This incident of medical malpractice as reported in the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe is quite egregious:
LOS ANGELES - Minutes after routine surgery for acute appendicitis in October 2003, Staff Sergeant Dean Witt, 25, was being moved to a recovery room at a northern California military hospital when he gasped and stopped breathing.
A student nurse assisting an understaffed anesthesia team tried to resuscitate Witt and failed. Inexplicably, Witt’s gurney was wheeled into a pediatric area. Lifesaving devices sized for children, not a 175-pound adult, proved useless, according to an internal report on the case.
Medical personnel at David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base screamed at one another. A double dose of a powerful stimulant was mistakenly administered. When a breathing tube was finally inserted, it was misdirected. By the time a breathing tube finally was inserted correctly, Witt had devastating brain damage. Three months later, he was removed from life support and died. Witt, who grew up in Oroville, Calif., left behind a wife and two children, including a 4-month-old son.
The Boston Globe describes the legal landscape:
Despite the report’s harsh criticism of Witt’s medical care, the bereaved family could not sue for malpractice, because Witt was an active-duty airman. Under limits stemming from an obscure Supreme Court ruling nearly 60 years old, military hospitals and their staffs are immune from malpractice claims - even for the most egregious lapses - if the victim is an enlisted man or woman on active duty.
A series of court rulings since 1950 have upheld the original decision, known as Feres v. United States, which denies members of the military the right to sue for damages over medical errors or even deliberate wrongs.
Feres defenders say the doctrine is necessary to protect the military from costly, time-consuming trials that could compromise military discipline.
The LA Times suggest the Feres doctrine is both antiquated and misquided:
The Supreme Court came within a single vote of overturning Feres in 1987. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the dissenting opinion for the four-member minority: “Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the ‘widespread, almost universal criticism’ it has received.”
Among the curious aspects of Feres is that it bars malpractice suits by active-duty military personnel but not by their spouses or other family members, who also are entitled to treatment at military hospitals.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Washington-based lawyer Eugene Fidell. “If a doctor malpractices on a dependent on one day, the family can sue. But if he commits the same malpractice the next day on a GI, they can’t.”
