Letters to the Editor, Feb. 11

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Feb. 11

By:
‘Poor outcome’ is not malpractice
To the editor:
   
For the record, I am the spouse of a surgeon, but no, she has yet to be sued for malpractice. Many things contribute to the current mess that is our health-care reimbursement system, starting with the disconnect between those receiving services and those paying for said services and ending with good doctors choosing to leave the field. I fully support Dr. Timothy Patrick-Miller and all the other excellent physicians in town who are attempting to deal with skyrocketing insurance premiums.
   But one phrase in Dr. Patrick-Miller’s letter (The Packet, Feb. 7) struck me as illustrative of what I consider the main problem with the medical malpractice liability tort system. Dr. Patrick-Miller writes, "I believe the rights of compensation for loss of function, wages and the need for continuing care due to poor medical care or poor outcome (even with good care) …" (emphasis added). Why should doctors be sued for good care? Jury awards for poor outcome are what are driving insurance premiums higher, not the few awards for actual malpractice.
   For all its problems, our health care is the best in the world by far. It is so good that Americans have become accustomed to perfect results. It is so good that American now demand perfect results. But our bodies are not perfect. They break down, become injured or contract diseases in thousands of ways and in many levels of severity. Sometimes, with the best care available, people die. Sometimes, with the best care available, people are only 80 percent "cured." If this happens with the best care available, why is it the doctor’s fault?
   Medical malpractice tort reform should begin by refining the definition of malpractice — "poor outcome (even with good care)" is not malpractice. Juries will always sympathize with a plaintiff who is suffering, and after all, it’s the big insurance company’s money, anyway. A pretrial screening system to differentiate malpractice from poor results will do more to bring down malpractice insurance premiums than all the laws and regulations imaginable emanating from our legislators — who, by the way, are mostly lawyers.
Thomas Roshetar
Princeton Avenue
Rocky Hill
Undercover sting is big-brotherism
To the editor:
   
Not in reaction to any specific incident, and not on account of any particularized suspicion, but simply from an awareness that illegal sublets have caused problems in the past, the Princeton Borough police decide they would like to make a sweep of a certain block of Witherspoon Street, searching all the houses there.
   They ask the Borough Council to pass an ordinance that would allow them to stage warrantless, no-knock raids on private buildings on suspicion of illegal sublets, leaving what constitutes probable cause for suspicion undefined and up to their own discretion. The council hesitates to enact so radical a measure, partly out of fear that if harassed severely enough, the residents might be provoked into voting, partly out of fear that if the owners of the buildings are forced out of business they will sell their properties to a tax-exempt institution, and perhaps on the part of some members partly out of some residual respect for civil liberties.
   The police grow impatient, and decide not to wait for their ordinance but to try a different tactic. They dress up in a different kind of uniform, forge fake credentials and sweep down the street, gaining entrance to one house after another on the pretense of being gas-meter readers. Once inside under this false pretense, they proceed to make searches, and a couple of violations are found on the block. They do not investigate who actually authorized the sublets, but simply proceed to arrest anyone whose name is listed as an owner of one of the properties, and then triumphantly announce to the press how clever they have been in apprehending these dangerous malefactors.
   Sound fantastic? Replace illegal sublets by underage drinking, Witherspoon Street by Prospect Avenue and meter-readers by university students and you have a description of the undercover sting Chief Davall and his forces are now crowing about.
   No other country in the civilized world imposes prohibition on young adults of college age. By ensuring that drinking will be clandestine and unsupervised, prohibition creates problems here that do not exist in any other country. (Can anyone seriously have expected young adults would behave better under prohibition than the general population did when there was universal prohibition in the 1920s?) The police solution to the problems created by government invasion of private life is deeper government invasion of private life. Any shreds and tatters of civil liberties that have survived the war on drugs are to be swept away by a war on beer.
   This has got to stop. If the police department has money to engage in proactive prohibition enforcement by the kind of operations it is now bragging about, then it has too much money, and its budget should be cut and property taxes reduced proportionally. And if the police chief cannot think of anything better to do with his time than devise such big-brother operations, then it is time for a new police chief.
John Burgess
Riverside Drive
Princeton
Borough should make contingency plans
To the editor:
   
The Packet’s front-page article, "Mayor inks agreement to launch garage project" (Feb. 4), appeared the day after the Concerned Citizens of Princeton filed a 56-page brief in answer to Princeton Borough’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit — in which they contest the $13.5 million bond issue to pay for the planned parking garage, and seek approval for a referendum on the bond issue. The public should not be misled into believing that the controversial project is too far along to stop. It’s just another example of the arrogant choice to proceed that the Borough Council is recklessly making with the citizens paying the bill.
   Your article and other public pronouncements suggest that the mayor and council are very confident of the outcome of this lawsuit. However, one should not assume the outcome of any case, especially one that raises so many issues as this does. Moreover, whatever occurs at the trial level, all parties have a right to appeal to higher courts. In addition, the developer’s agreement raises additional and complex legal issues that are now ripening for litigation which may also be filed.
   The point of this letter is not to suggest that attorneys for Concerned Citizens have a better crystal ball than the borough. Nor is it to rattle swords. The purpose is to suggest that planning should commence now for what to do if the Concerned Citizens prevail, and a referendum is held, and that referendum rejects the bond issue. This is a matter of simple prudence to protect the public interest.
   Here are three steps to consider:
   1. Trustees of the Princeton Public Library should consider remaining in the Princeton Shopping Center until the garage referendum issue is resolved and parking is provided. Construction of the library is already behind schedule due to the environmental cleanup continuing longer than expected. This step would seem necessary regardless of the litigation and possible referendum.
   2. Borough Council should develop a contingency plan to regrade and repave the old Park & Shop Lot to return it to productive use temporarily and as soon as can be done. This will relieve current parking problems, prevent any loss of parking whenever the new library is completed if a garage is not built, and will not prevent the new garage from being built, if it comes to that. This was the original borough plan.
   3. Borough Council should not sign any contracts without "escape clauses" for the litigation and referendum, and should not take delivery of anything that does not have a "return-to-sender" option included with it, lest the borough incur avoidable losses due to voter rejection of the bond issue. These contingency plans are merely prudent and may already be under way; they do not prejudice the borough’s case in court. But if not under way, they should begin now, due to the extraordinary tight time schedule. No one benefits by placing all of the public’s eggs in one litigation basket, as I’m sure the mayor and council realize.
Jim Firestone
Vandeventer Avenue
Princeton
Too much secrecy in Rocky Hill
To the editor:
   
There is growing dissatisfaction with the way government is conducted in Rocky Hill. Public policy discussions ranging from safety and traffic control to policing and municipal staffing are deliberately kept closed to public participation and scrutiny. What follows is an appeal to Mayor Brian Nolan and members of the Rocky Hill Borough Council to revisit their policies of exclusion and silence and to take the opportunity to invite the public to return to their rightful place as participating and witnessing members of a civic community.
   Currently recommendations that guide and govern Rocky Hill are discussed and formulated in six separate advisory committees. Each advisory committee is personally chaired by Mayor Nolan, who also appoints at least one council member as vice chair. Those citizen members who do participate in committee discussions are hand-selected and individually invited by Mayor Nolan. There is no application, review or public process pertaining to how committees are formed or how discussions and recommendations that directly impact public policy proceed.
   Mayor Nolan freely admits that, after having reviewed recent amendments to the Sunshine Law, he and the town lawyer, John Rankin, have structured the advisory committees to avoid the problem of free public participation or even access. Although Mayor Nolan promises to release "some of the nature" of these meetings at bimonthly council meetings, no complete minutes are ever written or released for public review and discussion. Mayor Nolan further questions why the public should simply not "trust" their elected officials to represent all of their interests from behind closed doors.
   The advisory committee meetings are the only venue where all options and opportunities available to the citizenry might be examined. Yet the citizenry are barred from even hearing what is discussed in these meetings. We urge our elected representatives to do not just what is within their rights, namely excluding the public, but to do what is their civic responsibility: fostering open dialogue and the democratic process of good governance. It is time for Mayor Nolan and the Rocky Hill Borough Council to open the advisory committee meetings to the people of Rocky Hill.
Brad and Karen Alexander
Washington Street
Rocky Hill
Iraq policy affront to U.N. negotiations
To the editor:
   
Secretary of State Powell’s deadline of this weekend for complete Iraqi cooperation is at once an affront to U.N. negotiations and a dangerous power play in escalationism.
   Though inspectors reported no "breakthroughs" in negotiations this week, progress is being made. It is clear that Saddam Hussein will not attack tomorrow, and continued trust in U.N. negotiators is essential.
   While the threat of force against Saddam Hussein must be real, just as real must be our resolve behind the diplomatic dialogue now progressing. Force without negotiation as a policy will not only put Americans and innocents needlessly at risk, but will render diplomacy permanently impotent.
   Until Kofi Annan and Hans Blix tell us negotiations have failed, we must allow their work to go on. Tell your representatives in Congress that the president’s weekend deadline is unacceptable today, before it’s too late.
Graeme D. Blair
Toth Lane
Rocky Hill