Tribune Editorial Lacked Adequate Understanding Of Weitzel
Case
Sunday, June 24, 2001
BY LAURA FISHER,MD
I am writing in response to your editorial in The Salt
Lake Tribune of June, which was ironically titled "Put
Patients First."
"Whatever the merits of the case . . . " is not a good
beginning for a piece about the merits of a legal case. As
promised in your opening statement, your essay did not address
the legal merits of the case in question. You seem not to have
understood what Jane Orient, MD meant in her letter about Robert
Weitzel's case. Dr. Orient predicted that sending physicians to
prison for giving appropriate pain-control medication to
patients who are close to death could subsequently cause other
physicians to be reluctant or unwilling to treat patients who
require pain control. She predicted that fear of incarceration
in response to correct treatment of pain could cause
physicians to be unwilling to treat patients who need pain
control. Orient did not in any way recommend that incompetent
doctors should not be reported for possible incompetency. In
mentioning such matters in relation to Weitzel's case you
imply that there was a failure to report him for the
incompetent practice of medicine.
This is not the case. Although Weitzel was convicted of
manslaughter and served six months of his sentence in the Utah
state prison, there is no evidence that he committed
manslaughter or any other crime. We have no reason to believe
that he did anything that was incompetent, yet he still was
accused, tried and convicted without any such evidence.
I recently read the hospital charts over which Weitzel was
accused and convicted (at www.weitzelcharts.com), and these
records show no incompetent or criminal act took place
whatsoever. Weitzel was released from the prison by the judge
when it was discovered that the prosecution in Weitzel's case
illegally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, the
judge and the jury -- evidence that showed he had committed no
crime. When the judge heard the evidence of this criminal
concealment on the part of the prosecution, he declared the
trial to have been invalid, and he then released Weitzel.
You say in your editorial that patients should be
protected from incompetent doctors by the federal government.
I don't think such a statement applies in any way to the
Weitzel case.
You mention that hospitals sometimes fail to report
incompetent physicians out of fear that physicians they report
will later sue them for libel. However, the hospital in
question in this case did not fail to report Weitzel for
incompetence. The medical charts in question were submitted to
the normal review process that is used whenever a death occurs
in the hospital. No physicians, nurses, administrators,
patients' family members or anyone else found fault with the
care Weitzel rendered to these very ill patients.
You mention physicians being disciplined for incompetence
in one geographical location and quietly relocating to a new
location where they resume medical practice characterized by
incompetence. Again, I know of no connection between any such
lamentable practice and the case of Weitzel.
You mention the sad fact that every year many patients die
accidentally as a result of medical errors, and you say that
these errors include "overprescription of drugs." However,
Weitzel did not prescribe too much of any drug or too many
drugs to any patient.
<<See poll You quote a spokesperson for the U.M.A as saying Weitzel's
case might possibly cause doctors to "look more carefully at
their practices." I can see that they might look much more
carefully at the possibility of not involving themselves in
treating elderly, extremely sick patients with terminal
illnesses who are desperately in need of pain control.
You also mention the regrettable circumstance of "casual
care," but nothing like casual care occurred in the Weitzel
case which led to his trial, conviction and incarceration.
The comments suggest a lack of adequate understanding of
the facts of the Weitzel case. Only this could explain the
editorial. I think The Salt Lake Tribune's reading public
deserves to hear a more informed commentary on this case from
someone who does understand it. As Orient tried to make clear,
many patients will be effected by the final disposition of
this matter and it is your duty to help the public understand
what is happening here. If Weitzel had engaged in incompetency
or in criminal activity, presumably the case would have stood
in its own merits without the necessity of the prosecution's
withholding of exculpatory evidence -- a circumstance that
later led to his being released from prison.
_________
Dr. Laura Fisher has a psychiatric practice in Providence, UT
© Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune
Do you want ideas for a letter?>>
<<Back to Home