The Lansdale Reporter offered the following editorial this morning:
It’s indeed unfortunate that Lansdale Hospital became the 39th hospital to lose maternity services since the medical malpractice crisis began in 1999.
This closing will jeopardize the health of expectant mothers when there is an obstetrical emergency. Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville is the 40th hospital to discontinue maternity services. Reportedly the obstetricians could not afford the high malpractice insurance premiums and moved to other states.
Real tort reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. Someone has to represent these expectant mothers whose lives are being put in jeopardy unnecessarily.
The article goes on to break down the economics of the decision, explaining in clear concise terms why the closing of the OB/GYN practice was related to medical malpractice insurance. It also offers real life examples of how women and unborn children are harmed by these closings because they have no other options.
No, wait. The article does none of this. I quoted the entire editorial.
It is harder to tell online but I think this is a editorial board editorial. In support, they offer one word: “reportedly.” Shouldn’t a newspaper be required to offer a few facts to support its conclusion? How about just one single fact?
My firm handles medical malpractice cases in Maryland: I’m against medical malpractice tort reform. I’m convinced I would be against tort reform even if I was not a lawyer. But I do understand that people smarter support tort reform. So you have to respect another view on the tort reform question. But this is not an argument. This is just an opinion given without any meaningful consideration.