Good Article on Edwards and Tort Reform

The most popular "reform" is to impose a cap on pain and suffering awards. But that forces the worst-off to subsidize everybody else's medical insurance.

Consider a 7-year-old child, terribly injured by medical malpractice, who will live in constant, severe pain for the rest of his life. A jury might award the child millions for "pain and suffering." But in a state with a cap, that award could be reduced to only $250,000.

Certainly, some victims' pain and suffering over a lifetime must exceed that amount. Judges and juries seem to think so when they award sums greater than $250,000 in various torts cases, regardless of whether they involve malpractice, car accidents, or sexual abuse. The argument for caps must simply be that we, as a society, can't afford to fully compensate victims of medical malpractice -- so we accept as matter of practical necessity that that their suffering will remain uncompensated and unaddressed.

But how can this be the right answer? Why should the most unfortunate -- the disabled, the suffering, the severely ill -- forego compensation? It seems mean-spirited to ask those who have lost the most to bear the brunt.