There are lots of reasons why mammography has become a poster child for the excesses of malpractice litigation. Aggressive plaintiff’s attorneys, radiologists who provide questionable expert witness testimony, and patients with dreams of a lottery-like windfall have all contributed to the problem. But does radiology itself bear part of the blame?
Dear AuntMinnie Member,
There are lots of reasons why mammography has become a poster child for the excesses of malpractice litigation. Aggressive plaintiff’s attorneys, radiologists who provide questionable expert witness testimony, and patients with dreams of a lottery-like windfall have all contributed to the problem.
But does radiology itself bear some of the blame? This question is explored in a story by staff writer Shalmali Pal, featured this week in our Women’s Imaging Digital Community.
In the story, radiology legal and ethics expert Dr. Leonard Berlin acknowledges that mammography has indeed been beset by forces entirely beyond its control. But he lays part of the blame on the way mammography has been presented to the public by radiology and women’s health advocates.
In their relentless drive to boost screening compliance, advocacy campaigns have trumpeted mammography’s efficacy to the point that many lay persons view mammography as nearly infallible; if a cancer is missed, there must be negligence involved, the reasoning goes. This logic, of course, ignores the fact that even the best breast specialists miss some early cancers.
Fortunately, Berlin offers a number of tips to help breast centers improve their operations so they’re less of a target for malpractice attorneys. Find out what you can do in our Women’s Imaging Digital Community, at womens.auntminnie.com.
