On other problematic topic, he decries the relative rarity of autopsies and notes that they demonstrate that doctors are wrong about the cause of death and diagnosis of roughly one-third of patients who die while in care. Yet despite also noting that this fraction has not changed since the 1930s, he implies that the reduction is due to the unwillingness of doctors to trouble grieving family members rather than drawing the obvious conclusion that doctors don’t utilize or care about autopsy results.
Wouldn’t the obvious conclusion be that doctors don’t want to be sued, so won’t go out of their way to prove they were wrong?
That’s certainly an issue, probably a contributing one. But the statistics strongly suggest that autopsy results aren’t used to reduce error, as doctors are just as wrong now as they were eighty years ago.
Wouldn’t the obvious conclusion be that doctors don’t want to be sued, so won’t go out of their way to prove they were wrong?
If that is the reason, might we see more autopsies in countries where doctors are at a smaller risk of getting sued for a mistake?
Yes, but of course many other things differ in those countries so it won’t be easy to draw a conclusion.
That’s certainly an issue, probably a contributing one. But the statistics strongly suggest that autopsy results aren’t used to reduce error, as doctors are just as wrong now as they were eighty years ago.
… in cases where the patient dies. (The cited statistic does not refer to the overall error rate.)
Yes. But that isn’t the point. It holds across all deaths, not those necessarily caused by the error.
Annoyance’s obvious conclusion includes your obvious conclusion as a special case.