Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Compensation as a right?

By Valerie Yule - posted Monday, 8 October 2007


Some proposals for reform have included compulsory professional indemnity insurance as a pre-requisite for medical registration, mandatory reporting of medical negligence litigation to enable a database to be built up, compulsory mediation for cases, capping damages, use of structured settlements to assure less unpredictable outcomes of litigation, and Good Samaritan legislation to protect doctors giving assistance in emergencies.

But can there be alternatives to the common law tort system for compensating adverse medical outcomes? It could seem fairer if on the one hand, evidence of gross negligence provided by victims is vigorously pursued by authorities so that incompetent doctors do not continue practice and grossly negligent ones are punished, and on the other hand, victims of health disasters are provided with the necessities for their care by the state without having to litigate.

In Australia there are already no-fault compensation schemes for workers compensation and injuries in motor vehicle accidents, and these could well be extended to a no-fault scheme for medical adverse outcomes, as in New Zealand, funded in a similar way.

Advertisement

This would have many consequences beyond the immediate issues of equity for victims of accidents, lowering medical costs, less anxiety for doctors without lessening of responsibilities, and less general waste of human resources - and even less waste of paper - as in current litigation.

In our individualist society, we often do not realise that what individuals do can have multiple and ramified social consequences.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Valerie Yule is a writer and researcher on imagination, literacy and social issues.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Valerie Yule
Related Links
ACC Medical indemnity insurance - third monitoring report
Fact sheet on Medical indemnity insurance: affordable and secure
Rachel Callinan. Medical Negligence and Professional Indemnity Insurance Background Paper No 02/2001
The growth in professional indemnity - Insurance House Group

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Valerie Yule
Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy