Practicing defensive medicine is a common strategy employed by healthcare providers, particularly in high-risk settings. Defensive medicine refers to the practice of utilizing excessive, often unwarranted treatment modalities mainly to protect oneself from legal liability. Defensive medicine arises when victims of medical errors sue physicians in a court of law, seeking damage compensation (Ries & Jansen, 2021)(Kakemam et al.2022). Concerns over malpractice litigation cause healthcare providers to adopt the practice of defensive medicine. In a high-risk field such as cardiology, where even state-of-the-art treatment options provided by the best of hands do not guarantee a full recovery, the borderline between providing patient care and the fear of litigation becomes blurred. Physicians are particularly at risk of encountering malpractice litigation in cases of unfavorable outcomes, where patients or their relatives hold them responsible for the disease or treatment-related adversities. By providing extra tests, patients have shown improvement in their histories or by keeping the patient at the hospital for further observation, thus preventing any avoidable malpractice claims (Saks & Landsman, 2020). Defensive medicine is unique in the sense that it serves a dual purpose of protecting the physician from legal liability and improving the quality of care. If defensive acts fail, additional resources are then devoted to the legal defense team. Although healthcare providers testify that their decisions to practice defensive health may have increased rates, it was difficult to precisely determine the extent and subsequent effects. In addition, those tests and procedures performed according to defensive medicine are associated with a lot of complications that may place the patient in much deeper trouble, which is outside the realm of discussion. This poses an ethical dilemma about which approach is better for patients who are competing against aspects that may stem from defensive acts. Defensive patients interfere with efficient allocation of healthcare expenses to the extent that a great variety of unwanted procedures and medications must be suggested and implemented by healthcare professionals. Defensive patients, therefore, are important in healthcare policy (Saks & Landsman, 2020). Defensive medicine, affecting the structure and size of the health industry, will be antipodal today.

Legal Frameworks and Regulations in Defensive Medicine

To mitigate legal and ethical risks in medical practice, laws and regulations have been enacted that are meant to protect not only the patient but also the healthcare professionals. However, they may contribute to defensive behavior. Health professionals can become entangled in lengthy malpractice lawsuits, increasing their vulnerability to new malpractice allegations, as well as adding stress and fear to their daily activities. Numerous court cases on practicing defensive medicine concentrate on surgical practice. In recent years, some of these trials have begun to concentrate on cardiology, providing insight into the deterrent effect of legal actions on practicing cardiovascular medicine. These verdicts reveal that adverse legal decisions are made in cases of missed diagnosis of myocardial infarction, with the major focus on chest pain, and can be considered a prominent influence on medical decision-making in cardiology (Kwok et al.2021).

More recently, legal jurisprudence has involved inappropriate discharge after observation and identification of a major ischemic episode and the untimely performance of an appropriate intervention. The legislative steps undertaken by Congress on defensive medicine can be followed in light of the above-mentioned points. Common law, the American legal system, implemented a simple legislative framework for medical malpractice from 1784, when the first reparation was paid to an injured patient on the grounds of negligence. Japan amended a critical dimension of the healthcare tort liability climate in 2008 and 2009 (Byers, 2024). The legal system intended to protect patients' rights finally transformed into one that marginalizes patients by nearly eliminating their right to legal redress by incorporating a cubist density and complexity. It is natural for a doctor to fear the terrible burden of enormous expectation and extraordinary risk. Japanese criminal law has attracted little noteworthy acute cardiac-related indictment over the period in which consideration has been given in this document (Cyberspace, 2020).

Ethical Considerations in Defensive Medicine Practices

The goal of the medical profession is to improve patient health; this goal asks for a 'specific' behavior specifying what doctors should or should not do. Medical ethics reflects professional behavior. Ethical considerations are an integral part of the physician's behavior, which cannot be overemphasized. These considerations involve general laws and personal factors, increasing the value of the doctor's work. The practice of defensive medicine is a manifestation of the fear of legal consequences, which distracts from a doctor's willingness to improve the health of the patient. Practitioners have begun to show excessive conduct of defensive medicine also in the field of cardiology, which is one of the areas most affected by the continuous development of diagnostic and therapeutic methods. This conduct is undoubtedly due to the increasing medico-legal responsibility of the cardiologist and has determined a continuous increase in health costs. In particular, interventional cardiologists show a certain 'defensive' behavior, despite the documented risks being technologically reduced, and increasingly more ethical aspects of the cardiologist are dealt with, underlying the necessary informed consent, which will be useful for these professionals for the possible legal burdens related to patient outcomes (Ries & Jansen, 2021)(Ries et al., 2022).

In ethical terms, performing more than necessary complicates the doctor-patient relationship and can be seen as a lack of integrity and as a lack of trust in the biomedical system. Indeed, in order to avoid litigation, defensive behavior induces doctors to promote only an informative consent, which is conditioned by the legal contemplation of a possible subsequent rating process, and not based on ethical and professional integrity. Defensive strategies conflict with a physician's professional responsibilities. Being a profession implies the expectations of society, including the obligations to use developed expertise and trained professional judgment for the welfare of the public or patient. Such ethical principles as non-maleficence, that is, a doctor should do no harm, and beneficence, that is, a doctor should act for the patient's greater good, are important. A description of these principles includes the protection of the patient's autonomy. All these ideas are in opposition to the defensive strategies in medicine, in that they place more importance on protecting public interest. Defensive or inadequate communication with patients may lead to no informed consent being present, with significant consequences for the physician and their professional reputation, the health care facility, the medical profession itself, or for the patient (Unger et al.2020)(John & Wu, 2022).

Case Studies and Analysis

An understanding of the dynamics around defensive medicine can be useful for medical practitioners, trainers, policymakers, and the public. We provide several case studies that reflect examples of defensive medicine for you to consider and comment on. Healthcare providers experience conflict between what they believe to be optimal care on the one hand and legal or insurance pressures on the other. The following are examples of real cases that have happened, and that practitioners frequently consider when faced with similar situations. All names and other identifying information have been changed to protect patient confidentiality. The four consultations reveal a number of key themes. First, there is an underlying atmosphere of fear surrounding defensive medicine. Second, there are a range of practices that staff adopt in these circumstances, with a focus on defensive communication as opposed to avoidance, which has been identified elsewhere. Finally, staff advisors appear to pursue a variety of models of accountability, which impacts the extent to which patients are informed. At the level of each consultation, this includes not just the diagnosis but also its implications for management and discussion of emotional consequences where the diagnosis is negative (Vogus et al.2020). The advisor often speaks in the party's voice rather than their own. In the course of these consultations, it is revealed how advice is offered, and how it is in practice either taken or ignored. Staff, it appears, do not simply lay down the law, but attempt to find a way of putting information and advice across in a manner that is tailored to the patient and appears more acceptable and reassuring. The strategies adopted include avoiding giving adverse information or advice and mitigating its impact as much as possible. Defensive medicine is not simply a matter of excessive investigation and treatment, but also a concern with medical communication (Quinn et al.2021).

Future Directions and Recommendations

Our review highlights how liability fears promote the practice of defensive medicine, with the ultimate goal of protecting healthcare providers from medical liability lawsuits, even though they pile up adverse effects on the entire healthcare system. Legal reforms should be directed not only at reducing the number of lawsuits but also at ensuring timely compensation for damaged patients. Medicine and healthcare are deeply rooted in ethical and social responsibilities. Therefore, defensive medicine should be addressed not only from the physicians’ perspective but also by engaging society and healthcare organization staff. Many legislative actions and operational solutions are needed to curb the practice of unnecessary testing. Both the legal and healthcare systems are burdened by a degree of misunderstanding and lack of communication between the two entities. Educational initiatives regarding health professionals and patients can be useful to close this gap and emphasize the importance of fostering a culture of care that emphasizes transparency, reliability, trust, and mutual assistance. The final goal should shift to a more patient-centered form of healthcare focused on the patient rather than procedures. Future research should be planned to investigate the relationship between defensive medicine and health outcomes, especially for specific patient groups. Furthermore, discussions involving a multidisciplinary panel consisting of patients, health professionals, a lawyer, and an insurer can be very informative. Improvements in the various aspects of medicine applied to cardiac disease should be sought through timely social, legislative, and operational remedies aimed at curbing unnecessary clinical tests and burdensome procedures, with the clear and authentic aim, but not hidden, of protecting doctors in the exercise of their profession by avoiding legal implications. This can be achieved only by seeking a different model of care, which—above all—is patient-centered, where the cure is in the caring rather than in the procedures, which is the healing power of humanity as a whole. It is vital to promote new and meaningful initiatives that integrate health care professionals, lawyers and insurers, judges, and consumers themselves, designed to promote a different approach and a changing paradigm, with direct intervention, not only for education and awareness of the population, but as a mechanism for monitoring and alerting control activity in defensive medicine, avoiding, at the same time, care that is not necessary for the welfare of consumers. Collaborative action and initiatives between the various parties, including professionals in the healthcare area, should be gradually developed and proposed.

Discussion:

The practice of defensive medicine represents a complex interplay between the fear of litigation, ethical obligations, and the delivery of quality healthcare. Defensive medicine is particularly prominent in high-stakes specialties like cardiology, where patient outcomes are often uncertain despite the use of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. While intended to shield healthcare providers from legal liability, defensive medicine often leads to the overutilization of tests and procedures, increasing healthcare costs and potentially exposing patients to unnecessary risks.

The ethical dilemmas inherent in defensive medicine cannot be ignored. Physicians are bound by ethical principles such as beneficence and non-maleficence, which emphasize the prioritization of patient welfare and the minimization of harm. However, defensive practices often shift the focus from patient-centered care to provider-centered risk mitigation, undermining trust in the doctor-patient relationship. The pursuit of excessive diagnostic tests or treatments may also contribute to patient dissatisfaction, as well as physical and psychological burdens, particularly when interventions are unnecessary or lead to complications.

The legal frameworks governing medical malpractice contribute significantly to the prevalence of defensive medicine. The fear of litigation, combined with a lack of clarity regarding acceptable standards of care, pressures healthcare providers to adopt defensive strategies. This is especially true in cases where the outcomes of treatment are less predictable, such as in cardiovascular emergencies. Legal reforms that provide clear guidelines, support evidence-based practices, and balance accountability with fairness are essential to mitigate the impact of defensive medicine.

A critical factor in addressing defensive medicine is education. Patients and healthcare providers alike must be informed about the risks and limitations of medical interventions, as well as the importance of evidence-based decision-making. Encouraging open communication and fostering mutual trust between patients and providers can reduce the likelihood of litigation and promote shared decision-making.

Future research should investigate the long-term impact of defensive medicine on patient outcomes and healthcare system efficiency. Multidisciplinary studies involving clinicians, legal experts, ethicists, and policymakers can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors driving defensive medicine and identify strategies to minimize its prevalence. Additionally, exploring the impact of defensive practices on specific populations, such as high-risk patients or those with chronic conditions, could yield valuable insights.

Ultimately, tackling defensive medicine requires a paradigm shift towards patient-centered care that emphasizes transparency, trust, and ethical decision-making. Collaborative efforts across legal, medical, and societal domains are essential to develop solutions that balance the interests of healthcare providers and patients, ensuring that medical care remains compassionate, efficient, and effective.

Defensive medicine, while often driven by a desire to protect healthcare providers from legal liability, poses significant ethical, clinical, and financial challenges to the healthcare system. The practice, particularly prevalent in high-risk specialties like cardiology, not only inflates healthcare costs but also raises concerns about patient safety and the ethical integrity of medical decision-making. Defensive strategies often conflict with the core principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for patient autonomy.

Addressing the challenges of defensive medicine requires a multi-faceted approach that balances the legal protection of healthcare providers with the delivery of patient-centered care. Legal reforms should aim to reduce the fear of litigation while ensuring timely and fair compensation for patients harmed by genuine medical errors. At the same time, fostering a culture of transparency, trust, and communication between healthcare providers and patients is essential.

Future research should explore the long-term impact of defensive medicine on health outcomes and the broader healthcare ecosystem. Educational initiatives, interdisciplinary discussions, and collaborative efforts between healthcare professionals, legal experts, policymakers, and patients can pave the way for a more ethical, efficient, and patient-focused healthcare model. By prioritizing the welfare of patients and promoting a culture of care, the healthcare system can move towards mitigating unnecessary practices and ensuring that defensive medicine becomes an exception rather than a norm.

Conflict of Interest: There is no conflicting interest.

Funding: Self Funded

Ethical Approval: Not Applicable.

1. Ries, N. M. & Jansen, J., 2021. Physicians' views and experiences of defensive medicine: an international review of empirical research. Health Policy. edu.au
2. Kakemam, E., Arab-Zozani, M., Raeissi, P. and Albelbeisi, A.H., 2022. The occurrence, types, reasons, and mitigation strategies of defensive medicine among physicians: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), p.800. com
3. Saks, M. J. & Landsman, S., 2020. The paradoxes of defensive medicine. Health Matrix. com
4. Kwok, C.S., Bennett, S., Azam, Z., Welsh, V., Potluri, R., Loke, Y.K. and Mallen, C.D., 2021. Misdiagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review of the literature. Critical Pathways in Cardiology, 20(3), pp.155-162. ac.uk
5. Byers, R. N., 2024. The Meaningless Sorry: The Risks of Intersecting Apology Laws with Medical Malpractice Liability. DePaul J. Health Care L.. ac.uk
6. Cyberspace, E., 2020. National Association of Medical Examiners. [HTML]
7. Ries, N. M., Johnston, B., & Jansen, J., 2022. … interview study of Australian physicians on defensive practice and low value care:“it's easier to talk about our fear of lawyers than to talk about our fear of looking bad …. BMC medical ethics. com
8. Unger, J.P., Morales, I., De Paepe, P. and Roland, M., 2020. In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics. BMC health services research, 20, pp.1-10. com
9. John, S. & Wu, J., 2022. “First, Do No Harm”? Non-Maleficence, Population Health, and the Ethics of Risk. Social Theory and Practice. ac.uk
10. Vogus, T.J., Gallan, A., Rathert, C., El-Manstrly, D. and Strong, A., 2020. Whose experience is it anyway? Toward a constructive engagement of tensions in patient-centered health care. Journal of Service Management, 31(5), pp.979-1013. net
11. Quinn, T.P., Senadeera, M., Jacobs, S., Coghlan, S. and Le, V., 2021. Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(4), pp.890-894. gov