The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 32, No. 17, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 5, 2003 Page: 10 of 12
twelve pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
10 March 5, 2.003 The University News
Commentary
\USTlT/r
News
Editorial Board
Anna Smith
Janet Hendrickson
Meghan Kuckelman
Letters Policy
The University News
invites letters on all
subjects; however, we will
not print unsigned
submissions. Letters must
be received in the
new sroom or at
udcommentariesajyahoacoin
before noon on Friday for
publication the following
Wednesday. Letters are
limited to 350 words and
may be edited for
grammar, length or clarity.
Longer submissions may
be considered for
publication as a separate
commentary.
Commentary Policy
The University News is
seeking articles for
submission to the
commentary page. Any
subject or issue may be
considered for
commentary, and anyone
is welcome to submit a
commentary, though The
University News especially
encourages students,
faculty and administrators
to participate. Articles
should be well-written,
thoughtful, and between
600 and 900 words in
length. The University
News reserves the right to
edit submissions for
grammar, length, or
clarity; to delay publishing
articles; or to withold them
from publication.
Commentaries must be
received in the newsroom
or at
udcommentarie^yahoacom
before noon on Wednesday
for publication the
following Wednesday.
Our graduation ceremony's
going to be where!?!
#%$&
Oh, they may be faultless and upright,
BUT, there's one thing that they
won't suffer patiently...
/
Cartoon by Jeff Gierer
Editorial
ootball team not end o university s integrity
Two articles have appeared in The University News over the past
two weeks about a club football team that has not even begun to
operate. The first was written with the best intentions as a general
announcement about the new coach. The second was written after
numerous members of the UD population, both faculty and students,
expressed anger at the possibility of a football team becoming part
of UD. Some of the questions were financial in nature. These are
valid concerns at a time when UD is suffering from a budget deficit.
But many centered around the fact that football was somehow
inimical to the mission of UD and that a football team would
undoubtedly attract the wrong sort of people to the bubble. These
claims, part of a deeper issue plaguing the university community,
are grossly unfounded in nature, and are insulting to both the athletic
department and the players of the football team.
UD club football was founded by current UD students. It is not
an administration ploy to get more students to UD nor an athletic
department device to do the same. The team will not attract the
typical "football jock" from area high schools, as those sort of
people would in no way fit the standards set for admission to the
City off the hill
university. There is a possibility that some intellectual,
philosophical high school student exists who has a great love for
the classics also loves football, making UD even more appealing
to him or her. Why should the athletic department not seek out
those kind of people? They, like the men who started the team in
the first place, have just as much a right to UD's education as anyone
else here.
UD is different. It seeks to mold students in a method lost to
most modern institutions. But that does not mean it must be so
critical of modern endeavors that it becomes close-minded, self-
centered, and snobbish. The men playing football out on the rugby
field will take the same core classes, participate in the same
enlightening discussions, and graduate with the same quality of
degree as the non-athletic student.
Students will not come to UD to play club football, just as they
do not come to play lacrosse, do not come to play rugby, do not
come to sail. The ancient Greeks, who founded the philosophy we
study so adamently today, participated in sports and valued athletes
highly. Why, then, should not we?
Excessive lawsuit abuse necessitates tort reform
by Anna Smith
Commentary Editor
Frivolous lawsuits are
responsible for clogging the
judicial system and costing
taxpayers millions of dollars
each year for their settlements.
They also entail costs that are
not entirely economic in nature.
One of the fiercest debates in
Washington involves the rising
cost and decreasing quality of
healthcare in America. In his
state of the union address this
year, President George W. Bush
made it clear that he considers
medical malpractice suits to be
the primary culprit for the
decline of the healthcare system.
As he has done in the past, he
called for a sweeping reform of
medical liability.
Here's how it works. A
patient undergoes a botched
medical procedure; he might
have the wrong leg amputated or
he may undergo a surgical
procedure during which
surgeons leave sponges or
clamps in his abdomen after its
completion. Obviously, that
patient can and should sue for
medical malpractice and be
compensated for how these
mistakes affect his health and
life.
Many malpractice suits seek
awards for minor damages that
go above and beyond what is
logical compensation. Trial
lawyers are notorious for
hunting down patients in or out
of hospitals and proposing
multi-million dollar suits for
mistakes that are not that serious
or are not necessarily a doctor's
fault. According to Bush, this
constant suit-seeking has a
detrimental effect on healthcare.
Doctors in most hospitals are
required to own medical liability
insurance. The more suits that
are filed against doctors, the
higher the premiums for this
insurance. Doctors who are
unable or unwilling to pay
unreasonably high premiums
relocate to other hospitals, cut
down on the number of patients
seen or procedures performed,
or stop practicing altogether,
leaving many without adequate
care.
Many doctors prescribe
unneeded medication or order
expensive tests in order to avoid
any question of malpractice. To
get these lawsuits back under
control, Bush is proposing a
federally mandated cap on the
amount of money juries can
award to suits for non-economic
damages.
However, trial lawyers, the
group most effected by the
proposed caps, claim that such
government measures will do no
good. According to the
American Trial Lawyers
Association, a cap on non-
economic damages will not
necessarily induce insurance
companies to lower their
premiums for medical liability
insurance. Thus, doctors will
still face the problems listed
above, and patients will be
unable to sue for the
compensation to which they are
entitled. If Bush wants to lower
the cost of healthcare overall,
says ATI.A. the answer is
placing caps on the insurance
premiums themselves.
So, in placing blame for
soaring healthcare costs, which
is the lesser of two evils, trial
lawyers or insurance
companies? Tough call. Bush
makes a compelling case,
however, for the problems
involved in excessive
malpractice suits. If doctors can
barely do their jobs for fear of
trial lawyers lurking in the
shadows, the time for reform has
definitely come.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Hendrickson, Janet & Kuckelman, Meghan. The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 32, No. 17, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 5, 2003, newspaper, March 5, 2003; Irving, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201561/m1/10/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting University of Dallas.