Ok, this is news. For the first time in a very long time, I am in total and unmitigated agreement with Ralph Nader.
Unless cooler heads prevail, the American Medical Association is teetering on the brink of public ridicule, mockery and indignation. Resolution 202 has been introduced by Dr. J. Chris Hawk III from South Carolina to the AMA's Committee B. It is aimed directly at trial lawyers as patients.
This resolution sets a new record for loss of sensitivity toward the tens of thousands of patients who die every year due to the gross negligence or incompetence called medical malpractice. This proposed resolution reflects the AMA's disappointment that the doctor's lobby has not adequately torpedoed the legal rights of these innocent plaintiffs in court. So it recommends major legal "surgery" that should turn the stomachs of more conscientious ethical and competent physicians than just gastroenterologists.
Here are the chilling words:
"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association notify physicians that, except in emergencies and except as otherwise required by law or other professional regulation, it is not unethical to refuse care to plaintiffs' attorneys and their spouses."
Nader goes on to do a pretty good job of summarizing the entirely bogus nature of this whole medical malpractice crisis scam that the insurance industry has effortlessly pulled off with the eager assistance of the American Medical Association. I'm not even going to start with that right now, but that situation reminds me of another. The AMA, rather than looking inward and making a real effort to stem incompetence and negligence on the part of medical practitioners, has chosen to direct its fury at the lawyers who work to defend and compensate those who are or may become the victims of that incompetence and negligence. Sound familiar?
Anyway, as it turns out, Dr. Hawk ended up withdrawing his resolution. To their credit, most members of the AMA were apparently appalled and disgusted by the suggestion.
I like doctors. I really do. Probably couldn't live without 'em. And I'm not big on scuzzy malpractice lawyers who encourage clients to bring bogus claims or seek exhorbitant damages. But a lot of malpractice suits are genuine, valid attempts to seek compensation for devastating personal injuries due to one of the most egregious breaches of trust I can imagine. L'havdil. It's important to differentiate.
