>Realistically if someone is injured by a doctor or a hospital (I'm referring to something that is not a known risk that the individual signed off on before receiving the treatment or surgery) and that injury precludes them from working and supporting themselves for the rest of their life, I think it is fair to award an amount in damages equal to what would have been their lifetime earnings plus a little padding for the stress of it all and any future medical or mental care that may be required due to the injury. Anything above that is just ridiculous.
>
>So you support the right to sue for negligence, with the option for punitive damages if care is particularly cavalier? FWIW I'd be happy to see multi-million $ awards against a facility/surgeon that cuts off the wrong limb or removes a 30-year-old woman's ovaries that was supposed to be done on another patient, but if there is a 1% infection rate and you're unfortunate enough to be the 1% and the hospital's results meet all the standards, suing them isn't the proper way to insure yourself against adverse effects.

Hey, it has happened!

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/17/us/doctor-who-cut-off-wrong-leg-is-defended-by-colleagues.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117251
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060818_docs18.31d61e1.html