Finding fault

South of the border, the cost of litigation is normally cited by the right as the sole reason for spiralling health-care costs. But given an opportunity to correct any such problem while at the same time protecting injured patients, the Liberals have dropped the ball:

The judge who presided over the public inquiry into the tainted-blood tragedy is sharply criticizing the federal government for failing to create a no-fault system insurance plan for victims of medical errors.

In a rare public comment, Mr. Justice Horace Krever told the Canadian Healthcare Safety Symposium that there is an "urgent need" for a no-fault scheme because the adversarial litigation route is failing patients who suffer harm from medical procedures such as blood transfusion, vaccination, anesthetization and surgery.

"While we must strive to reduce risk, risk cannot be eliminated," Judge Krever told more than 500 safety experts gathered in Calgary.

"We must incorporate that reality into public policy."

Justice Krever highlights the fact that a no-fault scheme would be better for patients than having to fight their way through the courts. But it's worth emphasizing that the same should also be true for medical practitioners who would face less time taken away from their practice due to litigation. While (contrary to the position of the U.S. right) it's essential that patients be able to recover for their losses, it's hard to see how either doctor or patient is better off under the status quo.