NATIO)
HE BATTAI.it
;es
flaw
Opinio^
page 5B # Monday, January 27, 2003
The Battalion
net traffic
a.m. ESI, sought
ct using a known
ft Corp., called
Server
Patch
■•Vi
4
ibat this onslaught
administrators liltefe:
irvers for the worn
dalled a patch that
e flaw in the prograr
Cagayatf
also take time:
:ould disrupt otk
nd applicate
id many new
lay installing pa:»:
st them first,
spokesman Ru
the company
h network profc
eve lop better la
es to automatical^
ms for kno»!
gas prices
e than a
ationwide
), Calif. (AP) -
jarly one and a
Mon over the
an industry anal
pfSFECt?
Malpractice ^
M
#
Bush’s proposed cap on 'pain and suffe rt
alpractice law
suit abuse is
wrecking the
[health care system. Given
the recent national con
troversy over the avail
ability of health insurance
and prescription drug
prices, it seems especially
[odd that many states con-
[tinue to value the inter
ests of their respective trial
lawyers’ associations more than
those of ordinary citizens seeking
affordable and convenient care.
Indeed, that was the topic of a
speech President George W. Bush
gave this month in Scranton,
Penn. In it, he outlined a plan
currently in Congress that would,
among other things, establish a
nationwide cap on the often exor
bitant “pain and suffering” dam
ages awarded to medical malprac
tice plaintiffs. This is an excellent
policy proposal that has been
proven to work in several other
states that have adopted similar
measures.
Bush chose to speak in
Pennsylvania because the area has
recently become a showcase of
what can happen when greedy
trial lawyers and their droves of
plaintiffs, most of whom have not
|suffered because of malpractice,
are allowed to run roughshod
lover the civil litigation system.
I According to The Wall Street
I Journal, three out of the five vas-
I cular surgeons that used to work
I in Scranton are gone, orthopedic
I surgeons are no longer treating
I trauma patients, and hospitals
cannot afford insurance.
In Philadelphia, more punitive
damages were awarded in the last
; weighted priceft [three years than in the entire state
ide, including i , of California. And if you think
this may be a problem confined
to Pennsylvania, think again.
According to a recent New York
taxes, was abc.
lion Friday, accoii
undberg Survey;
is nationwide. Times article, dozens of surgeons
at several hospitals in the pan
handle of West Virginia stopped
S1.50 a gallon o
date of the lii
vey.
I to the price fis
:inuing oil procto
/enezuela, a lean
Iraq, the inteis
on America's Eat
is prompting sotui
oduce more her
the addition of
Mine additive
idberg said.
; phasing out ft
lyl Tertiary
E, an additive ft?
polluting drinkiH
leaked from $W
)me refineries a?
1 replace it
n-based fuel
ore expensive!*:
he environme*
I.
requires gasoil*
2 percent oxyge
udi as MTBE t :
cut down on a
weighted avetaf
soline, indutM
erve pumps Frid?
.49 per gallon fc
for mid-grade a*
Mum.
?nts keep
Columbia's
ts busy
ER, Houston^
Jttle Columbia
M busy Sunday^
ed their 16-i
iducting scientft
Laurel Cla' 1
itudy of how ba?
;ast develop i (
n reduced gra#
tsponse to an#
ent is one of se'
European Spa*
rvill be compatf*
>f an expend#
Earth.
all thrilled tb?
;oing as well as
s due back *
working due to high pre
miums and said if things
do not change, they can
not afford to continue
working in the state. Now
patients must be trans
ferred almost 100 miles
to the next town or into
neighboring states for
care. This sounds more
like a problem you might
expect in Afghanistan, not in the
most developed nation in the
world.
According to an American
Medical Association report, simi
lar problems have reached crisis
levels in 12 states, including
Texas, and threaten to become
serious in about 30 more. The
Insurance Information Institute
reports that doctors are refusing
to perform risky procedures, retir
ing early, practicing without
insurance and relocating.
The doctors who cannot afford
to practice anymore and the
patients who have trouble finding
affordable care have only one
group to thank for the current cri
sis: America's loveable trial
lawyers and the not-so-maligned
plaintiffs whom they conspire
with in the institutionalized pil
laging of health care profession
als. Advertisements by ambu
lance-chasing lawyers seeking lit
igants to bring a malpractice suit
are ubiquitous. They can be seen
not only on television and heard
on the radio but are also plastered
on billboards and bus stop bench
es. Some even advise those who
are not sure if they are hurt to
contact a lawyer anyway.
After all, better safe than
sorry, right?
A report by the Physicians
Insurers Association of America
shows that only 29.4 percent of
malpractice cases are settled for
the plaintiff, and only 6.7 percent
go to trial (of which only 19.1
percent are decided for the plain
tiff). The vast majority, 62.3 per
cent, are dismissed, dropped, or
withdrawn. This clearly shows
that, in today's adversarial socie
ty, merit and legitimacy are not
common characteristics among
malpractice claims. However, this
does not mean they are not lucra
tive. Studies show that, when
these cases are won, jury awards
for non-economic damages, such
as “pain and suffering,” are sky
rocketing. Jury Verdict Research
reports that 52 percent of awards
are now more than $ 1,000,000,
compared with just 34 percent
from 1994-96. The litigation lot
tery sometimes pays off big-time
for the trial lawyers willing to
play.
The prospect of huge settle
ments entices lawyers and liti
gants to take a shot at the system
more often than they otherwise
would, and we are now seeing
the effects materialize. Although
chances of a successful lawsuit
are slim, doctors, hospitals, and
insurers are constantly fending
off the dogs, and every one of us
helps pay the bills. Not only are
doctors abandoning practice and
making it harder to find care, but
those who really do suffer from,
malpractice are hurt because the
ludicrous awards handed out to
those who may not deserve them
are depleting the pool of avail
able money.
The solution to this problem is
simple: states must place reason
able caps on malpractice “pain
and suffering” awards, and they
better do it fast. The bill Bush
spoke of already passed the
House this year, but stalled in
Daschle's Senate. Now that
Republicans are in control, it is
very likely to become law. If
states are reluctant to put their
powerful trial lawyers’ associa
tions in their place. Uncle Sam
will surely do it for them.
Jared Najvar is a senior
political science major
—
RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALION
Guns not to blame Right to privacy under attack
A s the ambulances car
rying the victims of
the Washington, D.C.-
area sniper attacks sped
toward hospitals, there is no
doubt many lawyers were
chasing close behind.
On Oct. 2, 2002, John
Muhammed and John Lee
Malvo allegedly began a
sniping rampage that left 10
dead, three wounded and millions ter
rified. Muhammed and Malvo were
arrested on Oct. 24.
According to The Washington
Post, the families of two of the sniper
victims have filed lawsuits against the
alleged snipers, the store where their
gun was supposedly stolen and the
gun manufacturer that made the gun
used in the shooting spree.
Their suit accuses the gun manu
facturer, Bushmaster, of gross negli
gence for simply making the rifle.
This is just the latest needless act of
an overly litigious society hell-bent on
suing anything and everything.
Bushmaster built the high-powered
rifle, which is completely legal to
manufacture, sell and own in the
United States. However, the victims
realize a lawsuit against two homeless
drifters like Muhammad and Malvo
would net nothing more than a crowd
ed court docket and lawyers’ fees.
Bushmaster should shoulder none
of the blame for these attacks. The
blame lies solely on the deranged peo
ple who committed the heinous crime.
The old National Rifle Association
adage is simplistic, yet holds true that,
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill
people.”
In the absence of guns, the people
demented enough to crave killings
will find other objects for their
destruction. Prisoners have been
known to sharpen spoon handles to
make homemade knives, which can
have the same end result as a gun.
While the families of the victims
justifiably are very hurt by the
attacks, nothing can undo any of their
pain or loss.
Although they are hurt, that does
not legitimize the filing of these frivo-
THOMAS
CAMPBELL
lous lawsuits. These lawsuits
could cost the defendant tens
of thousands of dollars, for
which they should be com
pensated.
After a rash of frivolous
lawsuits in England,
Parliament legislated that any
one filing an unjustified law
suit would have to pay the
lawyers’ fees of those who
are sued.
Such a bill in America would help
stifle frivolous lawsuits, allowing only
those with legitimate grievances to
seek justice. With corporations no
longer spending precious time and
money defending themselves in
ridiculous suits that will eventually be
dismissed, they will have fewer costs,
allowing them to pass savings on to
customers and spend more money on
research and development.
Suits like this are a drain on soci
ety. They drain time and resources
which could be better used in a place
other than a courtroom. These suits
in particular will play on the fear
and emotions of the people who
lived in fear that the sniper might hit
them while they were going through
their day.
While the sniper shootings indi
rectly affected all of America, there is
no excuse for blaming anyone other
than those who pulled the trigger.
Doing so is a perversion of justice and
should be criminal itself.
Draining money from Bushmaster
through legal fees will do absolutely
nothing to prevent this from happen
ing again. If the victims believe that
these rifles have no place in our socie
ty, they should go about this change
the right way and lobby Congress to
make laws preventing the manufac
ture and ownership of that rifle.
Whether America or Congress
embraces these beliefs will remain to
be seen, but lawsuits against the com
pany that legally manufactured the
rifle should be thrown out. Our justice
system is not the place for people to
make a statement.
Thomas Campbell is a senior
agricultural journalism major.
A t the beginning of the
20th century. Supreme
Court Justice Louis D.
Brandeis said, “The right to
be let alone is the most com
prehensive of the rights of
man and the right most val
ued by civilized men.” There
is no mention of a right to
privacy in the Bill of Rights,
but it is very much implied
throughout the list of fundamental
rights granted to us by the
Constitution, as it is also very much a
legitimate and necessary freedom of
our everyday lives. However, we find
ourselves in the beginning of a new
century, when the right to privacy has
come under attack by our own govern
ment. We cannot take this right for
granted.
Anyone who has been to the airport
recently has surely noticed new federal
airport security measures in which
checked baggage receives greater
scrutiny than before. In some cases,
baggage is checked out of the view of
the owner, a clearly unnecessary and
invasive procedure. There is no reason
a person cannot be present while his
personal possessions are being rum
maged through by strangers.
According to the Portland Press
Herald, Paul Donahue and his wife
Teresa Wood, a couple from Maine,
decided to protest these new laws ear
lier this month when they placed
notes in their baggage calling airport
security uniformed government pup
pets bringing this nation closer to a
fascist police state. The note was
found when airport workers mistook a
boot with batteries tucked inside and a
power strip next to it for a bomb. The
couple was arrested, but charges were
later dropped when it was found the
couple had not meant to create a
bomb scare.
Donahue and Wood have every
right to feel their privacy is being
invaded every time their bags are
taken out of their sight, and with them,
all knowledge of who is searching
their property and in what manner.
The couple says they will no longer
use airlines as long as their posses-
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
sions are perused without their
consent or presence.
The current administration
has been successful in passing
two acts that clearly infringe on
peoples’ right to privacy: the
post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act and
the newly arrived Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
According to The
Associated Press, with the
Patriot Act, the government can
demand public libraries to turn over
information on the reading habits of
any person who steps foot into a
library. Also, authorities can more eas
ily receive clearance to plant telephone
and computer wiretaps. The powers
that be may also conduct searches in
secret without notifying the subject
being investigated. This means free
U.S. citizens must make way for the
government to allow itself into your
home, your computer, your telephone
conversations and find out what you
read without your consent or knowl
edge.
This is inarguably a breach of Fifth
Amendment rights, which protect
against unreasonable search and
seizure. According to The Associated
Press, with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, Americans are no
longer protected by the legal standard
of probable cause, but only have to be
suspected of possible assistance in ter
rorism. Americans should not be
forced to constantly wonder whether
they are being observed by the govern
ment and, more importantly, feel
threatened by the reality that this Big
Brother-esque legislation allows the
government into their private lives
with no just cause.
Restrictions on the right to privacy
also invade the homes of a minority in
our society. Current legislation in 13
states prohibits consensual sodomy,
and four of these states have harsher
penalties in cases involving same-sex
partners.
In the landmark decision of the
1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v.
Connecticut, Justice William O.
Douglass wrote that there is guaran
teed by the Fifth Amendment a zone
of privacy which the government may
not force a person to surrender to his
detriment, essentially declaring the
use of contraceptives legal. If there is
a zone of privacy in one’s home in
which a person may choose to use
contraception, sodomy must be
allowed in the same zone, without
any prohibitions put on by the gov
ernment. These sodomy laws are said
to have been created to uphold moral
ity in our country. However, there is
private morality which law has no
business defining. A person should
not have anyone else tell them who
they may sleep with — that is a deci
sion they should be able to make for
themselves. In reality, these sodomy
laws, created out of hate, fear and
ignorance, are used to target the
minority gay population and to deny
a community its fundamental right to
a consensual expression of connec
tion and love. The gay population
should share the same fundamental
choice of whom to share their beds
with as everyone else.
The current administration is now
turning its unrelenting eyes to a right,
founded on privacy, that Americans
have had for a mere 30 years as of this
week. President George W. Bush has
made it clear that he would like to see
the women in our country lose the
right to choose to have an abortion.
According to the Stamp Out Planned
Parenthood (STOPP) Web site, a dele
gation sent by the Bush administration
to the United Nations Asian and
Pacific Population Conference in
Bangkok, made some fantastic pro-life
statements during the conference. This
shows that the rights of Americans are
not only threatened by a radical
Christian fundamentalist right, but by
the Republican party in general. We
must hold on dearly to and fight for
the woman’s right to choose.
Our right to privacy is under attack.
It is being lost in our homes, bed
rooms, airports and elsewhere
throughout the country. America will
pay a price in the absence of privacy.
John David Blakley is a freshman
political science major.