Kill the Jury

I am very pleased to kick off the"Guest Posters" feature with the following excellent contribution from esteemed commenter "Dissenter."

George W. Bush and Mike Boland, Bill Frist and Mike Jacobs, Dennis Hastert and Pat Verschoore. All of them have recently favored the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the healthy over the sick. And frankly, they are all rather annoyed with our pesky system of justice and the frustrating Constitution on which it is based.

The framers of our nation's Constitution, possessed of a desire to fulfill the great promise of our Declaration of Independence, formed a jury system intended to ensure equal justice for all.

Justice for all: a phrase so important that we as a nation pledge our allegiance to the republic founded upon its very premise. A phrase so often used that somewhere along the way, it appears to have lost its meaning.

The framers of our constitutional system believed that the adversarial process, decided by a unanimous jury of twelve persons, was the fairest method of resolving our disputes. Though not perfect, it was the best and fairest way of ensuring equal justice for all.

Under the misleading guise of something called "tort reform," a rich and powerful insurance industry has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an attack upon that fundamental constitutional premise. "It's time to put an end to the junk lawsuits!" our President proclaims, with the knowing smile of a man whose party has profited greatly from insurance industry money, to the detriment of the injured and the poor. "Let's keep our doctors here at home," the billboards and banners plead with us, almost as though we truly have suffered a mass exodus of doctors fleeing from "junk lawsuits."

The proponents of "tort reform" support the abandonment of our constitutional jury system, to be replaced by an elitist system which protects big business. To remove the base alloy of fabrication from their proclamations, their banners and billboards should more accurately plead, "Protect the elite while worsening the plight of the injured!" "Keep money in our pockets, while depriving those whom we ourselves have hurt!"

Or perhaps, more simply, "Kill the jury."

However, as alarming as their abandonment of logic is their utter disregard for the truth.

Fact: Under the existing Illinois system, before an injured patient may even file a lawsuit alleging medical negligence, he must first secure a detailed, narrative affidavit from a physician who is well-qualified and who has regularly practiced medicine in the same field as the defendant physician within the past six years, confirming the existence of negligence and detailing the facts upon which it is based.

Fact: Once the lawsuit is filed, after passing such a rigorous preliminary review, the injured plaintiff will be confronted by an arsenal of physicians employed by the medical liability insurance companies. The plaintiff must, under law, remain personally responsible for all costs of litigation regardless of case outcome. In other words, the injured patient, often destitute as a consequence of such injuries, must incur tens of thousands of dollars in litigation expenses while fighting the battle against the big business of insurance.

Fact: A recent independent study of medical negligence lawsuits in Illinois, conducted by a professor from Duke University, concluded that seven-figure verdicts in Illinois are extremely rare, that neither lawsuit filing frequency nor jury verdicts have increased during the past several years, and that claims of litigious frivolity resulting in excessive jury verdicts are unheard of (perhaps because of all the special safeguards that are already in place).

Fact: Medical negligence liability premiums, in states with caps on jury awards, have increased at a rate faster than states without caps.

Fact: In California, medical liability premiums continued to sky-rocket after caps were imposed on jury awards. Premiums only decreased several years later, when reforms were imposed upon the manner in which insurance companies can spend and invest their profits.

While our constitutional system of justice lies bleeding, its life's breath becoming shallow and faint, the injured and the poor will suffer the most. But suffer they must. After all, we can no longer afford to have our doctors "fleeing the state" from "junk lawsuits" and "trial lawyers" who follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln.

We can sleep well tonight, knowing that doctors, hospital administrators, and insurance company CEO's continue to live right here, shopping in our finest stores, eating in our finest restaurants, driving nice cars to their country clubs while wearing fine clothing, all of them safe in the knowledge that they will be specially protected from the savagery of jurors and the greed of the teenage boy who lies crippled in a hospital bed, breathing through a ventilator for the rest of his life because of the acts of his drunken doctor.

All of the blame does not belong to the Republicans. Illinois Senate Bill 475 recently passed both the Illinois House and Senate. It purports to require that a victim's lifetime of suffering and pain cannot be worth more than $500,000 if caused by the negligence of a doctor, or $1,000,000 if caused by the negligence of a hospital (apparently, in Illinois, pain caused by hospitals is twice as severe as pain caused by doctors). The Governor has indicated his intention to sign it into law. Mike Boland, Mike Jacobs, and Pat Verschoore all voted in favor of it. Victims of greed all. Greed for campaign contributions. Greed for political advancement. Greed for the political success which comes from going with the tide of a successful public relations blitz rooted in distortions.

A young constituent of President Bush, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Mike Jacobs, Mike Boland, and Pat Verschoore lies alone today in the bed of her nursing home. She was permanently disabled when her physician, who was twice previously reprimanded by the state board of professional regulation, mis-diagnosed her, delaying the provision of treatment which would have allowed her to live a normal life. If she could speak, she might ask but one question: "Why are the rich and powerful so much more deserving of your protection than I?"

Shame on those who run from righteousness for political cover. Shame on all of them.