Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:50.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical Malpractice in Twentieth Century United States: The Interaction of Technology, Law, and Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Kennethe De Ville
Kennethe De Ville
Affiliation:
East Carolina School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although medical malpractice litigation in the United States has generated extensive professional and scholarly attention, few analyses of the issue have explored its underlying causes. This essay develops and employs an historical framework to explain the late 20th century phenomenon and concludes that widespread medical malpractice suits are the result of a combination of short-term topical causes and long-term cultural changes that are ignored or left untouched by most reform efforts. Most importantly, however, the development and proliferation of new and improved medical technologies has played a pivotal role throughout the entire history of the litigation, an effect that has become most prominent and important in the last third of the 20th century.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Spring 1998 , pp. 196 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Adams, J. Jr.Report of an action, Charles Lowell against John Faxon and Micajah Hawks, doctors of medicine, defendants for malpractice in the capacity of physician and surgeons. Portland: Published by the Author, 1825.Google Scholar
2.The American Law Institute. Enterprise responsibility for personal injury (reporters' study), vol. 1. Philadelphia: The American Law Institute, 1991.Google Scholar
3.American Surgical Association. Report of the committee of the American Surgical Association on the medico-legal relation of the x-rays. American Journal of Surgery, 1900, 120, 7–35.Google Scholar
4.Anbar, M. Penetrating the black box: Physical principles behind health care technology. In Reiser, S. J. & Anbar, M. (eds.), The machine at the bedside. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 23–45.Google Scholar
5.Barr, D. P.Hazards of modern diagnosis and therapy: The price we pay. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1955, 159,1452–56.Google Scholar
6.Beckman, H. B., Markakis, K. M., Suchman, A. L., & Frankel, R. M.The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice: Lessons from plaintiffs' depositions. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1994, 154, 1364–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bedell, S. E., Deitz, D. C., Leeman, D., & Delbanco, T. L.Incidence and characteristics of preventable iatrogenic cardiac arrests. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 2815–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., et al. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.Google Scholar
9.Bergstrom, R. E.Courting danger: Injury and law in New York City, 1970–1919. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
10.Berkowitz, R. L.Should every pregnant woman undergo ultrasonography? New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329, 874–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Burns, C. R.Malpractice suits in American medicine before the civil war. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1969, 43, 41–56.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G.Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 17, 1237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. Accusation of mal-practice. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 1844, 31, 123–24.Google Scholar
14.Boyd, F.X-ray dermatitis: Suit for damages. JAMA, 1898, 30, 381.Google Scholar
15.Brennan, T. A., Leape, L. L., Laird, N., et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study. New England Journal of Medicine, 1991, 324, 370–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Brieger, G. H. From conservative to radical surgery in late nineteenth-century America. In Lawrence, C. (ed.), Medical theory, surgical practice: Studies in the history of surgery. New York: Routledge, 1972, 216–31.Google Scholar
17.Bundy, A. L., & James, A. E.The lawyer's perspective on the use of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1986, 13, 219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Burton v. Brooklyn Doctors Hospital, 88 A.D. 2d 217, 452 N.Y.S.2d 875 (1982).Google Scholar
19.Cashdollar, C. D.The transformation of theology, 1830–1890: Positivism and Protestant thought in Britain and America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Cassedy, J. H.Medicine and American growth, 1800–1860. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986.Google Scholar
21.Chamberlin, G., & Turnbell, A. The continuity of obstetrics. In Chamberlin, G. & Turnbell, A. (eds.), Obstetrics. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989.Google Scholar
22.Cheney, F. W., Posner, K., Caplan, R. A., & Ward, R. J.Standard of care and anesthesia liability. JAMA, 1989, 261, 1599–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Clements, B. Claims against primary care physicians rise. American Medical News, 09 14, 1992.Google Scholar
24.Cooper, C. S., & Fisher, R. J.Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery. JAMA, 1993, 270, 2689–92.Google Scholar
25.Couch, N. P., Tilney, N. L., Rayner, A. A., & Moore, F. D.The high cost of low-frequency events: The anatomy and economics of surgical mishaps. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 634–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. The use of pulse oximetry during conscious sedation. JAMA, 1993, 270, 1463–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Danzon, P.Medical malpractice: Theory, evidence and public policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Danzon, P. M.The ‘crisis’ in medical malpractice: A comparison of trends in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1990,18, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.De Ville, K. A.Medical malpractice in nineteenth century America: Origins and legacy. New York: New York University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
30.Dewees, D. N., Trebilcock, M. J., & Coyte, P. C.The medical malpractice crisis: A comparative empirical perspective. Law Contemporary Problems, 1991, 54, 217–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Dornette, W. H. L. Monitoring the anesthetized patient. In Dornette, W. H. L. (ed.), Legal issues in anesthesia practice. Philadelphia: Davis, 1991.Google Scholar
32.Drife, J. O. Errors and accidents in obstetrics. In Ennis, C. V. M. & Audley, R. J. (eds.), Medical accidents. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, 34–51.Google Scholar
33.Duffy, J.American perceptions of the medical, legal, and theological professions. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1984, 58, 1–15.Google ScholarPubMed
34.Eichhorn, J. H., Cooper, J. B., Cullen, D. J., et al. Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at Harvard Medical School. JAMA, 1986, 256, 1017–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Elwell, J.A medico-legal treatise on medical malpractice and medical evidence. New York: John S. Voorhis, 1860.Google Scholar
36.Engel, D. M.The oven bird's song: Insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law and Society Review, 1984, 18, 551–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.English, P. C.Shock, physiological surgery, and George Washington crile: Medical innovation in the progressive era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.Google Scholar
38.Featherstone, M.The body in consumer culture. Theory, Culture, and Society, 1982, 1, 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Fogelman, M. J., & Reinmiller, E.1880–1890: A creative decade in world surgery. American Journal of Surgery, 1968, 115, 812–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Folli, H. L., Poole, R. L., Benitz, W. E. & Russo, J. C.Medication error prevention by clinical pharmacists in two children's hospitals. Pediatrics, 1987, 79, 718–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Friedman, L.Total justice. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.Google Scholar
42.Gerstenberger, P. D., & Plumeri, P. A.Malpractice claims in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Analysis of an insurance industry data base. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1993, 39, 132–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Gilfix, M. G.Electronic fetal monitoring: physician liability and informed consent. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 1985, 10, 31–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Grady, M. F.Why are people negligent? Technology, nondurable precautions, and the medical malpractice explosion. Northwestern University Law Review, 1988, 82, 293–334.Google Scholar
45.Green, v.United States, 530 F Supp 633 (ED Wise. 1982).Google Scholar
46.Greenhouse, C. Praying for justice: Faith, order, and community in an American town. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
47.Greenhouse, C. J.Nature is to culture as praying is to suing: Legal pluralism in an American suburb. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 1982, 20, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Grundfest, W. S.Credentialing in an era of change. JAMA, 1993, 270, 2725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Guinther, J.The malpractitioners. New York: Doubleday, 1978.Google Scholar
50.Gutheil, T. G., Bursztajin, H., & Brodsky, A.Malpractice prevention through the sharing of uncertainty. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 49–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Hairc, W. D., & Lieberman, R. P.Defining the risks of subclavian-vein catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 331, 1769–70.Google Scholar
52.Hamilton, F. H. Suits for malpractice in surgery: Their cause and their remedies. In Papers read before the medico-legal society of New York (3rd sen). New York: MedicoLegal Society of New York, 1886.Google Scholar
53.Harrison, L. B., Worth, M. H., & Carlucci, M. A.The development of the principles of medical malpractice in the United States. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1985, 29, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Hatlie, M. J.Climbing ‘the learning curve’: New technologies, emerging obligations. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 270, 1364–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Hickson, G. B.Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA, 1992, 267, 1359–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56.Hofstadter, R.Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage, 1962.Google Scholar
57.Howell, J. D.Technology in the hospital: Transforming patient care in the early twentieth century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Hurst, J. W.The growth of American law: The lawmakers. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1950.Google Scholar
59.Kentucky Medical Society. Extracts from the report of the committee on the prevalence of suits for malpractice. Medical News and Library, 1850, 8, 17–20.Google Scholar
60.Kern, K. A.Medicolegal analysis of bile duct injury during open cholecystectomy and abdominal surgery. American Journal of Surgery, 1994, 168, 217–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61.Kern, K. A.Risk management goals involving injury to the common bile ducts during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. American Journal of Surgery, 1992, 163, 551–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62.Kett, J.The formation of the American medical profession, 1760–1860. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
63.Kiehl, A. K.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy too much of a good thing? JAMA, 1993, 270, 1469–70.Google Scholar
64.Lambert, E. C.Modern medical mistakes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
65.Leape, L. L.Error in medicine. JAMA, 1994, 224, 1851–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66.Lears, T. J. J.No place of grace: Antimodernism and the transformation of American culture, 1880–1920. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.Google Scholar
67.Legorreta, A. P., Silber, J. H., Constantino, G. N., et al. Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 270, 1429–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68.Liebermann, J. K.The litigious society. New York: Basic Books, 1981.Google Scholar
69.Ludmerer, K. M.Learning to heal: The development of American medical education. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
70.Malone, W.The genesis of wrongful death. Stanford Law Review, 1965, 17, 1043–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71.Manly, T.The medico-legal aspects of fractures of the bones of the extremities, and others, from a consideration of their aetiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. New York Medical Journal, 1893, 58, 281–90.Google Scholar
72.March, A.Prosecutions for malpractice. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 1847, 36, 477–84.Google Scholar
73.Marty, M.The righteous empire: The Protestant experience in America. New York: Dial Press, 1970.Google Scholar
74.May, H. F. The decline of providence? In Ideas, faiths, and feelings: Essays on American intellectual and religious history, 1952–1982. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983, 130–45.Google Scholar
75.McCormick, B. Liability rates: Mixed signals. American Medical News, 01 30, 1976.Google Scholar
76.McKeown, T.The role of medicine: Dream, mirage, or nemesis?. London: The Nuffield Province Hospitals Trust, 1976.Google Scholar
77.McKinlay, J. B.From ‘promising report’ to standard procedure: Seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1981, 59, 374–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78.Merry, S. E., & Sibley, S. S.What do plaintiffs want? Reexamining the concept of dispute. Justice System Journal, 1984, 9, 151–78.Google Scholar
79.Mittlemann, M., & Scholhamer, C. F.What are the chances when malignancy leads to a malpractice suit? Legal Aspects of Medical Practice, 1980, 8, 42–46.Google Scholar
80.Mohr, J. C.Doctors & the law: Medical jurisprudence in nineteenth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
81.Norris, G. W.Statistical account of the cases of amputation performed at the Pennsylvania hospital from Jan. 1, 1831, to Jan. 1, 1838. American Journal of Medical Science, 1838, 22, 356–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82.Ohio Medical Society. Report on difficulties growing out of alleged mal-practice in the treatment of fractures. Transactions of the Ohio Medical Society, 1856, 11, 53–66.Google Scholar
83.Parkman, S., & Fiske, C. P.Report on the causes and prevention of suits for malpractice. Medical Communications of the Massachusetts Medical Association, 1853, 8, Appendix, 123–32.Google Scholar
84.Perone, N., Carpenter, R., & Robertson, J. A.Legal liability in the use of ultrasound by office-based obstetricians. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1984, 150, 801–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85.Potter, D. M. Social cohesion and the crisis of law. In History and American society: Essays of David M. Potter. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973, 390–418.Google Scholar
86.Reiser, S. J. Criteria for standard versus experimental therapy. Health Affairs, 1994, 127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87.Reiser, S. J. The machine at the bedside: Technological transformations of practices and values. In Reiser, S. J. and Anbar, M. (eds.), The machine at the bedside: Strategies for using technology in patient care. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 3–19.Google Scholar
88.Reuter, S. R.The use of conventional vs low-osmolar contrast agents: A legal analysis. American Journal of Radiology, 1988, 151, 529–31.Google ScholarPubMed
89.Richards, E. P., & Walter, C. W.How effective safety devices lead to secondary litigation. IEEE: Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1991, 10, 66–68.Google Scholar
90.Robinson, G. O. The medical malpractice crisis of the 1970's: A retrospective. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91.Rostow, V. P., Osterweis, M., & Bulger, R. J.Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 291, 1057–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92.Rothstein, W. G.American physicians in the nineteenth century: From sects to science. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93.Sandor, A. A.The history of professional liability suits in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1957, 163, 459–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94.Saum, L. O.Providence in the popular mind of pre-civil America. Indiana Magazine of History, 1976, 72, 315–46.Google Scholar
95.Schifrin, B. S., Weissman, H., & Wiley, J.Electronic fetal monitoring and obstetrical malpractice. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1985, 13, 100–05.Google Scholar
96.Schimmel, E. M.The hazards of hospitalization. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1964, 60, 100–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97.Shryock, R. H.Medical licensing in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
98.Silver, T. One hundred years of harmful error: The historical jurisprudence of medical malpractice. Wisconsin Law Review, 1992, 1193.Google Scholar
99.Soper, N. J., Stockmann, P. T., Dunnegan, D. L., & Ashley, S. W.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: The new ‘gold’ standard. Archives of Surgery, 1992, 127, 917–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
100.Starr, P.The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
101.Steel, K., Gertman, P. M., & Crescenzi, C., et al. Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 638–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
102.Steiner, C. A., Bass, E. B., Talmini, M. A., et al. Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 330, 403–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103.Taylor, O. H.On the obvious decline in the respect of the public for the medical profession in New Jersey with and inquiry into some of its causes. Medical and Surgical Reporter, 1858, 11, 460–69.Google Scholar
104.Thacker, S. B. The impact of technology assessment and medical malpractice on the diffusion of medical technologies: The case of electronic fetal monitoring. In Roston, V. P. and Bulger, R. J. (eds.), Medical professional liability and the delivery of obstetrical care, vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 1989, 9–26.Google Scholar
105.Tucker, R. D., & Voyles, C. R.Laparoscopic electrosurgical complications and their prevention. AORN Journal, 1995, 62, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
106.U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Report of the secretary's commission on medical malpractice. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.Google Scholar
107.Volk, M. D., & Morgan, M. D.Medical malpractice: Handling obstetric and neonatal cases. New York: McGraw Hill, 1986.Google Scholar
108.Walker, W. J.On the treatment of compound and complicated fractures. Medical Communications of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 7, 1848, 171–215.Google Scholar
109.Walsh, D.The roentgen rays in medical work. New York: William Wood, 1898.Google Scholar
110.Weiler, P. C.Medical malpractice on trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
111.Weiler, P. C., Hiatt, H. H., Newhouse, J. P., et al. A measure of malpractice: Medical injury, malpractice litigation, and patient compensation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
112.Weisman, C. S., Teitlebaum, M. A., & Morlock, L. L.Malpractice claims experience associated with fertility-control services among young obstetrician-gynecologists. Medical Care, 1988, 26, 298–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
113.Wiebe, R. H.The search for order, 1877–1920. New York: Hill and Wang, 1967.Google Scholar
114.Wood, W. M.Thoughts on suits for malpractice, suggested by certain judicial proceedings in Erie County, Pennsylvania. American Journal of Medical Science, 1849, 18, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar