Proposed medical courts would not protect patients' rights.

Most state legislatures have medical malpractice issues on the table for the coming year. Some states are considering alternatives to carving out new law, but these plans also have flaws that will limit patients' rights.

Several alternatives to the tort system have been proposed as possible solutions to the so-called medical malpractice crisis. The medical community is currently proposing the creation of specialized health, or medical malpractice, courts to hear these claims. Judges trained in medical standards would preside over the cases.

Supporters of these courts assert that they will bring consistent judgments, block "frivolous" cases, and produce more accurate fact-finding. But such specialized courts would fall far short of a tort-based system in fairly compensating injured patients.

The biggest problem with this model is finding neutral, qualified judges with health care expertise. Some proponents want doctors and health care professionals to serve as judges, but they would probably favor defendant doctors over injured patients.

The special-court model also eliminates an injured patient's right to trial by jury. Replacing a jury made up of laypeople with a judge who has a medical background undermines the notion of an independent judiciary.

As states struggle to fired their courts, special health care courts would divert resources from an already burdened system. Most important, any viable alternative to the tort system must preserve access to justice for all injured patients and their families.