AMA Leaders Have Betrayed Doctors to Protect Big Tobacco

The deception is that AMA leaders have misled the public by distorting members' views.... From the standpoint of public relations fiascos, the AMA's sellout to tobacco could make its sellout to Sunbeam look as pale as a sunbeam.

Louisville Courier-Journal
Sunday, December 28. 1997, Page D-2.
Second Opinion
Laurel Shackelford

THE GREAT Medical Hoax of 1997 is how the AMA has charmed the public into believing that most of the country's doctors support the proposed tobacco deal.

From the outset, the American Medical Association's position has seemed oddly counter intuitive. While family doctors' offices overflow with people who have cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses, AMA leaders support an effort to give the tobacco industry perpetual immunity from lawsuits.

The deception is that AMA leaders have misled the public by distorting members' views. In fact, most AMA members do not support immunity for tobacco companies.

When the history of the Tobacco Talks is written, it will show AMA leaders didn't follow members' instructions regarding immunity for tobacco companies. From the standpoint of public relations fiascos, the AMA's sellout to tobacco could make its sellout to Sunbeam look as pale as a sunbeam.

Immunity is the concession the tobacco industry cares most about, and by failing to oppose immunity, AMA leaders defy the marching orders voting members twice issued.

Immunity is the driving force in the Tobacco Wars because litigation - not regulation - will be the engine of change. Until now, the tobacco industry has been able to rely on its ability to successfully defend against lawsuits, but no more. The tables began turning in 1994 when litigation shifted from old-style individual cases into class action suits. Formerly, the industry could win suits by out-gunning private lawyers and using the old blame-the-victim defense, but that strategy doesn't work with class actions.

The most important legal development in the Tobacco Wars is the decision by many states to sue tobacco companies to recover the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses, according to Richard A. Daynard, founder of Northeastern Law School's Tobacco Products Liability Project. "In the field of tobacco litigation, much more has been accomplished in the past three years than in the 40 previous years.

Class action cases against the tobacco industry are pending on behalf of most U.S. smokers, and the industry faces enormous potential losses. Plaintiffs demand money for medical bills, assistance with quitting smoking, on-going health screens, and, needless to say, punitive damages.

Rather than fight class actions, the industry settles them. The settlements with Mississippi, Florida and flight attendants show the industry is running scared.

Meanwhile, AMA leaders are working with ENACT, the coalition of public health groups that has spent much of 1997 pushing for the legislative deal that would give the tobacco industry immunity in exchange for $358 billion and some rubbery regulatory concessions.

They teamed up with ENACT even though the AMA's policy making body, the 500-member House of Delegates, has twice taken a strong stand against immunity.

How strong? Well, here's an excerpt from the resolution delegates passed this month:

"Whereas, the tobacco industry's reprehensible past behavior is largely the basis for its present prosperity and economic strength; and,

"Whereas, weakening of the civil justice system to accommodate Big Tobacco would be a precedent which would encourage industries which have harmed consumers to lesser degree to seek similar or greater protections for themselves; therefore, be it,

"Resolved, that the American Medical Association remains opposed to any form of civil immunity for the tobacco industry and remains opposed to giving the tobacco industry any other special legal advantages that would abridge the rights of individuals or groups of individuals who have been harmed by this industry."

But ENACT takes no position on immunity. Its deafening silence is a signal that the coalition would happily accept immunity in exchange for some regulatory concessions and some very fat checks.

Clearly the association that claims to speak for doctors is varnishing their views.

So, in the weeks ahead, watch for the emergence of a feisty new coalition of grassroots public health workers. It's called Save lives, Not Tobacco, and it push for sweeping anti-smoking legislation without industry immunity.

Its formation shows that the hot shots at the helm of ENACT don't necessarily speak for actual health providers.

Laurel Shackelford writes about health care. Her column runs every other Sunday. You can reach her by phone at 582-4595 or by e-mail: lshackel@louisvil02.gannett.com

***********************
Return To: Tobacco Daily Page

Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************

END OF DOCUMENT

Tobacco.org