Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2009, 08:56:28 AM »
@Spekkio: 

I was saying that if most people agree then it's not very controversial.  The only possible "controversy" I could think of I talked about in the post.  Didn't contradict.

Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2009, 09:00:57 AM »


shouldnt the misuse of the taxpayer's money be considered a loss of money by the government?

 :-[

Umm, I guess for us it would seem so.  But when the money goes to little pet projects the government would fund with all the money in their piggy banks, no loss for them.  Stimulus bill?  Any reasonable person recognizes the millions (scratch that, billions) that went to crap.

Offline Roberto1223

  • Posts: 466
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2009, 10:01:26 PM »
@Spekkio: 

I was saying that if most people agree then it's not very controversial.  The only possible "controversy" I could think of I talked about in the post.  Didn't contradict.


well now i disagree; the topic IS controversial because if the law exists then it means that there is people defending it. duh? and it u think of it, the government is conformed by PEOPLE! so dont go on saying "well nobody is really defending it, its just the government".

so just leave that "this isnt controversial" pseudoargument aside...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________


I the other hand, i still agree that the doctor was careless, and that in this particular case scenario, the soldier should have the right to sue.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________


@ Kubanator: i think that it is possible for this law to change. maybe it is possible to make it more specific to prevent similar accidents from happening in the future.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

@ Tindenburg: "In my opinion they give up this human right when they sign up". Well, i personally havent seen a contract for joining the army or marines, but then again, neither have you right?




Offline Spekkio

  • Posts: 1738
  • Karma: +7/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2009, 12:59:28 AM »
Quote
@ Kubanator: i think that it is possible for this law to change. maybe it is possible to make it more specific to prevent similar accidents from happening in the future.
I doubt it will change. Only about 5% of the U.S. population ever serves in the military, so most people don't have any interest in the law one way or another. Of those who serve, a large portion are unaware of the law. Of those that are aware, a large portion are conservative-minded individuals who probably believe that "frivolous lawsuits" are the cause of our high medical costs. You also have to add in the fact that under the UCMJ, we are not able to speak out against the government as servicemembers.

Point being, it's unlikely that you're going to find a strong, galvanized group of individuals dedicated to getting the law changed.

EDIT: One thing about which I haven't found a definitive answer: The law specifically states that servicemembers cannot sue for medical malpractice if the treatment was "for injuries sustained as a result of military service." This case does not fit that clause, so I'm actually curious how the courts have ruled in cases like these.

Quote
"In my opinion they give up this human right when they sign up". Well, i personally havent seen a contract for joining the army or marines, but then again, neither have you right?
Military enlistment contracts are all extremely similar. The only things that differ among them is branch of service, rating/MOS/whatever the army calls it, and any bonuses to be paid. You are right that Tindenburg is talking out of his ass.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 01:13:57 AM by Spekkio »

Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2009, 02:11:30 AM »
Do any of us disagree that this is unfair to the troops?

Offline Bubbaganoosh

  • Posts: 138
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2009, 03:45:39 PM »
"When he enlisted in 1997, from his initial medical checkup - you know what I mean, physical - the doctor documented that he had melanoma, but never told him 'have anyone follow up on it,'" Ferraro said. "And that was back in '97. If we would have known back in '97, he would still be with us."

So does this mean the doctor documented it but never told him anything? If that's the case I think that doctor should be removed from medical practice and busted down to janitor. I think it's a case of let them pass the physical unless they are totaly fucked. I mean near blind or flat feet or whatever. The military has a hard time getting people to join don't they? could it be coming down from higher up that a little thing like melenoma is ok to let them into service?
"It is a well-documented fact that if you smoke weed you will become a terrorist."  - Farley4Fan
Well it made me lol.

Offline Spekkio

  • Posts: 1738
  • Karma: +7/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2009, 01:00:44 AM »
"When he enlisted in 1997, from his initial medical checkup - you know what I mean, physical - the doctor documented that he had melanoma, but never told him 'have anyone follow up on it,'" Ferraro said. "And that was back in '97. If we would have known back in '97, he would still be with us."

So does this mean the doctor documented it but never told him anything? If that's the case I think that doctor should be removed from medical practice and busted down to janitor. I think it's a case of let them pass the physical unless they are totaly fucked. I mean near blind or flat feet or whatever. The military has a hard time getting people to join don't they? could it be coming down from higher up that a little thing like melenoma is ok to let them into service?
This is where it gets gray, and I can't really conjecture anything either way with any sort of accuracy...I know that, as an officer, I have direct access to my medical records everytime I change commands. In fact, I am responsible for maintaining a copy of those records. However, I do not know if enlisted personnel have the same kind of access as we do to their records. I do know that they aren't responsible for maintaining and transporting their medical records like we are, so it's quite possible that he was never made aware of the report. I'll try to find out more regarding that when I go back to work next week.

OTOH, I don't know why he never raised the issue to his CoC if he felt that he was being mistreated by medical. Playing devil's advocate, it's quite plausible that he thought the condition might disqualify him from service, and decided to just hope it got better on its own.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 01:02:16 AM by Spekkio »

Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another controversial topic
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2009, 04:43:59 PM »
Wait a minute.  So now the soldier knew he had melanoma in 97?  And he believed the other doctor when he said he just had a friggin wart?  Seems like both parties are at fault here, tbh.  I guess it was more complicated than it sounds.

Regardless of what really happened the other doctor should be removed from practice.