Editor:
In a recent letter criticizing our jury system, Dr. Joseph Anistranski,
president-elect of the Luzerne County Medical Society, argued that
average, hard-working Americans are not qualified to sit in judgment of
a doctor accused of malpractice. I disagree.
First of all, Pennsylvania now requires lawyers to obtain a
"certificate of merit" from a physician in the same field of
medical specialty as the doctor accused of malpractice. That medical
expert must review the case and certify that the case has merit.
Secondly, lawyers defending the defendant doctor are allowed to present
their own expert witnesses.
Tort reformers want specialty courts of "medical experts" to
judge malpractice cases so they can stack the deck against victims. Such
kangaroo courts were exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect
us against when they guaranteed us the right to trial by a jury of our
peers.
The founders of our country knew that citizen juries provide the
litigants with a fair shake. If you sued Ford Motor Company because the
defective Pinto you bought blew up, would you want a panel of auto
industry executives judging your case? No, of course not. Why should
doctors be any different?
Trial lawyers are willing to work with organized medicine to facilitate
a solution to the problem of rising malpractice insurance rates; trial
lawyers cannot agree to take away people's rights.
Attorney Neil T. O'Donnell
Wilkes-Barre
|
