HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Donald C. Watson, Jr Francis Robicsek Robert M. Sade Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Watson, D. C. Articles by Sade, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Watson, D. C., Jr Articles by Sade, R. M.

Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:1137-1141
© 2004 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Ethics in cardiothoracic surgery

Are Thoracic Surgeons Ethically Obligated to Serve as Expert Witnesses for the Plaintiff?

^a Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
^b Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and Carolinas Heart Institute, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
^c Department of Surgery and Institute of Human Values in Health Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA

Accepted for publication July 2, 2004.

^* Address reprint requests to Dr Sade, 96 Jonathan Lucas St, Suite 409, PO Box 250612, Charleston, SC29425; (E-mail: sader@musc.edu).

Presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association, Bonita Springs, FL, Nov 13–15, 2003.

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Introduction

Robert M. Sade, MD
Medical negligence lawsuits have been growing in both number and size of awards to plaintiffs for many years. In the last few years, however, the effect on physicians, especially surgeons, has become noxious, and record numbers of surgeons are choosing early retirement or abandoning medicine to work in other fields. Tort reform is high on the agenda of nearly every medical association and specialty society.

The villain of this piece is generally believed to be trial lawyers, who profit greatly from huge awards in malpractice cases, often far beyond their injured clients' share of the bounty. The anger of many if not most physicians is directed at the plaintiff's bar, to the extent that they refuse to testify for the plaintiff in any malpractice suit, especially when the defendant is a member of their own specialty.

Yet, there may be problems with this viscerally held position. In providing legal testimony, a physician's primary ethical obligation is to tell the truth as he sees it without bias that favors one side or the other. That may make irrelevant the side of a lawsuit for which a physician testifies. There are many other considerations of course, but there is an underlying vexing question: if a thoracic surgeon regularly testifies in medical negligence lawsuits, does hehave an ethical obligation to serve as expert witness for plaintiffs as well as defendants?

This question was debated at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association by two of our most esteemed colleagues, both former presidents of the Association and both possessing special expertise in legal issues: Donald Watson and Francis Robicsek. They present their adversarial positions after the presentation of this case, which served to focus the debate.

Doctor Loyall is a cardiothoracic surgeon with a large experience and excellent results in aortic . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. I. Bonchek Practical Reasons to Review Cases for Plaintiffs Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2005; 80(1): 381 - 381. [Full Text] [PDF]