Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 27, 2004)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Wednesday, October27, 2004 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 )EN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR IARED PABEN AYISUA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTER MORIAH BALINCIT MECHANN CUNIFF KARA HANSEN ANTHONY LUCERO CANELA WOOD NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROLTMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHIUNCER1AN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER DAHVI FISCHER AMY LI Cl TTY RYAN MURPHY PULSE REPORTERS DAVID JAGF.RNAim 1 EDITORIAL EDITOR JENNIFER MCBRIDE AILEE S1ATLR CHUCK SLOTHOWF.R TRAVIS WILLSE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR CABE BRADLEY HEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/ director of recruitment DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER St NIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TTM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER JICOLE BARKER PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER ERIK BISHOFF PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHICS EDITOR KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR ELLIOTT ASBURY CHARLIE CALDWELL DUSTIN REESE DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY JEANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD PAULTHOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMANDA EVRARD AMBER L1NDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR SLADE LEESON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHETT RECEPTIONIST NATHAN FOSTER AIBING CUO ANDREW LEAHY JOHN LONG MALLORY MAHONEY HOLLY MISTELL DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MEUSSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER ALEX AMES MATT BETZ 11ERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE H1RONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE MIA LEIDELMEYER EMILY PHILBIN SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUmiEIL AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541)346-4343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KATY GAGNON SABRINA COWETTE LESLIE STRAIGHT KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARASLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAMLET KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT ANDY HOLLAND DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion Columnists sick about Measure 35 Ailee Slater— YES Measure 35 is essential to decreas ing insurance premiums so that high risk medical practitioners, such as obstetricians, gynecologists and head trauma specialists, continue to work in Oregon, it is especially important to remember that from 1987-1999, when caps like those in Measure 35 existed, medical malpractice insurers greatly reduced premiums. Even though the measure’s opponents may claim otherwise, empirical evi dence proves that if put into effect, this measure will provide doctors with an incentive to continue to practice in Oregon. Consider also that these caps limit only subjective, non-economic dam ages. If a medical error results in wheelchair confinement, patients can still receive money for all present and future medical costs, lost wages for the rest of their lives, and more. At the risk of losing our doctors, is it worthwhile to award another sum of more than half a million dollars? If insurance premiums do not de crease, the deficit of Oregon high-risk practitioners, already dwindling in numbers, will be what truly results in pain and suffering. Chuck Slothower — NO The creation of a “lawsuit crisis” has been one of the most successful public relations campaigns in American history. Insurance companies have become experts at citing anecdotal evidence — mostly the same cases over and over again — to convince gullible Americans and lazy journalists that the health care system is on the verge of col lapse from excessive litigation. I’m calling bullshit; it ain’t happening. According to an article in the Wash ington Monthly, the rate of lawsuits has been falling since 1975 and the actual number of lawsuits has been falling since 1996. Furthermore, the median jury award in tort suits has dropped from $65,000 in 1992 to $37,000 in 2001. We do need dramat ic health-care reform, but the solu tion is to take the profit motive out of health care, not limit the bedrock right of trial by jury. TYavis Willse — NO An unfortunate trend in jurispru dence over recent decades is the au tomation of legal decisions: Judges now often assign sentences based on rigid guidelines, leaving them unable to consider mitigating circumstances. A decade ago, the passage of Ore gon’s Ballot Measure 11 established a series of minimum sentences for cer tain felonies. Measure 35 continues this unfortunate trend. While jury awards for noneconomic damages are sometimes excessive and the es calating costs of medical malpractice insurance are problematic at best, slapping a half-million-dollar cap on those damages isn't the way to solve the problem. Is $500,000 enough to compensate someone for decades of paralysis due to a doctor's negli gence? I'd say no — not by a long shot. Still, some of the spirit, if not the letter of Measure 35, is well-in tentioned. The system of malpractice suit awards needs considerable re form, but that reform should leave room for the informed sensibilities of judges infinitely more sensitive to special considerations than an arbi trary cap could ever be. Jennifer McBride — NO No one disputes that victims of medical malpractice have a right to claim compensation. The only way they can do this is through the courts. Most of the time it’s through settlement, but the pres ence of a cap would make it harder to negotiate fairly, shifting the bur den to courts and to the taxpayers. The only time juries give high awards is in cases where it is neces sary, so it is difficult to believe that rare abuses of the system are what's keeping insurance high. This law won't keep frivolous lawsuits out of court and it won’t lower insurance rates by any significant amount. TYue reform of the system is neces sary to allow doctors to continue practicing, but this measure is not the right medicine. ■ Guest commentary Lament of a lifelong Republican who turned moderate Democrat In 1960, as a recent college gradu ate and new Navy Ensign, I regis tered to vote for the first time as a Re publican. For a fiscal and social moderate, the Republican Party was a good place to be. But today’s GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln or Eisenhower or Reagan. The Bush Re publican Party has moved so far to the right, and is so intolerant of dis sent, there is simply no room for moderates anymore. So, after more than 40 years, I changed affiliation. I simply could no longer associate my name with the neoconservative extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and have abandoned so many of its most cherished principles. Here are just three examples: Balanced budget Traditionally, a balanced budget has been the cornerstone of Republi can fiscal management. No more. During his term, Bush and his party have converted the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit. In fis cal year 2004, the federal government spent well over $400 billion more than it collected, the largest deficit in U.S. history, with similar red ink pro jected for fiscal year 2005. Why? Because Mr. Bush was determined to push through huge tax cuts, primarily benefiting the wealthy, while funding enormously expensive military operations. As Republican Senator John McCain observed, nev er before has the federal government cut taxes in the middle of a war. State sovereignty Republicans have always defended the sovereignty of the 50 states against overzealous intervention by the federal government — until re cently. In 1994, Oregon voters passed a statewide initiative authorizing physicians to prescribe, but not ad minister, lethal drugs to dying pa tients who meet specific criteria. Shortly after taking office, Attorney General John Ashcroft threatened to prosecute physicians so prescribing under the Controlled Substances Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this “unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state law makers ... (who) are the primary reg ulators of professional medical con duct.” Why was this not obvious to Bush and Ashcroft? Individual freedom The Republican Party has a long history of protecting individual rights and freedoms. Consider, then, the case of the “morning-after” pill. There are 3 million unwanted preg nancies in this country each year. By prescription, the morning-after pill has proven extraordinarily safe and effective for more than a decade. Nevertheless, the Bush FDA refused to allow its sale over the counter, thereby denying millions of women access to last-minute contraception. Why? Principally, because Mr. Bush and his supporters from the religious right believe that a fertilized egg im mediately constitutes a human life, even before implantation. Therefore, any disruption of the process consti tutes “destruction” of a human life. Ours is a democracy, not a theoc racy. When did it become acceptable for personal religious beliefs to dic tate public health policy? Perhaps one day the Republican Party will disassociate itself from those who seek to impose their personal version of God’s word on the rest of us, and from those who think that huge in come tax cuts for the wealthy consti tutes viable economic policy. Until then, 1 will remain affiliated with the Democratic Party, the only major par ty that still values dissent and mod eration, and still cares about the wel fare of the average American. Steven D. Popell lives in Los Altos Hills, Calif. OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300 Electronic submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentanes to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month Submissions should include phone number and address for 'verification The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald ■ Editorial Two sides means only one choice: No on 35 Measure 35 would limit non-economic dam ages in medical malpractice lawsuits to $500,000. The Emerald believes juries should retain the power to make decisions about dam ages on a case-by-case basis rather than using the initiative process to put a one-size-fits-all cap in place. Medical malpractice tort reform is an emo tional issue with many sob stories on both sides. Supporters of Measure 35 tell stories of doctors driven out of practice by greedy, preda tory lawyers. With health care costs being so outrageous, it’s heartbreaking to think that costs would be lower if we didn’t allow a pack of money-mad lawyers to get rich on the suffer ing of others. On the other side, critics of Measure 35 tell stories about the heroic lawyers taking down a small handful of doctors who have no regard for their patients’ well-being. These stories are heartbreaking as well, with their terrible images of pain and suffering of innocent patients at the hands of those sworn to heal them. But because there are so many good points to consider on each side of the issue, the Emerald recom mends a “no” vote on Measure 35. Medical malpractice suits can only be fairly evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Ideally, a rep resentative sample of open-minded third parties would meet in a committee to hear all the evi dence and make a decision based on the rele vant points of law and the unique circum stances of a particular case. Sound familiar? It’s called trial by jury, and it’s the system we have now. It’s ridiculous to give a jury the responsibility to assign lia bility in a case while taking away its ability to judge a fair compensation for pain and suffer ing. Measure 35 would declaw the trial by jury system and implement an arbitrary cap for situations that should be judged on a case by-case basis. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief David Jagernauth Editorial Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Gabe Bradley Freelance Editor INBOX Cut clear-cutting, vote Yes on Measure 34 Measure 34 is very dear to my heart. The thought of it not passing brings tears to my eyes. I go camping, four-wheeling and dirt bike riding in the Tillamook forest almost every weekend. Year round! One of my favorite camp spots has a breathtaking view of the TVask River valley. There is not a clear-cut in sight. This will not be the case if Measure 34 passes. No amount of money is worth destroying a pristine forest that is an hour away from Portland. I am voting yes on Measure 34 because I want my children and others to see a truly mag ical place that is relatively free of clear-cut. Clear-cut forests are just too ugly and it takes too long for the trees to grow back. Not to men tion that the Tillamook and Clatsop forests are home to numerous species, like the bald eagle 1 saw that was the size of a Great Dane. Please help save my home away from home. Vote yes on Measure 34. Zoe Raab Undergraduate
