APPLY METHODS TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUITS

Mothers Against Drunk Driving was organized to deal with the problem of
drunken drivers. I think the time has now come for MADD to expand its
mission to include a subcommittee that would work not only to save lives
but also help to lower the cost of insurance for many individuals. MADD
could also stand for Mothers Against Drugged Doctors. Should the
aforementioned statement offend any of our local, state or national
doctors, then those offended must be guilty.

Doctors are striking over the high cost of malpractice insurance instead of
focusing on the real reason for the increasing cost of the insurance. The
president is calling for Congress to impose federal restrictions on
malpractice cases, claiming that a "broken" medical liability system is
driving away doctors and straining the cost and availability of health
care. He has stated that rising costs of malpractice insurance and large
jury awards are a national problem and cannot be addressed solely by the
states. The president has urged lawmakers to limit the amount that patients
can be awarded if they are injured by doctors and hospitals to $250,000
when there are noneconomic damages, and an unspecified cap on punitive awards.

South Carolina could solely address this issue. S.C. lawmakers could do the
same thing they did to address the issue of drunken drivers. Do you think
that drunken drivers should be able to protest the high cost of their SR-22
insurance because they have a hard time paying their premiums? This is
exactly what the doctors are doing. The state could have said what our
president is saying now: "Let's put a cap on what injured people can
receive when they are involved in an injury caused by a drunken driver."
Instead, legislators passed legislation aimed at the problem.

Our president and other leaders have not been addressing the real problem
for the continuing high cost of malpractice insurance; they are only
addressing the solution. It is more critical to address the problem in
order to help lower the high cost of medical malpractice insurance.

All hospitals should be required to have in place a drug and alcohol policy
for everyone who works at the hospital, including the doctors, nurses,
administrators, etc., to be administered by an independent firm. Then,
annually, without identifying any individuals, a report should be filed
with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and made public.

Malpractice insurance should not be issued to any hospital that fails to
implement a drug and alcohol policy.

The juries who have been awarding these lawsuits to patients have done so
after hearing the testimony and facts that were presented by trial lawyers.
Can you imagine what it would be like if we did not have caring, competent
and compassionate lawyers standing up for maimed people butchered by some
drug-addicted so-called doctor?

All hospitals should be required to have policies to discipline any doctor
for testing positive for alcohol or drugs. If the doctor is not
rehabilitated, then he or she should lose his or her license to practice
just like a drunken driver would lose his or her license to drive.

Why have the hospitals and doctors not addressed the problem? It appears
that the only issue hospitals and doctors care about is the high cost of
malpractice insurance. Surely the hospitals and doctors can understand why
the cost is high.

If requiring drug tests would help lower the costs of insurance, can anyone
explain why this has not already been implemented at these hospitals? Maybe
we should look at eliminating all drug tests in the United States of
America. If the tests are not satisfactory for our medical professionals,
then perhaps the question is whether or not the tests should be used in any
other areas of our society for the determination of responsibility.

The writer, president of United Steelworkers of America Local 7898, lives
in Georgetown.