This might go to the issue of what should set the standard of care. 50 years ago, the standard depended on doctors’ practices. Where practices significantly vary among doctors and the science is debated, should doctors be given discretion?

JAMA, January 7, 2004—Vol 291, No.1, page 15-16

Plaintiff was awarded $1,000,000.

“The plaintiff’s lawyer was convincing. The jury sent a message…that they didn’t believe in evidence-based medicine. They also sent a message that they didn’t believe in the national guidelines and they didn’t trust the shared decision-making model. The plaintiff’s lawyer won.”

I’m guessing you learned that other states are passing these laws through “the media” as well. AP just had a critical story about an experimental sports medicine treatments. Wired devoted a whole issue to debunking the vaccine scare – an issue that has been covered extensively in general interest newspapers. “The media” hasn’t exactly been quiet on alternative treatments.

Sure, the conversation hasn’t been as vigorous as with other issues. But I think that says more about what the public cares about and is able to understand than it does about “the media.” They brought the dish to the pot luck. It’s not their fault if no one’s eating it.

You’re a doctor, so I’m sure this coverage doesn’t satisfy your preferences. But this is a single issue at a time when there are two wars, a health care overhaul, financial reform and any number of local government issues to cram into a shrinking number of pages (not to mention the much in-demand celebrity gossip that I’d just as soon see disappear altogether). Heck, I’d like to see more debate over tax increment financing districts, but that isn’t going to happen either.

“The media” can only hope to offer a cross-section of well-reported survey-type articles that hopefully pique readers’ curiosity enough to either stir discussion or prompt them to research the issue further in specialty publications.

Is that an actual case you mentioned there.

If so, it’s extraordinary – unless you live in America of course!
In Austrailia, the RACGP does not recommend routine screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, if a patient asks to be tested, the doctor must discuss the pros and cons before proceding to order that test.

It is possible that a patient who suffers incontinence and impotence from prostatectomy – which resulted from his doctor ordering that test – might end up suing his doctor for assault and battery when it is be pointed out to him that there is no proven benefit from prostatectomy – as evidenced by two large recent clinical trials.

Perhaps, in the end, doctors should just do what’s right for the patient, not what will save him from possible litigation.

For example, a colleague of mine saw a patient, spent quite a bit of time discussed pro/cons of PSA testing. Pt decided not to get tested, then got prostate cancer. Sued his doctor for not testing. And the patient won. Why? The plaintiff’s attorney had several primary care doctors testify they always check PSA, don’t even ask the patient…thus defining the “standard of care” for that case. By not checking PSA, my colleague was considered to be practice below the standard of care.

There is no legal concept of practicing medicine better than the current standard of care. If you not practicing current standard of care, you’re open to malpractice. A real shame.

An evil quack, stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the most vulnerable people and free to do so because of weakened government regulations he successfully campaigned for? I don’t think you have to be a skeptic or even a fan of science to appreciate the severity of something like that. I could even imagine Fox newcasters acting all indignant at this story. Of course as someone suggested it could easily go the other way but my point is what if someone like Steve actually just called up a few news organisations with this? Is it not worth a try?

Aren’t there grounds for legal action against a Board if it can be shown to be failing that duty (assuming there is one)?

If Board members could ultimately be held liable for the malpractice their rulings allow, it might make them think more carefully.

Now to cook up a big batch of Magic Turnip Oil (cures all known diseases, and hair loss) and find me a flight to Florida!

This surprises me. The media love a good “lone doctor vs the ebil establishment” piece.

So it’s probably best if the mainstream media “stays” quiet about this.