Malpractice bill stirs discussion, raises moral questions

Catholic health care providers should raise a number of ethical considerations in the debate surrounding the Moore-Gephardt bill, which would establish an alternative malpractice liability system. The proposal encourages states to enact legislation under which providers and patients would reach settlements that compensate for economic losses resulting from negligent treatment. In states that do not enact such laws, HR 5400 would apply to federal program patients only. Under the proposal, if a health care provider who is potentially liable for malpractice offers to compensate for the patient's actual economic loss, the patient would be forever barred from bringing a malpractice suit against the provider. The recovery would be limited to the individual's net economic loss. Though the bill's sponsors have performed a considerable service in identifying a major problem and generating public discussion, the bill raises several important moral questions. How much "defensive medicine," for example, is actually prudent practice that is in patients' best interests? Will thorough and holistic care be sacrificed in the proposal's attempt to save money? If states do not enact an alternative liability system for all patients and the proposal affects only federal program patients, will the result be disproportionate treatment among categories of patients? And is it fair to deny persons recovery for their emotional distress, physical impairment, pain and suffering, and similar kinds of damages? These are but a few of the issues that Catholic providers should raise in the debate, which otherwise might well be oriented toward fiscal concerns only.