Justinian Lane

Another case of “self-discipline” not working

Ineffective regulation is one of many reasons why I support a robust civil justice system.

When the hepatitis outbreak story broke in February, calls poured in from anesthesiologists who wanted me to know that a nurse anesthetist doesn't have the training of an anesthesiologist. An anesthesiologist would NEVER reuse a syringe and the same vial of anesthesia on a patient and spread hepatitis from patient to patient. Never. Never. Never. The doctors are so much better trained than the nurses that such a practice was inconceivable.  [Do you really need medical training to know this practice is dangerous? – JCL]

The calls stopped abruptly when health officials said state health inspectors observed a Las Vegas anesthesiologist reusing syringes on four different patients at the Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Clinic, where he worked. He has been identified as Dr. Scott Young and was fired from the clinic but still works in the valley. 

Source: - News - JANE ANN MORRISON: Suggestions for fixing medical disciplinary system should be welcomed

A guy gets fired for reusing syringes four times and he gets another job?  Seems to me that this guy should have been suspended for a few months and made to retake some safety training. 

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 6:46 PM, Aug 04, 2008 in Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


What do you think of lawyer self-discipline? All attempts at getting accountability get declared as unconstitutional by the state supreme courts. No one else may oversee the lawyer but them.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 4, 2008 7:58 PM

Justinian: Do you need more time before you will answer the question of ending the privity obstacle to a legal malpractice lawsuit by the adverse third party? I would also like to end all judge immunities. These lazy, self-dealing, rent seeking incompetents need to be deterred as a class.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 5, 2008 6:50 AM

This scenario is very similar to the profits over safety business model, because it basically looks like there's a decision being made about who deserves more protection, based upon who has more money/influence. In this way dangerous docs reentering the profession after they've done egregiously harmful things is just like when dangerous products are allowed to enter the marketplace because they produce high profits for influential industries, even if they hurt people.

Posted by: Kia | August 5, 2008 3:14 PM

The courthouse door is slammed shut, no civil Gideon, the constitutional guarantees of equal protection. None applies to the victim of lawyer carelessness.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 5, 2008 5:01 PM

The answer is not litigation - it is better and more effective regulation (but not necessarily more regulation) and for that one should go through the political process,not the court system.

The civil litigation system is too dishonest for use as a regulatory mechanism as the use of contingency fees is, in and of itself, an inducement to fraud

Posted by: Avenger | August 6, 2008 5:25 AM