Why does this have this creepy,Don-Corleone feel about it?
"Yeah, a law suit would
be real bad..."
Posted on 03/12/2008 10:34:40 AM PDT by Harrius Magnus
States May Warn Doctors to Follow Smoker Treatment Guidelines or be Sued for Medical Malpractice
State health commissioners may soon begin warning about medical malpractice law suits which could be brought by smokers against physicians who fail to follow federal and other guidelines in treating them, putting pressure on the medical profession similar to that put on the tobacco industry by earlier smoker law suits.
Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whom the media has dubbed a "driving force behind the lawsuits that have cost tobacco companies billions of dollars," and the "law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry," has written to the health commissioners of the fifty states suggesting that they warn their state's doctors about such law suits based upon a recent article in a leading medical journal and an even more recent study about saving smoker lives.
The letter notes a recent study which shows that physicians are killing more than 40,000 American smokers each year by failing to follow federal guidelines which mandate that the doctor warn the smoking patient about the many dangers of smoking and provide effective medical treatment for the majority who wish to quit.
"The families of any one of those 40,000 victims – or the hundreds of thousands more who suffer heart attacks, strokes, amputations, blindness, or other problems because of their smoking – could sue physicians for malpractice for failing to follow the standard of medical care mandated by these guidelines," says Banzhaf, who serves as Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America's first antismoking organization.
Indeed, the New York City Department of Health has already warned that "because physician intervention can be so effective, failure to provide optimal counseling and treatment [for smoking] is failure to meet the standard of care – and could be considered malpractice."
Also, a medical journal noted that the "failure of many doctors and hospitals to deal with tobacco use and dependence raises the question of whether this failure could be considered malpractice, given the Public Health Service guidelines' straightforward recommendations, their efficacy in preventing serious disease and cost-effectiveness. . . . a court could have sufficient basis to find that the failure to adequately treat the main cause of preventable disease and death in the US qualifies as a violation of the legal duty that doctors and hospitals owe to patients habituated to tobacco use and dependence.”
The US Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence provide that “every patient who uses tobacco should be offered at least one of [two] treatments.” Many major guidelines by other respected medical bodies – e.g., the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, etc. – also require that smoking patients receive not just warnings but also treatment, including counseling.
However, as the Partnership for Prevention recently noted, in a report sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the WellPoint Foundation, fewer than 30% of smoking patients receive even the minimal treatment required by the guidelines. The report estimates that this refusal by physicians and hospitals to follow the Guidelines kills more than 40,000 smokers each year.
Banzhaf's letter to the health commissioners suggested that: "Since many in the antismoking community (including hundreds of organizations, many with their own attorneys), as well as lawyers associated with antismoking groups and other lawyers in private practice, are now considering how to proceed with the article’s litigation suggestion, the need to remind doctors of their responsibilities and of their potential legal liability is paramount – especially since their continued refusal to even warn many patients about smoking, much less to follow the guidelines’ requirements of effective intervention, kills over 40,000 patients each year."
"Since physician malpractice kills over 40,000 smokers annually – more than motor vehicle or product liability accidents – it should not be surprising if antismoking lawyers, as well as those in private practice working on contingency fees, find physicians who deliberately flout federal guidelines to be a major target of litigation."
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III Executive Director and Chief Counsel Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) 2013 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20006, USA (202) 659-4310 // http://ash.org
Why does this have this creepy,Don-Corleone feel about it?
America would be healthier in Banzhaf kicked the bucket.
i don’t take offense. i understand its for my own well being and its not like its more than 4 times a year i have to listen to it.smoking 38 years
There’s good reason why Bill Shakespeare had lawyers first on the list.
Banzhaf is more than just a maniacal scold, he is a sleazier lawyer then even John Edwards.
However your judgemental comments in regard to smokers make you no better than Banzhaf.........you utilize similar and/or the same terminology Banzhaf is known for.
Unlike Banzhaf, I am quite content to leave you to indulge your disgusting vice to your heart's delight, as long as you don't blow the smoke my way.
-ccm
Medicare aside, many smokers pay for their own health insurance which includes high premiums and out-of-pocket expense.
This can not be all about insurance costs, though that has been a good deflection. It is about control and it’s very frightening to see where this can lead.
Oh, and thanks for posting the link correctly. I don’t know where I went wrong!
But just like Banzhaf you insist on snarky comments about others.
I’m with you. Just what does smoking have to do with a broken ankle? Looks like some doctors are already attempting to follow the guidelines.
I wonder, are they reacting to threatened lawsuits or are they in collusion/agreement with the whole idea? Treatments for smoking cessation can be very expensive (read: lucrative), particularly in regards to those “unwilling” to quit
And how many of those 40K “victims” had already exceeded life expectancy for US males/females at the time of their unfortunate victimhood? Smokers or former smokers who die from anything short of an axe to the head—regardless of how old they are—are all gleefully tagged with the same grant-inducing cause of death.
You are absolutely correct, and Banzhaf is one of the MAJOR culprits. He has already started suing fast food restaurants and says he will continue to do so until he gets a jury to agree with him, just like he did with the tobacco compaies.
He has actually BRAGGED about this technique on just about every major news network.
This man is evil and dangerous and smokers are just his guinea pigs. He is looking to see just how far he can go before the backlash occurs. However, because he has started with smokers he has pretty much gotten free reign because so many have fallen for his (and the rest of his anti-smoker cartel) BS about evil smokers most people refuse to look at the bigger picture which is that this will not stop with just the smokers.
As to the lucrativeness of the smoking cessation crapola, you are partially correct. The doctors don't see any of it, but the big Pharma companies do and one of the big funders of jacka$$es like Banzhaf and the rest of the anti-smoker cartel is the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. The RWJF relies almost entirely upon its portfolio of Johnson & Johnson stock holdings (somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million shares). J&J makes smoking cessation products. Coincedence? I don't think so.
A friend of mine was looking to change her insurance carrier and was denied a new insurance policy due to her weight. I seem to remember one State legislature trying to force restaurants to deny service to those considered overweight. (did I read that in here?, I don't have time for a search)
Now, some fast food restaurants are banning trans fats. Seems like big corporations are just rolling over and showing their bellies whenever they are threatened by special interests.
No, it will not stop with smokers. When it was allowed to happen to smokers, everyone just set themselves up.
That's just like Algore pushing global warming theory to benefit his stock in a ground-floor company selling carbon credits! (I can't remember the name of the company).
As usual, follow the money.
Yes you did read it here, I believe it is Missippippi.
Now, some fast food restaurants are banning trans fats. Seems like big corporations are just rolling over and showing their bellies whenever they are threatened by special interests.
Not only are some outlets doing it themselves (which is fine in my book) they are being forced to do it by the government. Baltimore, MD just became the latest to force the restaurants to ban transfat.
When it was allowed to happen to smokers, everyone just set themselves up.
You would be amazed at the number of FReepers that actually support such attacks on smokers without looking at the big picture.
Nope --- if they were smokers they are still included in the numbers, regardless of cause of death. And also included in the "premature" stats, regardless of cause.
It is getting to the point that if you ever even saw a picture of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe your death will be considered a premature smoking-related one. There is no escaping it.
You've got that right.
OK -- I've got to scoot, it's Wednesday and my night to cook at the Moose Lodge. OMG, an evil smoker who gives voluntarily of her time to help raise money for the community.......something smokers are alleged to never do. What's even worse is my husband does it as well.
One thing is for sure, dealing with the deep fryer is far more hazardous to my health than smoking ever could be.........and it is definitely far more dangerous to others than smelling smoke from my cigarette.........not that I smoke while I'm cooking, no danged time!!!!
BBL!
OK then! That’s darn nice of you too.
It’s been nice talking with you, catch you later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.