Medical Malpractice

How do we quantify pain and runing? This question should be answered satis itemorily before people could even attempt to debate whether or non to impose limitations on recovery in checkup malpractice cases. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to speak about limits on damage bootys without a standardized costing establishment which would guide the proper authorities to come up with a charming determination of the damages d unmatchable to victims of checkup malpractice.Since there is no such(prenominal) system, the task of ascertaining the period of damage inflicted on victims is usu every(prenominal)y left to the dry lands judicial system which decides the issue on a case-to-case basis. This world the case, ringting a maximum limit or a jacket on the amount that could be awarded to victims would be very difficult to disengage because such an act would be highly discriminatory.For instance, a uppercase of $200,000 would imagine that claimants could non be awarded with more than said amount. The unfairness of this system would be immediately evident in a situation where two individuals suffer the loss of their upper limbs, the first victim losing one and the turn in instrument panel from the loss of both limbs. The court could award $140,000 to the first victim who loses one limb, for example, but the claim of the sulfur victim would be limited to $200,000 scorn losing both limbs. What it would amount to is that the other limb lost by the second victim would only be compensated with $60,000. In this example, the second victim is not compensated fairly for his/her loss. Setting a capital letter thereof discriminates against the victim who suffers more. (Hiatt, 2002)Another question worth asking is Who stands to gain if we do limit recovery? If the first question tends to be highly contentious, this second question involves a cut-and-dried issue because the answer is rather obvious. putting a cap on awards granted in connection with medical malpra ctice cases favors only the medical practitioners who commit the act to the utter detriment of the victims. In other words, setting such a cap would treat the victims unfairly and favor the perpetrators. This, too, is discrimination. Some quarters attempt to justify this act by saying that providing for a maximum limit to recovery is a means of stemming the spiraling cost of health care in the country. Opponents, however, argue that this is not only deceptive but unconstitutional as well. (Hiatt, 2002)Critics of a cap on damage awards argue that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment which provides equal protection to all Americans. As illustrated earlier, a cap denies equal protection to those victims who suffer more, because they could not claim compensation beyond what the statutory cap allows. This was cited in Jones v. raise Board of Medicine where the court declared unconstitutional the 1975 Hospital-Medical Liability make believe passed by Idaho because it failed to treat vi ctims of malpractice equally. In other words under the Act, the claimants whose injuries were deemed downstairs the cap received full compensation while those whose damages exceeded the limit were denied the opportunity to recover fully because they were not awarded full compensation. (Hiatt, 2002)Another protestation voiced against putting a cap on damage awards is the fact that it violates the individuals right to trial by jury. Under the law, evaluating the extent of damages is a function of a jury. In the presence of a cap, the role of the jury is limited only up to the extent of the cap in effect, interfering with the constitutional duty of a jury. In Boyd v. Bulala, the whim of the federal district court was that the cap of $750,000 on damage awards set by the state of Virginia violated the right to trial by jury provided for by both federal and state constitutions. (Hiatt, 2002)It is clear from the foregoing treatment that limiting the recovery in medical malpractice cas es is very prejudicial to the interests of the victims. In the interest of fairness, every malpractice case should be deliberated on by a jury based on its own merits and the extent of damage award be assessed without the constraints of a cap. This will give every victim of medical malpractice cases the much-needed opportunity for a full recovery.ReferenceHiatt, M.D. (2002). Caps on Damage Awards in Medical Malpractice Cases ConstitutionalChallenges. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http//jpands.org/hacienda/hiatt1.html