This story seems rather negative.

Within the space of two weeks late last year, Michael and Hedy Cohen, who happen to be experts on medical errors, each encountered what they saw as a disturbing development in the modern doctor-patient relationship.

They were asked by two groups of suburban doctors to sign away their right to a jury trial in the interest of reducing malpractice costs.

Legal experts say such attempts to channel potentially unhappy patients away from the court system and into arbitration are becoming increasingly common in health care. Agreements to settle future disputes with binding arbitration, in which an appointed individual or small panel decides the case instead of a judge or jury, are now pervasive in contracts involving many other things we buy, including credit cards, cell phones and cars (source).

One of the more interesting claims in the news story is that the system “makes it harder to … build legal precedents.” I don’t understand this because I don’t think the jury trial does much to produce precedents either. If one wants precedents, then decisions need to be made by judges rather than juries.

Medical courts anyone?