Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Byrom vs. Johns Hopkins Bayview Hospital

Abstract

The status quo that results from medical malpractice litigation is 85,000 medical malpractice lawsuits filed per year, of which 66% are potentially frivolous. There are also 3 million claims but only 85,000 are represented. There is something wrong with this status quo, which prompts questions about traditional decision-making Traditional decision-making is inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is hypothesis testing. The objective evidence and the burden of proof are the same in both; except hypothesis testing has a greater level of confidence. The differences are examined in detail. Of the parties involved in dispute resolution, medical experts are essential, medical experts are doctors. Doctors are familiar with hypothesis testing and threats to validity. Doctors, who are medical experts, are duty-bound to be objective. Hypothesis testing best satisfies this duty. Nothing prohibits medical experts from using hypothesis testing when they review a case to arrive at an opinion; although, until now, none do. Yet, as doctors, it is expected of them and they can never be prohibited from doing so. In the final analysis, traditional decision-making subjectively infers a departure from the standard of care; however, hypothesis testing objectively proves it.