Dear Huan Yi,
You've well stated one side of the discussion. I would have to say that everything you say has something solid to it. You have omitted the other side of the question, which I suspect you are pretty much as clear about as I am, and which seems to me to have as much validity to it as the stuff you've stated so well.
You are not only right about neurology, but also about obstetrics in my opinion, which you didn't mention. It seems like everybody believes they have a right to a perfect baby, and it's the doctor's fault if it doesn't happen. Also people have ceased to regard death as the outcome of life, I think, in part because of the notion of "the miracle of modern medicine" have encouraged people to have distorted expectations about what doctors can do.
In part the malpractice business is the flip side of the expectations physicians — at least some of them — encourage in their patients.
This still doesn't mean that what you said isn't correct; it is.
But you haven't come to grips with the need for lawyers and for judgements in this area, nor have you connected it with what happens to patients without these protections. And I believe this needs to be done, that the problem be seen as a systemic problem, not simply a problem that the other guy has. And the the solution needs to be seen as a systems solution rather than getting the other guy to stop doing the stuff he or she's doing.
As long as everybody's pointing fingers at the other guy, nobody takes responsibility for his own behavior. He just claims he's acting the way the other guy made him. Mostly this is how to fail at finding a solution.
The Democrats are dependent on getting donations from trial lawyers? Certainly. They are also the ones who share the democratic and Democratic belief in civil liberties, and who are clearest about the need to stand up for it. You don't see or hear very much about that from the Republicans. Republicans are good about saying that Lawyers back Democrats, they aren't very good about talking about the spectrum of reasons why. Even you, Huan Yi, settled for the cheap shot, the reductio ad absurdum. You resist such silly underhanded jabs at military Honor, yet feel apparently quite secure in tossing them yourself at some of the cherished legal ideals around civil liberties and defending the underdog.
At the same time you refrain from suggesting those institutions that stand in what might be a similar relation to the Republican Party in the same debate, and refrain as well from speaking of their financial ties to the right wing in this country.
There are advantages to following such a single sided method of discussion. But you will probably have a very good idea of the decent responses to the issues you raise. The question in my mind is how do we define and get into the next discussion, the one where we talk about what the country needs for a decent health network, and how we might go about putting it together; then how we pay for it and allow ourselves to feel reasonably satisfied with it.
That's the discussion I want to have.
Yours, Bob Kaven