Welcome to the Business Journal Archives
Search for articles below, or continue to the all new BusinessJournalDaily.com now.
Search
South Carolina Doctor Proposes Not Treating Plaintiff's Lawyers, Spouses"
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A South Carolina doctor's proposal to not treat plaintiff's attorneys or their spouses won't get the backing of Pennsylvania's physicians next week, but that isn't stopping the controversy over the resolution.Proposed by J. Chris Hawk III, M.D., Resolution 202 is one of the items on the agenda at the 2004 annual meeting June 12-16 of the American Medical Association's House of Delegates. Aimed at reforming medical liability, the resolution states that it would not be unethical to refuse care to plaintiff's attorneys and their spouses "except in emergencies and except as otherwise required by law." The resolution proposes that "if trial attorneys were given the opportunities to experience the access problems caused by the professional liability crisis, then perhaps they would be willing to help change the system."Doctors nationwide contend that frivolous lawsuits have led to soaring liability insurance rates, leading many physicians to limit their scope of practice, relocate or retire. In a June 7 statement, Charles Cutter, M.D., chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical Society's AMA delegation, said the resolution "will not be supported by Pennsylvania doctors at the upcoming AMA annual meeting." The same day, Marilyn Heine, M.D., president of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, expressed her organization's opposition to the resolution in a separate statement. "A basic tenet of emergency medicine is to provide care for all patients presenting to the emergency room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week." State Sen. Robert J. Mellow expressed shock over the resolution. "That a doctor might allow a patient to suffer in order to make a political point -- a point aimed, after all, at improving the doctor's own financial health -- is beyond reprehensible," Mellow said. "Given that the medical lobby's 'fleeing doctors' hoax has been debunked thoroughly, it's even more shameless for it to cloak such a vindictive action in concern over 'access problems,' Mellow said. "No doctor truly concerned about access to health care would deny a patient treatment." Mellow noted that the Pennsylvania Medical Society, a lobbying group for physicians, has spent the last three years convincing patients and legislators that only strict limitations on patients' rights would prevent an exodus of doctors from the state. The General Assembly responded with reforms to the legal system and allocated $230 million in state aid to help doctors pay for malpractice coverage. "The fact that the doctors would even consider formalizing this viciousness completely undermines their three-year propaganda campaign," Mellow said. "It's simple avarice and arrogance, masquerading as professional concern."Cutter said opponents of lawsuit abuse reform are "turning up the hype" and "will resort to any trick to turn public opinion against patient care." He said opponents of reform also want the public to believe that doctors haven't left the state. "In fact, a study of practicing physician turnover shows that during the 24-month period that includes 2002 and 2003, more doctors left Pennsylvania than moved into the state," he said."