{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02564102564102564, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9576271186440675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Limits of medical malpractice.

In their provocative article in this issue of the Journal on the economic approach to medical malpractice, Schwartz and Komesar stress the ways in which medical-malpractice law can provide a patient-initiated control mechanism to improve the quality of medical care. They argue that physician negligence is best determined by an economic cost-benefit analysis by which negligent behavior is defined as "the failure to invest resources up to the level that equals the anticipated saving in damages." In their opinion professional custom, once the dominant standard, thus "serves only as a provisional substitute for the negligence rule." Contrary to their position, . . .