Introduction
Instances of medical malpractice have become a topical issue in the healthcare sector. The forms of misconduct result in significant disputes, and the potential area of their resolution has been an area of interest across most healthcare facilities (Hsieh, 2021). According to Khan et al. (2020), a recent medical error study has resulted in avoidable annual deaths of over 251,000 in the United States of America.
In the case of healthcare malpractice, there is a growing desire for an alternative framework to solve disputes rather than to adopt a court litigation process. The traditional tort system addresses medical malpractice claims, but this approach does not adequately protect patients or caregivers. The adversarial nature of lawsuits promotes the increased rates of medical misconduct in American healthcare facilities based on the implementation of traditional tort systems. As a result, there is a need to analyze the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical practice to isolate alternatives to the growing challenge.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Overview
ADR refers to any means of settling disputes without the involvement of a jury. It is the most effective method for resolving disputes between disputing parties. ADR benefits both parties by saving time and costs associated with litigation. ADR can be handled by several specialists, including lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, and special masters. Mediation and arbitration are the two most common ADR methods. Mediation involves a neutral third party who helps the parties to communicate and mutually agree on a solution (Khan et al., 2020). For arbitration, a neutral third party assesses the case and decides to bind the parties.
ADR’s history in medical training and practice has exposed the U.S. healthcare system to numerous advantages for patients. Firstly, the procedure for dispute resolution is valuable in solving problems between doctors, clients, and medical stakeholders of particular facilities. Secondly, the process saves time and money that would otherwise lead organizations to resource wastage. Cases filed in courts take extended periods to allow for investigation and eventual hearings. However, ADR brings clients closer to agreements through available and affordable arbitrators.
Thirdly, alternative dispute resolution improves communication in the healthcare system because it promotes dialogue between affected parties. Communicating and listening skills are essential for the development of conducive working environments. Thus, implementing ADR in medical facilities increases proper networking and association among diverse stakeholders. Finally, the conflict resolution tool preserves the relationship between healthcare providers and patients.
Mediation
Mediation is one of the most vital ADRs that can be adopted in solving healthcare-related disputes. Benedikt et al. (2020) consider mediation the most successful approach to ADR in healthcare malpractice. Mediation is a process that helps parties to a medical malpractice lawsuit or claim settle. Mediation is deemed voluntary and non-binding unless an agreement is reached. Mediation can be done through facilitative, evaluative, or transformative approaches.
The approach one decides to go with will be determined by some factors like preferences between both parties, the case’s complexity, and selectiveness while choosing an available mediator. Poole (2020) purports that mediation offers a more human element to proceedings as it keeps channels of communication open between the patient and healthcare provider. However, Khan et al. (2020) believe mediation is the truth of exposing all parties to a duty of hospital entrance, such as medication expenses and bureaucracy.
Mediation is preferred as an ADR in healthcare malpractice because it saves on cost and time. A study by Sohn and Bal (2017) suggested that reforms are needed in the healthcare systems, as meditation should be adopted across most medical facilities to save on expenses used in court litigation processes. Mediation barely causes emotional tolls and stress as it guarantees greater confidentiality and privacy for the parties involved (Mulyadi, 2021).
However, despite mediation’s seamless advantages, it has various shortcomings. In cases where a defendant strongly believes they met the standards of care, they might push for court litigation (Sabela, 2022). The plaintiffs might demand unrealistic expectations that compromise the willingness to approach the dispute in good faith (Redfern, 2018). Mediation is one alternative dispute resolution form that can be used in medical malpractice cases.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which parties to a dispute engage a neutral third party. It is a more formal and binding alternative dispute resolution that shapes healthcare systems. Attorneys usually represent parties who argue the underpinnings of health malpractice before an arbiter or arbitration panel (Sharma, 2021). Arbitration is preferred by parties trying to avoid the erratic nature of litigation verdicts and is deemed an effective tool for risk management.
Arbitration is preferred for resolving healthcare malpractice disputes as it is more efficient and time-saving than litigation. Arbitration has unique strengths that make it viable and cost-efficient for disputing parties. The arbiters can be appointed based on their outstanding scientific knowledge and in-depth knowledge of arbitration processes instead of leaving a dispute to proceed to litigation, where the jury will unlikely comprehend the situation (Wang et al., 2020).
Furthermore, arbitration allows the conflicting parties to have more control over the dispute outcome. Arbitration is gradually increasing its formalization process in healthcare, making it one of the most popular alternative dispute resolution methods. However, arbitration has its limitations regarding dispute resolution in healthcare malpractice. Not all parties may be willing to participate due to uncertainty about the arbitrator’s ability to remain neutral (Sharma, 2021).
The arbitration process may be time-consuming if the parties involved in the dispute fail to reach an agreement, which happens when there is a significant difference in opinion. Considering the binding nature of arbitration as an ADR for healthcare malpractice, it can also hurt the defendant and the plaintiff. In most cases, the physicians are sued despite no negligence, as always confirmed through the litigation process (Pakpahan et al., 2021).
Therefore, physicians may find it ideal to opt for litigation as a conflict resolution method to help them prove their innocence. This portrays arbitration as not appropriate for all types of healthcare malpractice cases. Arbitration is significant in resolving issues about healthcare malpractice; however, weighing its benefits and challenges is crucial before determining whether it is a suitable choice.
Bible-Based Dispute Resolution
The underlying concepts of alternative dispute resolution heavily borrow from principles of forgiveness and reconciliation. Bible-Based Dispute Resolution (BBDR) has been applied in several settings, including healthcare malpractice cases. The Bible stipulates how disputes should be handled in their formative stages before getting to court for litigation (Colombo, 2020).
In Jeremiah 29:11, the Lord advises, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope (Daniels, 2020). In addition, Jeremiah 29:13 quotes, “…then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Daniels, 2020). The Bible’s verses remind Christians of God’s goodness and concern for their health and welfare. As a result, the Bible disagrees with healthcare misconduct because God does not make mistakes to harm his followers.
Furthermore, Jesus Christ talks about BBDR in his teachings in Mathew 5:25. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown in prison…” (Daniels, 2020).
Therefore, if the disputing parties are believers in the Bible, they can be persuaded and advised to resort to biblical doctrines and conduct themselves in a manner that glorifies the Almighty God. Jesus’ story in Matthew 5:23-24 opines that if a believer brings a gift to the altar and still holds a grudge against his brother, he should leave the gift at the altar and seek reconciliation with the brother before completing his sacrifice at the altar.
BBDR works through simple steps, and the users must obey the laws written by anointed servants of God. BBDR adopts three sequential processes of handling scenarios where one of the parties in a conflict feels offended by the other, as described in Matthew 15:17-18 (Daniels, 2020). The first phase involves the person of, if it fails, a witness should be invited, and if the matter fails, it shall be escalated to church representatives. ADR promotes a solid biblical background that could offer the best conflict resolution criteria (Edmiston, n.d). For example, from a biblical point of view, ethical aspects associated with ADR could be comprehensively addressed because it does not tolerate lying or self-serving outcomes.
Despite the outstanding cementing argument for the biblical concept as a dispute resolution method, it has resulted in several issues during case determination in healthcare malpractice cases. BBDR may not adequately protect the rights and interests of patients who may have suffered harm due to medical negligence, especially if the council does not sufficiently inform them.
BBDR does not comply with the legal or regulatory requirements for reporting, disclosing, or resolving medical malpractice claims, which may expose the parties to increased liability. It may not be compatible with the professional ethics obligations of healthcare providers who are mandated to disclose their errors or misconduct to their peers, employer, or insurers. This conflict resolution method is ideal for healthcare practice, but it might not apply to every situation or context. The decision to adopt the Bible-based concept as a dispute resolution process lies in the parties’ willingness and ability to abide by the doctrines of the Bible.
Conclusion
Alternative dispute resolution is one of the most vital methods of solving healthcare malpractice cases compared to litigation. The most common types of dispute resolution methods are meditation and arbitration. Mediation is essential in solving conflicts as it guarantees neutrality in the final verdict; this makes it a more reliable conflict resolution than going to court.
Moreover, mediation saves time and cost compared to litigation, where one must go to court and spend much time seeking an answer. In contrast, arbitration involves barristers with advanced knowledge of the whole process and can find a solution to the underlying healthcare malpractice. However, it has shortcomings since biases might arise if there is no trust among the parties involved to allow the arbiter to decide independently.
References
Benedikt, A., Susło, R., Paplicki, M., & Drobnik, J. (2020). Mediation as an alternative method of conflict resolution: A practical approach. Family Medicine & Primary Care Review, 22(3), 235–239. Web.
Brachotte, S. (2021). The limits of arbitration law in addressing cultural diversity: The example of Ismaili arbitration in the United Kingdom. Laws, 10(2), 47–78. Web.
Colombo, R. J. (2020). The past, present, and future of Christian ADR. Cardozo J. Conflict Resolution, 22, 45-69. Web.
Daniels, D. W. (2020). New King James-The Bridge Bible. Chick Publications.
Edmiston, J. (n.d.). A Christian approach to conflict resolution. Cyber Mission Organization; Global Christians. Web.
Hsieh, M.-T., Lu, L.-H., Lin, C.-W., & Chen, Y.-W. (2021). Correlation between malpractice litigation and legislation reform in Taiwan over 30 years. International Journal of General Medicine, Volume 14(5), 1889–1898. Web.
Khan, H. A, Bastiampillai, & Mon, S.W. (2020). Mediation as a suitable dispute resolution method in medical negligence cases: Special reference to the Malaysian position. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(3), 2309-2323. Web.
Mulyadi, A. (2021). Mediation is an alternative for resolving medical disputes between doctors and patients in therapeutic agreements. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 4(06). Web.
Pakpahan, B. Utomo, L, & Mulyadi, A. (2021). Mediation as an alternative for medical dispute resolution between doctors and patients in approval of medical/medical actions. Southeast Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics, and Law,7(24), 173-86. Web.
Poole, N. (2020). Coronavirus and clinical negligence. Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, 25(3), 97-98. Web.
Redfern, M. (2018). Healthcare Disputes: Why Mediation is the Best Medicine. Journal of Medical Law and Ethics, 6(1), 19–29. Web.
Sabela Gayo, A. S. (2022). The use of mediation as an alternative health dispute resolution. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 6(59), 346-407. Web.
Sharma, A. (2021). Role of ADR in the healthcare sector on resolving medical malpractice disputes. International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, 4(6), 1019-1028. Web.
Sohn, D. H., & Bal, B. S. (2017). Medical malpractice reform: The role of alternative dispute resolution. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 470(5). Web.
Wang, M., Liu, G. G., Zhao, H., Butt, T., Yang, M., & Cui, Y. (2020). The role of mediation in solving medical disputes in China. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 135–178. Web.