Trial lawyers share blame in rising malpractice costs

Trial lawyers share blame in rising malpractice costs
EDITOR:
A steady stream of articles continues in The Vindicator regarding the on-going medical malpractice crisis. This is as it should be, as it's a critical issue. However it seems most of the articles contain a quote from some trial lawyer blaming insurance companies for high insurance premiums. Well, let me tell you that if over 30 years in the insurance business taught me anything, it's that there are far too many trial lawyers more interested in making a good fast buck than in actually practicing law. They've been playing fast and loose with the tort liability system for years.
Witness their slick TV ads wherein they portray insurance adjusters as a bunch of bumpkins not to be trusted. Of course they want you to call them so they can rake 40 percent off the top of your settlement for (all too often) doing next to nothing to earn it. I don't remember any insurance companies running ads telling us not to trust lawyers. Maybe they should.
My point is that where the medical malpractice crisis is concerned there is more than enough blame to go around. In a perfect world all the parties involved in this issue would have set aside their self interests, quit blaming each other and solved this problem long ago. It's high time they did so.
JOHN ZEDAKER
Poland
Let's dispel some myths about stem cell research
EDITOR:
I would like to respond to a letter of June 20 and attempt to dispel the misinformation and erroneous ideas expressed by the writer. His article expressed opposition to stem cell research and therapy. It made several factually incorrect statements .
Concerning the use of stem cell research in discovering cures for diseases, it stated, "cures of the aging should not be used to advance the research on natal humans." The term "natal" refers to newborn infants, not the blastula-stage embryos that are used as sources of stem cells for research and therapy. No one uses newborns for this kind of research.
In describing the use of stem cells for brain disorders such as Alzheimer's, the letter also made reference to "the possible side effects of the growth of a baby inside the brain of the person." This side effect is impossible. Stem cells cannot spontaneously develop into embryos in the environment of the brain.
These types of statements highlight to me the profound scientific ignorance of many people in this country. Scientific literacy in the United States has been declining for decades and is now at a crisis point, principally because people are needlessly afraid of science. Our society needs intensive public science education programs, especially in the biological sciences.
The world has entered a new era of biological milestones. With the growing presence in our every day lives of biotechnology and biomedical advances, it is critical that ordinary citizen understand these developments in order to better put into perspective the effects of these advancements on their everyday lives.
GARY R. WALKER, Ph.D.
Struthers
In other words, let's try minding our own business
EDITOR:
Since I don't have original ideas, I rely on quotations to help me express myself. One of my favorites is Thomas Jefferson's discussing morals. "If a man believes in one God, or three Gods, or many Gods, or no God at all, it doesn't break my leg and it doesn't flatten my wallet."
I think this is applicable to the momentous, earthshaking amendment to our Constitution to ban gay marriage, as proposed by George W. Bush, and considered by the House and the Senate. Our Constitution has flaws (the Electoral College for one) but it has served us well, and deserves the reverence in which we hold it. It should not be demeaned by inserting ideas into it.
If gay people want to marry, we must believe it would increase their happiness. I generally favor increasing happiness. Such a marriage would in no way demean my 57-seven year old one, and it doesn't break my leg or flatten my wallet.
ROBERT B. McCONNELL, M.D.
Youngstown
Shouldn't soldiers at least get a break on phone costs?
EDITOR:
My grandson is in the U.S. Army where he's been deployed to Iraq. Although we don't like it, neither he nor his family is complaining. He signed up to serve and is doing his duty. However, it is very important to us to be able to keep in touch with our kid when the nature of his assignment allows that.
Here is what I've discovered. For security purposes, the only calling card he can use to call home is the AT & amp;T card. The rate they charge is 50 cents a minute. That means for him to call his mom or girlfriend for a very brief 10 minutes costs him $5. I can call friends in England for 85 minutes for the same $5. Does that seem reasonable to you?
In my view, if the rate AT & amp;T charges is valid (and I'm not saying it isn't), then calling home should be subsidized by the U.S. government. If we can subsidize farmers to not grow crops, then we can afford to subsidize phone calls by our kids doing their duty in Iraq. Please note that I'm not picking on farmers, I'm just saying that there are many subsidy programs out there and this would be a worthy one.
CARL KESNER
Hubbard