But the real problem for all - and I do mean "all" - is when the lovers/haters march into the jury box. So, the goal should be to eliminate the reason for litigation before it gets to that point.

The point is still, how can the medical profession give the "litigious public" the confidence in its professional actions so suits don't occur? When that happens, malpractice claims drop, and insurance premiums accordingly.

You were dead on the money with which medical specialties get tagged the heaviest with claims, and most of those claims are based on exigent circumstance actions with nobody ever having met the other, and the patient/family having to make on-the-spot decisions with nothing but the do-it-or-else advice of a stranger. All of this is a recipe for litigation when perfection doesn't occur.

My comments about tort reform not solving the litigation problem is knowing full well that litigators can and do get around dollar-limit restrictions. California has had a $250K cap on medical malpractice claims for years, but that hasn't stopped jury awards of amounts much higher, and eventual collection by the suing party of amounts much greater than $250K. So, if tort reform doesn't prove to be the "silver bullet" (and it hasn't where in effect), what else?

I too am tired of health insurance premiums of over $1k/month for my family, and know full well that malpractice claims constitute a measurable chunk of that $1k. I also know too well why people sue, and the medical profession not accepting the "human factor" as a major reason why lawsuits happen is unrealistic and arrogant. There are many ways, especially for those one-contact specialties, to radically increase its public trust factor (and thus reduce lawsuits), but those ways require time and effort to educate the public and nurture (yes, nurture) trust. Until that happens, the lawsuits will happen with regularity and nothing ever changes.