The Salt Lake Tribune 
Utah Medical Association letter to the editor  vs  AAPS survey           AAPS Website>>
                  Utah Physicians Not Chilled
                  Sunday, June 24, 2001                 
                  BY VAL B. JOHNSON
                      In its lead editorial June 11 ("Put Patients First"), The 
                  Tribune uses a plea from a relatively small Arizona-based 
                  physician organization that the state should not prosecute 
                  Robert Weitzel a second time as the basis of its conclusion 
                  that "the medical profession is more concerned with protecting 
                  its members than providing competent care to patients." 
                      First of all, the Tribune should never have recognized the 
                  Association of American Physicians & Surgeons as being 
                  representative of the medical profession. The AAPS speaks for 
                  no one but its members. The great majority of physician 
                  organizations, including the over 600,000-member American -AMA says 300K
                  Medical Association, as well as the Utah Medical Association, 
                  recognize the state's legitimate interest in regulating the 
                  practice of medicine via the licensure process, and in those 
                  rare instances of alleged criminal conduct, even via the 
                  criminal courts. 
                      Whether or not the Weitzel case rises to the level of 
                  criminality, the courts will decide. In the meantime, The 
                  Tribune should note that the Utah Medical Association has 
                  consistently urged its members not to be dissuaded from 
                  practicing responsible pain control. And so far, we have seen 
                  absolutely no evidence that Utah physicians are doing anything 
                  other than putting their patients first. 
                      If there is any "chilling effect," it has come from 
                  uninformed or incomplete reports, warning that the Weitzel 
                  case marks the beginning of a deliberate persecution of 
                  physicians that may eventually result in patients having to 
                  endure unrelieved, intractable pain. 
                      The Utah Medical Association, however, has never held this 
                  opinion and has tried to educate all interested parties that 
                  there is no evidence of a state-sanctioned witch hunt against 
                  physicians who legitimately use narcotics to treat pain. 
                      This educational effort, however, is made more difficult 
                  when the media fail to do their homework. I'm certain The 
                  Tribune can do better. 
                      _________                   
                      Dr. Val B. Johnson is the president of the Utah Medical 
                  Association. 
                      
        BUT: Here are preliminary results of an AAPS survey:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jane M. Orient, MD" 
To: "Dr. Richard Willner" 
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:57 AM
Subject: FW: Robert Weitzel MD - survey partial results
 
> n=30
> 
> 1. Because of the Weitzel case, I will be more reluctant to prescribe
> narcotics to patients who are elderly or extremely ill.
> agree  = 19 (63%)
> disagree  = 7  (23%)
> not sure = 2 (7%)
> 
> 2. Regulating the practice of medicine is a legitimate function of the
> criminal court system.
> agree = 3 (10%)
> disagree = 23 (77%)
> not sure = 2 (7%)
> 
> 3. Regulating the practice of medicine is a legitimate function of the
> licensing board.
> agree = 23 (77%)
> disagree = 6 (20%)
> not sure = 1 (3%)
> 
> 4. I think Dr. Weitzel's decisions were properly before a criminal court.
> agree = 4 (13%)
> disagree = 18 (60%)
> not sure = 5 (17%)
> 
> I have read the charts at weitzelcharts.com  7 (23%)
> have not = 10 (33%)
> 
> 5. I approve of the UMA's position in this case.
> agree = 10 (33%)
> disagree = 17 (52%)
> not sure = 4 (13%)
                  
It seems that the UMA is way off base here.  Have they objective evidence?
Evidently not...
<<Back to Home Page