| Scranton Times Tribune | |
|
|
| Legislative
malpractice |
||||||||
|
| Editor:
It is interesting that Elizabeth Caucci should cast so many aspersions
over the issue of limiting damages of those injured by negligent
doctors. Why did advocates of limits allow the legislature to "bait and switch" a malpractice bill into an all-torts bill that will protect the tobacco industry, drug companies, and industrial polluters? Is it because those corporate wrongdoers have pledged to fund the campaign? Why won't the Medical Society criticize the insurance industry or demand insurance reform? Is it because their chief backer, Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, sits on the boards of insurance companies? Is it because the Medical Society wants to get back into the insurance business? Why do they want economic damages to remain uncapped while downplaying the value of pain and suffering? Is it because doctors get paid from economic damages, but get nothing from pain and suffering they cannot cure? Lastly, after being in no hurry to get rid of the few bad doctors or improve patient safety, why are they rushing to force a vote on limiting damages? Is it because recent data has debunked their claims of a doctor exodus? Consumer groups, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and your editorial board had it right. It's time the rest of us tell the Mrs. Cauccis they're wrong. Dan Wiltz Archbald |