Quick primer on Taiwanese Healthcare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan

Note the section on Problems.

We are not heading down the penalty path in this country any more than we are trying to “sue our way” to better healthcare in this country. As you well know, the majority of malpractice doesn’t result in a claim. And when you look at the number of doctor/patient interactions and the number of criminal charges against physicians, it’s minimal.

The availability of medical care is, has been, and always will be a function of the wealth of a community. Poor people will always have fewer, and there will always be plenty of physicians to serve wealthy communities. Your hysterical pronouncements will not change that.

Go back and click on the article and read *why* the Taiwanese government is considering the bill. Actually, don’t bother. I wouldn’t want you to get more confused. Key paragraph:

“Malpractice claims proliferate in Taiwan and can result in severe penalties for medical personnel. As a result, domestic physicians tend to avoid fields such as surgery and emergency room treatment, according to the bill drafted by the Department of Health (DOH). The DOH developed the bill after the premier called for solutions to Taiwan’s dwindling pool of qualified physicians in the key departments.”

So in other words, Taiwan was suing its way to such good health care that it couldn’t find sufficient qualified physicians … because those “severe penalties” it was imposing are so good at improving quality and availability of health care.

Now Taiwan is trying to backpedal to attract more physicians. We’ll see if it works. Or maybe they can hire more lawyers. After all, trial lawyer Gerry Spence believes that trial lawyers are more important than doctors, anyway.

We’re heading down the “penalty” path in medical care in this country, also.

Watch to see how the availability of medical care is affected.

Glad I’m a doctor.

- this is a detailed plan of what the Taiwanese government is going to do. As far as I can see, it is a no-fault compensation scheme, a patient’s ombudsman and extra-judicial “arbitration” by some government official.

All of these things have already been tried in Norway and Sweden and have failed dismally. Difficult to see why the Taiwanese want to go down that road as well.

Key paragraph: “The bill, which is pending review in the Legislative Yuan, would make medical personnel liable for criminal punishment only if they acted with “malicious intent” or in violation of duty.”

This has nothing to do with malpractice cases. It has to do with criminal liability. These people would not be sued as in a civil case. The state would bring charges (assuming some similarity between their system and ours). I realize you’ve got a line to spew, but at least read your own links before hopping on the Jump to Conclusions Mat. I normally wouldn’t expect someone who isn’t a criminal or an attorney to catch the civil/criminal distinction, but you’ve put yourself out as such an expert on these matters it’s surprising you missed it.

But maybe it’s not your fault – maybe the tort reform newsletter the “reformers” sent you and you cut and pasted from wasn’t clear either.

A general question, though. To work at the hospital, we have to show proof of hepatitis B vaccination as well as varicella vaccination/positive antibody titers/documentation of chickenpox. I have heard no one complain about these mandatory vaccinations. What’s the difference?

But, alas, you are right. If a hospital requires it, this crap will surface.