FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2078961520> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2078961520 endingPage "1835" @default.
• W2078961520 startingPage "1835" @default.
• W2078961520 abstract "Dr Hyman and Prof Silver's1.Hyman DA Silver C Five myths of medical malpractice.Chest. 2013; 143: 222-227Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar article published in the Medical Ethics section of CHEST (January 2013) states that the system of resolving malpractice complaints is expensive. However, there was no discussion of the ethical dilemmas raised by the facts they present. In medical ethics, the principle of justice is often used to discuss the distribution of resources. Our fault-based system starts with the premise that a person injured by negligence is entitled to more resources than a person with an identical injury due to bad luck. This reflects a value judgment, and the system that arises from that judgment is expensive. The authors state that the direct costs of the malpractice system are about 2% of total health-care spending (ie, 2% of perhaps $2.6 trillion).1.Hyman DA Silver C Five myths of medical malpractice.Chest. 2013; 143: 222-227Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar Mello et al2.Mello MM Chandra A Gawande AA Studdert DM National costs of the medical liability system.Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29: 1569-1577Crossref PubMed Scopus (359) Google Scholar estimated that the cost of the malpractice system in 2008 dollars was $55.6 billion annually. The authors report that in a state of 25 million people (Texas) about 5,300 malpractice claims were made annually, and 20% resulted in payment, with an average jury verdict of $3 million.1.Hyman DA Silver C Five myths of medical malpractice.Chest. 2013; 143: 222-227Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar This means that about 1,060 claimants (0.0042% of the Texas population) were compensated by this system in Texas. So, our system spends $55.6 billion (a figure greater than the entire health-care budget in some developing countries) to benefit a very small proportion of the population. There are a variety of reasons for the cost. However, one reason cited by the authors is potentially ethically troubling for physicians: the high cost of expert witnesses.1.Hyman DA Silver C Five myths of medical malpractice.Chest. 2013; 143: 222-227Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar This raises the question: Even if the market will allow it, is it ethical for a physician to charge more per hour for services as an expert in a malpractice case than he or she is paid per hour for patient care services? Some might argue that no expense should be spared to compensate an injured patient, since no amount of money will ever be enough to make up for an injury. They might believe that $55.6 billion annually is too small an investment in the malpractice system. Others might suggest that the $55.6 billion could be better spent on improving public health or patient safety here in the United States or be spent on health care in resource-poor nations. Whatever your opinion, it is important to remember that the choices we make reflect our values. Ethics of the Malpractice System: ResponseCHESTVol. 143Issue 6PreviewWe are grateful for Dr Vest's comments on our article in CHEST.1 He raises three issues. First, Dr Vest suggests that doctors may not ethically charge more when testifying as experts than they do when treating patients. We find this suggestion puzzling. The market price for expert services reflects the supply of qualified individuals willing to perform them. Prices are high because tort reform has restricted the supply of those who can be experts and because physicians actively discourage one another from providing such services. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2078961520 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2078961520 creator A5063302734 @default.
• W2078961520 date "2013-06-01" @default.
• W2078961520 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2078961520 title "Ethics of the Malpractice System" @default.
• W2078961520 cites W2145204630 @default.
• W2078961520 cites W2103996899 @default.
• W2078961520 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0263" @default.
• W2078961520 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23732604" @default.
• W2078961520 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2078961520 type Work @default.
• W2078961520 sameAs 2078961520 @default.
• W2078961520 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2078961520 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2078961520 hasAuthorship W2078961520A5063302734 @default.
• W2078961520 hasBestOaLocation W20789615201 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C126086293 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C2910426306 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C514090530 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C118552586 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C126086293 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C139621336 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C17744445 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C199539241 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C2776119841 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C2776798817 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C2777381055 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C2779473830 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C2910426306 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C514090530 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C71924100 @default.
• W2078961520 hasConceptScore W2078961520C83867959 @default.
• W2078961520 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2078961520 hasLocation W20789615201 @default.
• W2078961520 hasLocation W20789615202 @default.
• W2078961520 hasOpenAccess W2078961520 @default.
• W2078961520 hasPrimaryLocation W20789615201 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W1979378995 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2022629753 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2048921808 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2090659140 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2111843027 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2564905594 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W2905137151 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W3123478169 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W3125748411 @default.
• W2078961520 hasRelatedWork W795071672 @default.
• W2078961520 hasVolume "143" @default.
• W2078961520 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2078961520 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2078961520 magId "2078961520" @default.
• W2078961520 workType "article" @default.