But to guard against liabilities, or at least major liabilities, health care professionals have often purchased malpractice insurance to protect themselves against patients who may press legal charges for being harmed by physician’s negligence. In this paper, the argument as to whether or not malpractice damages should be limited when gross negligence is proven is discussed. The paper there serves as a recommendation paper on the way forward for the health care sector in securing legal protection against their actions.
As noted in the article by Svorny (2011), there is the need for massive policy analysis on the malpractice insurance used by health practitioners. This is because over the years, there have been studies to suggest that some health care practitioners are indeed hiding under the cover of these insurances to provide less quality services to patients (Svorbey, 2011). Meanwhile, the health of patients must always be made to come ahead of any interests that are served to protect the care giver. This is not to say however that health providers must be totally infallible. However, where issues of risks are posed to patients as a result of proven negligence, such practices cannot be accepted and defended. By this provision, a call for forensic workplace based investigations that can determine the circumstances under which health risks are posed to patients is recommended. Svorny (2011) indeed lamented that because of the presence of malpractice insurance, very few cases of malpractice result in damages. The reason this is so is that “in most cases of negligence the damages are minimal” (Svony, 2011, p. 2). This means that limiting malpractice damage defeat the quest for patients to press home for their lives to be protected.