Judge other police officers in a police brutality case? Or would you think that the bond that police officers share with each other would make them biased in favor of other officers?
If the idea of cops judging cops sounds bad to you, then perhaps you’d also oppose this:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's willingness to consider alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits is providing a boost for taking such cases out of the courtroom and letting experts, not juries, decide their merits.
The idea of appointing neutral experts to sift malpractice facts from allegations appeals to conservatives in both political parties. They want to address medical liability as part of health care legislation that's now largely silent on the issue. Trial lawyers remain steadfastly opposed to curbs.
Source: New malpractice idea in health care debate - washingtonpost.com
Doctors, like police officers, are part of a brotherhood with strong bonds and long traditions. One of those traditions is to back each other up. Those of us who live in the real world know that police officers can and do lie to protect each other. We also know that doctors do the same. And if a given doctor won’t lie to protect a fellow doctor, that doesn’t mean he or she will be willing to rule against the same doctor.
I submit that it will be close to impossible to find “neutral experts” to sit in judgment of a case. Even if I’m wrong, all experts don’t see a case the same way. If neutral expert A thinks that a doctor violated the standard of care, but neutral expert B does not, how are we any better off letting experts come to a decision than by letting lay jurors? We’re not. We’re going to get a verdict that is the product of compromise; baby-splitting.
What’s one of the fundamental instructions given to jurors? Not to research the case on their own. Why? Because we don’t want them making decisions based upon evidence that hasn’t been shown to be relevant and reliable. Try telling doctors to forget everything they learned in medical school and judge the case based only upon the evidence admitted in the case. Another impossible task.
I’ve got a better idea. If we’re going to overhaul the medical system, and we’re determined to change medical malpractice law, how about this? We do a government-funded, single-payer medical system. Everyone gets the same good level of medical care. Those who want to purchase additional coverage (Cadillac plans) may do so. In exchange, medical negligence lawsuits are eliminated in favor of a no-fault, workers-compensation-style system. When a medical procedure has an adverse outcome, fault is no longer an issue, and doctors don’t have to be sued. The only exceptions would be for gross malpractice, and the standard would be set high enough so that it would be a meaningful standard.
I love juries and jury trials. But I for one would be willing to trade my jury rights away for such a system.
Comments