Opinion
Doctors would do better with a Kerry-Edwards victory in November
LETTER — Posted Aug. 23, 2004
Not surprisingly, Sen. John Edwards is named as an archetype of the malpractice problem (Article, Aug. 2). What doctors may not want to hear, though, is that his cases were usually legitimate ones.
Sometimes big awards are needed to make up for the nation's inadequate private insurance coverage. Doctors should not necessarily have to pay for this public good, but don't blame Edwards for systemic flaws.
Doctors, lawyers and insurers deserve equal examination and criticism. The medical community needs to face all errors made, negligent or not. Lawyers need to be held accountable for the cases they choose to bring. Insurers need to be evaluated in terms of the profits they reap, the premium cycles they create, and the poor investments they make.
Lastly, patients need to recognize that medicine is as much art as science. It is not perfect, and not all bad outcomes are due to negligence or incompetence. Not all misadventures can or should be rectified with money derived from a lawsuit.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign has a number of proposals that may actually lower costs to doctors and make medical care better and safer. One idea is a three-strikes-you're-out rule for lawyers who bring frivolous suits. They also want precertification for cases. Doctors would be better with Kerry-Edwards in the White House for everything from Medicare reimbursement, managed care oversight, to malpractice reform than with the Bush team.
Evan Fieldston, MD, Philadelphia
Note: This item originally appeared at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/08/23/edlt0823.htm.
