Well the debate is clear, should the United States government impose a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice claims? The answer however, is what is not clear. For my part in the group presentation I argued there should be no medical malpractice cap. I don"t think that any one person, or governmental body, should be able to put a price on human life. Every case is different, and every story has two sides, so how can a cap be put in place before a jury or judge even hears the victim's story? This, among other reasons, is why I believe no nationwide cap should be placed on medical malpractice claims.
When you think about George W. Bush and the United States government putting a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice claims, ask yourself a few questions first. Is $250,000 enough compensation to live with 25, 30 or 50 years of pain or disfigurement? Is $250,000 enough compensation for lifetime confinement to a wheel chair? Or how about not being able to bear children, is $250,000 a fair amount of compensation for such a devastatingly emotional void? I personally don"t think any of these life-altering situations deserve to have a dollar amount placed on them. .
How is this for a statistic? To a 20 year old surviving winner of a medical malpractice case, who lives to age 77, an award of $250,000 equals an average of $12 a day. If you figure in the amount of money it would cost to have a lawyer defend you in your malpractice case, this lifetime average drops to just $8 a day. That's $8 a day for the rest of your life, for managing all physical pain and suffering and dealing with any emotional aspects brought on by a physician's mistake. It would be nearly impossible for an average, healthy individual to live off of $8 a day, let alone a disabled individual who may unable to work and depends on that $8 a day for their entire salary. .
The main argument for a malpractice cap is that fact that doctor's insurance premiums are so high that many doctors are being forced out of practice.
