Comments about ‘Malpractice measure gets tentative OK’

why don't you tell us what the bill actually says, not what the ambulance chasers and hospital associations say it will do? Why don't you report on the bill and let us decide, rather than give the biased opinions of parties at interest?

How is it that The Deseret Morning News can call itself a newspaper when it stoops to regurgitating the indignant public relations tripe spewed by the trial attorneys? The paper has now written about Senate Bill 79 twice in the past week, and not once has any reporter bothered to contact the Utah Medical Association for their side of the story, relying instead upon snippets gathered from handouts passed out by the one organization that has something to lose by this legislation. The trial attorneys are more adept than anyone at twisting the language and spinning "facts" to their ends and the Deseret News has swallowed their bait hook line and sinker.

How convenient that this story should run just before a final vote in the Senate on this bill. The Deseret News should know better than to accept carte blanche the rantings of the self-interested on any issue where there is such divergence of opinion. You can do better.

Mark Fotheringham
Utah Medical Association

Ok Mark, I want to know the truth.

So please identify specifically all of the frivolous lawsuits concerning emergency rooms that were in fact filed in Utah last year.

Then the newspapers can verify your claims by checking out the "facts" of each case to see if they were frivolous or not.

While you are at it, identify the specific doctors who refuse to serve in the emergency rooms so that they can be interviewed.

If your group has real facts, then it won't be afraid to prove it.

The problem is that your group has not presented a single "fact" in support of the bill. You have used the same old scare tactics without any factual support.

I for one want to know that when I go to an emergency room I will get top quality care.

Your bill reduces the motivation to make sure that doctors provide adequate care because it allows them to avoid the traditional consequences of being held financially liable if they provide substandard care and hurt someone.

If you reduce the motivation to perform quality care, eventually you reduce the quality of care itself.

Its that simple to me. Where is your proof?

The idea that a doctor would give substandard care because there isn't the threat of lawsuit is ludicrous. Have you met a doctor that doesn't put patient first? It's part of what doctors sign up for.

This is exactly what trial lawyers want you to think, that THEY'RE providing some public service to keep doctors honest. LAWYERS are saying this, and they're lining their pockets with the public's naivety and greed.

haha

Medical doctors kill more people with their stupid drugs then anyone else. Most medical doctors don't even understand the drugs they prescribe to their patience. I no longer go to Medical Doctors unless its for a broken arm or something. I refuse to take their killer drugs or under go unnecessary surgeries. Most seen to be KNIFE happy.