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