In the unlilkely future, accountability returns. Those who libel are 'invited' to compensate those they harm, including both physicians and all patients deprived of their care. 'Immune' peer review must be conducted under voir dire jury selection; restitution to injured patients could be reliable and direct, as in so-called 'no-fault' insurance. Errors in medical judgment could be addressed with education rather than with career-immolation.
Patients' self-interest comes to demand fair treatment of physicians, and through use of the legislative Initiative in each of the 25 states which have it, patients demand due-process peer-review to recruit doctors to their locale. Disclosure-legislation (sunshine laws) reveals what amount of the 'medical dollar' is wasted on administration and profit. Due-process is confirmed to be cost-effective.
Through electronic mail comparing sites, doctors learn to go only where they are well-treated. Semmelweis Society offers instant 'touch-screen' 24/7/365 crisis-consultations with MD-JD's whose education it has sponsored.
Physicians learn how to find where it is safe to practice; perpetrators of 'flawed' peer review are publicly identified.
Peer review in the public interest becmes non-punitive, impartial, educational, and prospective instead of punitive, political, corrupt, and competitive. Monopoly peer-review-for-profit, corporate and personal, disappears from the face of the earth...as corporate lawyers are reminded that we are all patients.
To the best of our knowledge, HCQIA (1986) does NOT require due process in peer review as is suggested by these colleagues: http://www.medicalfoundation.org/bckgrnd.html. Failure of the law to require due process in peer review is not in the public interest.