[Volume 69 No. 3 March 2010]

The future is obscure, even to those of strong vision, and one would be wiser not to shoot arrows into it. For the arrows will most likely hit targets that were never intended.

Zealous patrons of the public well being have insisted that defective products be corrected and damages arising from these defects, in spite of conscientious efforts of the producer, should be their financial responsibility. Case in point Toyota and Honda.

Arrows of reform coming from the quiver of truth are being pointed at health care. How far off are law suits directed to medical education?

If a patient does not get their desired result, he may sue not just the doctor but the doctor’s professors.

The legal theory would be similar to truth in lending. Information imparted to the medical student that had not passed sufficient empirical testing and was subsequently found faulty, represents defective education. If the student later in practice relied on the defective information, he could be sued and then sue the teacher for damages.

After all, if we have automobile recalls for discovered defects, we should also have educational recall for defective teaching.

Universities argue that faculty should not be held liable for honest errors, or all instruction would be brought to a stop. It would also be too costly to disseminate new knowledge to previous students.

This can also lead to journals retracting errata, lazy students being entitled to blaming others for their failure, and a whole host of health care people fleeing the mine field of litigation.

I posit that a way to deal with this potential impact on the health care system would be like truth in lending. This would be “truth in teaching.”

So for those subjects where incorrect knowledge would be costly and demonstrable, such as medicine, the class room would become a much different place.

Students would be forbidden to take notes. Recording devices would be prohibited. The introduction of new ideas would be avoided. Old nonsense would also disappear and courses would be completed in very short time.

All journal articles would carry warnings and disclaimers. Informed consent would be pervasive for each individual student, so that, in so far as possible, the faculty, authors etc. would be immunized from responsibility.

The problem is that it didn’t work that well for the cigarette companies or the automobile manufacturers. How will it work for the health care providers?

With changes in consumerism and medicine as a government regulated business, it seems logical that legal guns need to be pointed at new targets.

So for those who teach, write or even care, watch out for the next step in knowledge warrantee.

The purpose of this little ditty is to increase awareness of issues and to rally the readers to a more effective position in their professional commitment.