As the debate over "health care reform" continues into Fall, the clanging voices of the tort reformers get louder.
"We can reduce the cost of medical care if we could just limit our liability when we kill people," they argue.
The next time you hear an argument about the government arbitrarily imposing a "cap" on medical malpractice damages, close your eyes and thing about 15 year old Michael Blankenship and the family he left behind.
Blankenship was a fighter. All his life he battled his autism. He was a winner.
He was a winner until his health care providers killed him with an overdose of narcotic medication. They killed him because, (their own words now)
our processes failed at multiple points.Yes, mistakes happen and this was an awful error made by several health care providers.
The real question is this: should the government arbitrarily decide that young Michael's valiant life was worth XX dollars before you know even one fact about he and his family or one fact about the comedy of errors that caused his death?
The answer is no-- this is a question for juries to decide.
You can read a
news report about the tragic death of Michael Blankenship and view the actual lawsuit here.
To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."
How much is your loved one's life worth? Why would it be more just for there to be a limit for pain and suffering than to let a jury decide the amount to be awarded?