Targeted by trial lawyer allies in a short but effective media campaign, the website DoctorsKnow.Us (see Mar. 9) has now closed up shop, leaving the following message: “DoctorsKnow.Us has permanently ceased operations as of 3/9/04. The controversy this site has ignited was unanticipated and has polarized opinions regarding the medical malpractice crisis. Our hope is that this controversy will spark a serious discussion that results in changes that are equitable to both patients and physicians. All charges that have been collected will be returned to members and trial members.” It was probably just a matter of time until their antagonists figured out a way of suing them, anyway. More: notwithstanding claims by Texas Watch’s Dan Lambe that doctors violate ethical rules if they decline to accept potentially litigious patients, the Wall Street Journal reports: “Doctors are required by their ethics codes to treat patients in emergency situations. When there is no emergency, however, physicians generally can choose whether or not to see a patient.” (Rachel Emma Silverman, “Site on Litigious Patients Shuts”, WSJ, Mar. 11, sub$; MedRants, Mar. 6, Mar. 7). Ironically (or maybe not), Lambe’s group, which orchestrated the press brouhaha and which professes to be scandalized that plaintiffs would be included in a database without any showing that their suits were faulty, has itself campaigned for the state to make public a database of complaints against doctors themselves, even though many of those complaints prove unfounded (Andis Robeznieks, “States eye tougher stance on doctor discipline, competency testing”, American Medical News (AMA), Mar. 3, 2003)(includes quote from Texas Medical Association official calling Texas Watch “a front funded by the trial lawyers” whose “purpose is to fan the flames”). For more on the role of Texas Watch in the state’s malpractice politics, see Texans for Lawsuit Reform press release, Sept. 4, 2003. Yet more: Bard Parker (Cut to Cure) has some reflections about what the press regards as hot news as regards the withdrawal of physician services, and what it does not (Mar. 15)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 2).

Filed under: medical