Module VI

With all of the papers and discussion postings lately I have stumbled upon some interesting subjects, especially Amendment 8. I thought it might be an unusual topic to cover since it is not too often that legislation is an ethical issue but it did have some interesting parameters. One of the most interesting points I found was that the general public was slightly misled by its description on voting day. I remember voting during this election and if I had not known the details through my professors of what it would really mean to Floridians I probably would have voted for it. This makes me concerned about what other policy I have voted for thinking that it would produce benefit for the community. When the ballot was worded it was very one-sided stating that physicians with three incidents of medical malpractice incidents would be revoked of their license. However, what did it mean by "incident" or "physician"? However, why only target physicians? Why not chiropractors, alternative medicine practitioners, physical therapist etc.? I did not know this but the language was so ambiguous that there was a temporary injunction on it. Unfortunately, it did not last long. Some have even referred to this amendment as the amendment of unintended consequences.

Has Amendment 8 really produced any benefit for the community? So far the only results have been physicians leaving the state, an increase in medical malpractice insurance and more cases being settled out of fear. One of the worse things that both Amendment 7 and 8 have produced is a paranoia for physicians playing it safe. Since patients know that physicians will settle most of the time it won't encourage physicians to come clean about mistakes willingly. However, as we all know, the best policy to have when mistakes are made is an open communication policy where staff can learn from mistakes and patients are apologized to. Is the state encouraging this with Amendment 7 and 8?

This week module discusses the ethics of competition. In most cases competition is healthy for health care in that it forces facilities to improve quality and lower its unnecessary costs. However, what about the non-profit hospitals whose main consumer is the indigent? The Orlando Area in particular has so many hospitals that are in a constant state of competition. Are they considering the effects on the hometown safety net?