Personal Injury Law

Conservative Reasons to Oppose Medical Malpractice ?Reform?

By Steven M. Levin and John J. Perconti

Earlier this week we shared information from the 7th Amendment Advocate that put the debate about tort reform into a constitutional context. Respect for the Bill of Right demands that all of the guarantees promised by our Founders be understood and protected. That includes the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil matters. Doing otherwise would undermine the important Constitutional mandate, increase the scope of the federal government power, and limit the rights of individual citizens?all things most conservatives work to reject.

The 7th Amendment Advocate created a laundry list of specific reasons that all constitutional conservatives should stand arm in arm against so-called malpractice reforms (like the recently introduced bill in Congress, H.R. 5).

For example, the 10th Amendment specifically protects states? rights. But that federalism principle is destroyed with blanket rules forced upon all states and individuals by Congress. In addition, the passage of this ?reform? would simply require more government spending, because victims would be forced to seek public assistance to recover their losses. If the doctors and businesses who negligently cause mistakes are not forced to pay for the losses caused than that duty will fall to the public at large through increased Medicare and Medicaid payments.

The fact remains that the undermining of malpractice victim rights provides a stepping stone to the curtailing of many other rights. Freedoms for religion, gun owners, and the like are all up for grabs if the guarantees of our Founders are treated as little more than suggestions to be taken away upon the whim of certain powerful interests.

Full post as published by Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog on February 02, 2011 (boomark / email).