Is there really a need for the "Medical Innovation Bill"? Part III

Is there really a need for the "Medical Innovation Bill"? Part III

I will now deal with the third and fourth objections to the Medical Innovation Bill.

The bill denies patients compensation for negligence

This is categorically not the case. The bill provides assurances for clinicians that innovative treatments will not be considered negligent merely by dint of being innovative, if the process and safeguards in the bill are complied with. There is nothing in the bill that affects the right of the patient for compensation from medical malpractice.
It is important to remember that currently there is no right to compensation for patients injured by experimental treatment. 

The bill will cause confusion

There is no reason why this should be the case. The process required for responsible innovators will be clearly laid out. There may be initial litigation, as there is with any new statute, but the legislation should reduce litigation related to innovation in the medium and long term.