Physicians are being "driven," not "enticed," into retirement
Regarding "Physicians enticed into early retirement" (Article, July 24):
Your headline is misleading. As the article clearly demonstrates, physicians are not being "enticed" into early retirement, they are being "driven" into early retirement.
There is very little "carrot" in this change in direction; there is much more of a "stick." Physicians are being driven out of practice because they are being told by the government and insurance companies how to practice medicine. These third-party decisions are being made by individuals who have never practiced medicine and are interested only in saving money and making a profit for their company or agency.
The physicians with whom I have talked who are leaving practice without exception cite the intrusions into the doctor-patient relationship, all in the name of money, by outsiders as the prime reason they are leaving practice. Unless this trend is reversed and we stop driving our physicians out of practice, the citizens of the United States will find themselves without adequate medical care.
--Jack J. Beller, MD
Norman, Okla.
Back to top
There are limits on CME credit from writing, teaching, board certification
The headline for "Physicians can now earn CME through writing, teaching" is misleading (Article, June 12). The article and its headline reflect the great confusion in the practical application of the new Physician Recognition Award criteria. Under the new guidelines, only the AMA can recognize category 1 PRA credit for writing, teaching and board certification/maintenance.
It should be made very clear to physicians that their local sponsor of CME cannot award category 1 credit for these activities, and that these credits are good toward state relicensure only when done in the context of the Physician Recognition Award.
--W. David Dawdy, MD
Chair, Focused Task Force on Education
Ohio State Medical Assn., Hilliard, Ohio
Back to top
Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortion a new low
Regarding "Abortion rulings back medical rights" (Article, July 24):
The Supreme Court's decision to allow partial-birth abortion makes me ashamed to be an American physician. The media repeatedly refers to the procedure as "so-called partial-birth abortion," as if this description is exaggerated rhetoric. The AMA and other physician organizations say the term "partial-birth abortion" has "no medical basis."
It is unfortunate that a videotape of one or two of these procedures wasn't shown to the justices before they made their decision. How else could they have known the horror that they were legalizing?
Our once-great country should now think twice before we accuse other countries of such atrocities as "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." We have reached a new low in medical ethics and it could be a point of no return. We should at least admit that we have just defined another form of justifiable homicide and give these innocent (and often viable) babies anesthesia before their lives are painfully terminated. What has happened to our heart and soul?
--Kenneth J. Simcic, MD
San Antonio
Back to top
New specialty for doctors who sell
Regarding "Club med" (Article, July 3): A stunning piece about doctors who are opening day spas included this gem from a professor of dermatology: "We can't just be medical dermatologists, or we will go the way of dying specialties like endocrinology and rheumatology."
As a family physician, I find endocrinologists and rheumatologists to be among the last bastions of thoughtful, comprehensive care for patients with serious health problems.
In contrast, some of our dermatologists are enthusiastically offering all manner of cosmetic procedures and products. Those patients who need mere "medical dermatology" (you know, the ones with something low-profit such as acne, psoriasis, or melanoma) are made to feel like a bother.
Physicians who get more joy out of selling than healing deserve their own specialty. Since their main concern seems to be how they're remunerated, let's call them "remunerologists." That way we'll all know where they stand.
--Jonathan Sheldon, MD
Englewood, Colo.
Back to top
Court was right to limit EMTALA
Regarding ' "Stabilized' clarified in EMTALA case" (Article, July 3):
I was pleased to see Miles Zaremski's report of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was only a matter of time before the federal courts began restricting EMTALA to its original purpose of preventing "dumping" of patients.
It was never intended by Congress to be a new federal tort to gain access to the federal courts for malpractice actions, nor was it intended to give the Dept. of Health and Human Services yet another vehicle to interpose its political sense of how life ought to be in the health care system.
Let's hope that this case becomes the governing law of EMTALA.
--Wayne B. Wheeler, MD
Portsmouth, Ohio
Back to top
Copyright 2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
