Tijuana, Mexico
Z Case:
Summary: a young woman from New York City goes to Tijuana for a gastric sleeve surgery before her wedding; the physician accidentally ruptures her esophagus, and she is sent back to New York City while bleeding internally. She underwent several surgeries back in the USA trying to repair the damage and died in the hospital 2 months later.
Her family filed a lawsuit for medical practice, but after 3 years of litigating the case, the Court called an expert witness to determine if the doctor was at fault. It turns out the expert witness was a colleague of the surgeon. The case was dismissed.
Thoughts
Having physicians dictate the outcome in medical malpractice cases is often viewed as inappropriate for several reasons:
1. Conflict of Interest: Physicians involved in malpractice cases may have inherent biases. Their professional identity can conflict with the objectivity needed to evaluate another physician’s actions. This can lead to favoritism or a lack of impartiality.
2. Lack of Legal Expertise: While physicians possess valuable medical knowledge, they may lack the legal training necessary to understand and apply the relevant laws and standards in a malpractice case. This can result in decisions that are not fully aligned with legal principles.
3. Complexity of Medical Standards: Medical malpractice cases often involve nuanced interpretations of the standard of care, which can vary based on the context and specifics of each case. Physicians may struggle to navigate these complexities without an understanding of legal frameworks.
4. Jury Perspectives: In cases involving physician oversight, juries may perceive that physician opinions carry too much weight, possibly leading to bias in judgment. Jurors may be influenced by the status of medical professionals rather than focusing solely on the evidence presented.
5. Detachment from Medical Reality: Physicians may not adequately consider the broader implications of their decisions on patient care or community standards. Decisions made solely by physicians might not reflect the wider ethical and social responsibilities inherent in medical practice.
6. Limiting Diverse Perspectives: Relying exclusively on physicians may restrict the diversity of opinions in a case. Legal experts, ethicists, and laypersons can bring valuable insights that enhance understanding and lead to more balanced outcomes.
7. Professional Solidarity: A culture of solidarity among physicians can undermine accountability and discourage whistleblowing on malpractice. This protective environment may result in biased assessments of professional conduct.
8. Patient Advocacy: Patients deserve representation, prioritizing their rights and welfare. Decisions should reflect a balance of medical insights and legal principles, which physicians might not provide alone.
In summary, while physicians have critical knowledge of medical malpractice cases, relying exclusively on them to dictate outcomes can compromise the fairness and legality of the process. A multidisciplinary approach that includes legal experts and considers diverse perspectives is essential for achieving just outcomes in malpractice disputes. The importance of having attorney arbitrators in medical arbitrations cannot be overstated.