> Who will be liable when a patient/defendant experiences a complicated reaction as a result?

The defendant. The same person who is liable when corrections bunks them with a prison rapist, or a psychopath who ends up building a guitar out of their vocal chords.

The justice system is a deep pit that we toss people into, without any care for what happens after. If we made anyone in on the side of the prosecution accountable for the consequences, the entire system would grind to a halt.

Don't judges have immunity from legal retaliation to their actions as judges?

Only monetary damages. But they have effective immunity from prosecution because it's (as far as I know) never happened that a prosecutor has pressed charges against a judge for his ruling, outside of corruption.

The system couldn't work if judges could be prosecuted for their rulings, unless you're counting bribes, which they already get prosecuted for.

Almost. It takes a lot to go after a judge. The big case that comes to mind is the Cash for Kids Scandal, where Honest Services Fraud was one of the charges used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

I didn't know there was even such a thing as honest service fraud until recently. It appears to have a lot of problems as a charge, but it certainly feels like it should be used a lot more to simply prevent some of the Machiavellian screw-jobs modern business (and politics) inflict on people. I know, I'm getting a little "ranty", but doesn't the term "honest service fraud" seem to fit so many of the problems caused by big organizations today?

I may be being overly pedantic, but I believe there is a little submeaning in your post. I believe judges have immunity from retaliation within the judicial system. As far as I am aware, state medical boards are non-judicial and do have the authority to issue fines for such things as practicing medicine without a license.