[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.247.205. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
August 16, 2000

The Past and Future of Medical Malpractice Litigation—Reply

Author Affiliations
 

Stephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Contributing EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Executive Deputy EditorIndividualAuthor

JAMA. 2000;284(7):827-829. doi:10.1001/jama.284.7.827

In Reply: Dr Migden expresses common, and understandable, frustration with the medical malpractice system in the United States. However, his implied solution, that physicians should not provide expert testimony in negligence cases, is not reasonable. In making his arguments, Migden compares expert testimony with peer review. While I certainly understand the analogy, it is not sound.

These 2 systems—medical malpractice in the courts and peer review in hospitals—are intended for different, but related, purposes. The peer review system is not designed to absolve physicians from responsibility for their negligence, although that is sometimes the result. Rather, peer review (and the associated legal privileges given to it) is intended to encourage honest and full reporting of adverse events by physicians and careful evaluation of quality by hospitals. Peer review provides an opportunity for health care organizations and physicians to learn from their mistakes and put in place systems to reduce future risks to patients.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×