Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all sprang from the seed of Abraham, which might lead one to believe that the religions should have enough in common to peacefully coexist. And if you exclude the radical elements of each religion, harmony should be within reach since peace, love, and fairness are foundational pillars of each of the religions. Since the vast majority of each religion’s constituents embrace the concept of peace, it is incumbent upon those members to control their radical elements. This means they have to confront the radical elements who advocate violence and often the very principles that constitute their belief system. This must be done both publicly and privately, and they have to use every means available to them to eliminate this cancer among them. If they are afraid or refuse to stand up to the radicals among them, they will share in the guilt for the worldwide holocaust that will ensue. The only way in which religious division will not be highly destructive is if people embrace and live up to the precepts and principles of their respective religions.
WHAT THEN UNITES US?
In conclusion, many other factors such as sexism and ageism threaten our unity as a nation, but perhaps the most important factor is not what divides us, but rather what unites us.
Proverbs 29:18 says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” One defining feature of an outstanding leader is the ability to bring divergent groups together and unite them in a common mission with benefits for all. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what the vision for America is. Do we really know who we are and what we stand for? Do we know what we believe in, or are we constantly walking around with our fingertips in the air, trying to decide which way the wind is blowing at any given moment? Are we willing to think for ourselves, or do we believe media pundits have all the answers? Our founding fathers placed so much emphasis on nurturing a well-educated populace because they knew that our system of democracy could not long survive with ignorant and uncaring citizens who could easily be manipulated by slick politicians.
As we enter the next election season, I hope we will each be willing to take a step back and ask the question, what is of crucial importance to me and to the future of our nation?
— CHAPTER 12 —
LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL
GROWING UP changes one’s definition of what is fun — maturation does that, thankfully — so I hate to admit now that as a boy I thoroughly enjoyed throwing rocks at cars. It was a thrill to wait in hiding, ambush the car driving by, and then make our escape. Occasionally, a driver would stop their vehicle and get out to yell at us. But if we were really fortunate, they would chase us. We would run just far enough ahead to encourage them, but when they got close, we would turn on the afterburners of youth, leaving them far behind while we laughed hysterically.
Once in a while, the police would come by — usually in unmarked cars — and the chase would be much more dramatic until we reached the ten-foot-tall fences at the end of the neighborhood field. To the police, it must have appeared as if they had us trapped. They had no idea, however, how practiced we were at vaulting those fences. We treated it like an Olympic event, running at full speed toward the fence and then leaping high into the air, grabbing the chain links, and allowing the momentum of our feet to swing us over the top and down on the other side. We would laugh at the police as we ran off, knowing there was no way they would follow us.
Today I have great admiration for the police, who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our lives, freedom, and property. Remove all police protection in our society for just a day, and imagine the mayhem that would ensue. Sure, corruption exists in some police departments, because police officers are human beings like the rest of us; give power to human beings and corruption naturally follows. But police provide far greater good than bad in our society. Our justice system may have plenty of opportunities to malfunction, but we should not give up on it and must continually, objectively evaluate potential improvements.
When I started reading as a boy and began getting serious about my future, I was deeply encouraged by stories of those who had gone from rags to riches. One of the things virtually all of them had in common was that they benefitted from the freedom and justice in our system of government. I believe that all of these people would tell you that the only thing they really ever asked for was a fair chance to work hard, prove their worth, and benefit personally from their own efforts.
When we stand, place our hand over our heart, and before our country’s flag pledge “with liberty and justice for all,” we are simply saying that we want a nation that allows everyone to pursue their dreams as long as they are not injuring someone else, and that we will protect their right to do so. We should never underestimate the huge role that our justice system carries out in creating “fair play,” allowing individuals to be successful in a large and complex society where given half a chance bullies will take advantage of anyone. Our legal system is rather large and cumbersome, but in the long run I would not trade it for any other system in the world.
I was recently summoned to fulfill my civic duty as a petit juror. When I first received the notice, I began thinking of all the patient surgeries and clinical appointments I would have to cancel in order to serve, but then I remembered that an obligation is an obligation no matter who you are and what you have to do. If some of us think we are too important to fulfill our civic duties, the very strength that our wonderful judicial system is built on in drawing from a diverse pool of jurors breaks down. I will confess that I was in the courthouse from 8:30 a.m. until a little after 6 p.m. essentially wasting my time. I was being considered as a juror for two cases, both of which were medical malpractice cases, and I knew there was no way on earth that the plaintiff’s attorneys in either case would accept a neurosurgeon as a juror. I’m sure the judges knew that also; nevertheless, we spent several hours going through the motions and eventually jurors were selected. Do I think there are more efficient ways to select jurors? Of course I do. But I also realize that there will always be imperfections and room for improvement, and as long as we continue to work toward those improvements without being overly critical, we will make progress on improving a system that is already one of the best in the world.
My first time in court — and one of the only times — I was a neurosurgical resident at Johns Hopkins. I had been driving my car on a newly opened stretch of highway, going fifty-five miles per hour, when I was pulled over by a policeman.
“Sir, did you know that you were exceeding the speed limit by fifteen miles per hour?” he asked.
I was still surprised and confused about why I had been pulled over. “Well,” I replied, “I was only going fifty-five. The speed limit is fifty-five miles per hour.”
“No, sir,” he replied. “The speed limit here is forty miles per hour.”
“Where is that posted?” I asked.
“At the entrance to the highway, sir.” He issued me a speeding violation and told me that I should go to court if I felt strongly about it.
Ultimately, I did decide to go to court to plead my case, but when I arrived and was waiting for my turn to approach the bench, I began having second thoughts about the wisdom of being there as I watched how stern the judge was with others. Finally it was my turn and I approached the bench.
“What do you do for work?” asked the judge.
“I am a neurosurgical resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital,” I replied.
He looked up. My answer had brought a smile to his face. “Do you happen to know a neurosurgeon there by the name of Dr. John Chambers?”
“Sure,” I said. “I operate with Dr. Chambers all the time.”
“He’s a good fishing buddy of mine,” the judge said thoughtfully. He paused a moment. “Case dismissed,” he said. “Next case.” The poor police officer who had given me the ticket was astonished, and I exited the courtroom triumphantly.
Although it may seem that the judge was unfairly biased in my favor, I’m sure he knew the facts o
f the case and also knew that I had a perfectly clean driving record. Nevertheless, this case does point out how arbitrary some decisions can be — and those decisions can have profound effects on people’s lives. This is the reason the founders of our judicial system inserted a provision to recall or dismiss rogue judges. They realized that judges are also people who can be quite imperfect like the rest of us, or who can become corrupted or even demented.
I do not wish to imply that our nation is the only nation with a solid judicial system. After I finished my neurosurgical residency at Johns Hopkins, Candy and I spent a year in Australia — as I mentioned earlier — where Murray, our oldest son was born. One evening we were driving down a hill and noticed a large number of cars at the bottom, some of which were police cars. We were soon stopped by a police officer on the street, who stated that we were exceeding the speed limit. The police had set up a speed trap at the base of the hill, realizing that almost everyone would be speeding by the time they hit the bottom due to their momentum. They were using radar guns, which they were all too happy to show to the disgruntled, entrapped travelers. I argued with the police, stating that they were engaging in entrapment. I told them that I was an American citizen and that we rarely did such things in America. They invited me to go to court and state my case, which I decided to do.
The judge there must have been in a particularly bad mood because he was slamming everyone, most of whom had legal counsel. Alone in a foreign country, I was feeling very vulnerable, and I asked God to give me wisdom as I approached the bench. The judge had already heard about the circumstances of my case, because some of the other victims of that evening had just argued in vain for mercy. I started my defense by talking about radar equipment and their use of Doppler waves to detect speed. I told him that the accuracy of such equipment could legitimately be called into question when it is used on an angle, which rapidly degrades the accuracy of the detected waves. He was fascinated as I explained in detail some basic principles of physics. At the end of my discourse, he said, “Case dismissed.”
Both the American judicial system and the Australian judicial system are based on the English system, which has long been recognized for its fairness. Integral to a fair justice system is the opportunity for the accused to present their case to an impartial judge or jury, with an opportunity to appeal the judgment. Because there are a limited number of courts and personnel, our judicial system can be somewhat cumbersome and time consuming, but it generally works.
HOW MANY LAWYERS DOES IT TAKE TO …?
As a neurosurgeon, I have had many opportunities to participate in courtroom proceedings involving medical malpractice claims. Fortunately, all of these appearances so far have been as an expert witness — primarily for the defendants — but in a few egregious cases, for the plaintiffs. Much of our time during these trials is spent trying to educate the jury about things most of them have very little knowledge about. Unfortunately, in many such cases, the outcome of the trial depends more on who establishes the best rapport with the jury and puts on the best dog and pony show rather than who has the facts on their side.
I simply do not have time to be an expert witness anymore, but two decades ago I served as one for a local neurosurgeon who had experienced a bad outcome with a spinal cord tumor. The defense attorneys warned me that the plaintiff had hired Dr. Harvey Wachsman as their chief attorney, and that he was very tough on opposing expert witnesses. Not only was he trained as an attorney, he had also trained as a neurosurgeon and he was president of the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys. I was familiar with his name because he had done some presentations at national meetings of neurosurgeons on how to avoid getting to know people like him in court. I must admit he was quite an imposing figure, exuding an air of confidence. As an expert witness, I try to be very cooperative, accommodating, and pleasant to the opposing attorneys, while gradually moving them into a position where I can expose the folly of their argument before the jury. It turns out that Dr. Wachsman used much the same approach initially with his witnesses. There I was trying to lead him into a certain position, which would allow me to spring the trap, and he was doing the exact same thing to me. We quickly recognized what each other was doing, and we were having a fabulous time with our chess match.
After the case was over, we were talking in the hallway and discovered that we had many common interests, as well as children who were similar in age. That was the beginning of a long and close friendship and many interesting discussions about medical malpractice. One of the things I admire about Dr. Wachsman and about my own personal attorney, Roger Bennett, is that they would never accept a case that was without merit, even if they thought it could be settled, resulting in a nice fee for themselves. If all plaintiff’s attorneys behaved in that manner, our judicial system would be much less congested, our society would be much less litigious, and the court’s time would be utilized more efficiently, preventing another level of waste. Unfortunately, we have an overabundance of lawyers — all of whom need to make a living — and so we can expect to have excessive litigation in our society for a long time to come. I hope at some point the legal establishment will recognize the problem and attempt to regulate the number of attorneys produced. If they do not, society at large will have to produce a solution.
The English system does not have the same kind of problem with excessive litigation because they have a “loser pay” arrangement. In that system, if you bring a lawsuit against someone and you lose, you have to pay all court costs and fees associated with the lawsuit — on both sides. In our system, most medical malpractice lawsuits are engaged on a contingency basis, which means the plaintiff has no out-of-pocket expenses, even if the case is lost. It’s basically like playing the lottery; you have very little to lose, and you might become a millionaire if you instigate a medical malpractice lawsuit. Whether we add a “loser pay” arrangement to our legal system or devise another solution, the plaintiffs should have some skin in the game. To be able to bring lawsuits against people with no risk to yourself is antithetical to a harmonious and fair society. Unjustly accusing someone is also libel, but by the time a countersuit against the initiator of the first lawsuit is complete, the damage has already been done to the medical practitioner, who has lost their reputation whether they are ultimately proved innocent or not.
Another consequence of having too many lawyers and administrative personnel is the proliferation of red tape and regulations surrounding almost everything in our lives. Lawyers and administrators are not bad people, but they tend to regulate things because that’s what they’re trained to do. If you have too many lawyers, overregulation naturally follows. Over the years, I have had an opportunity to deal with many personnel issues at the hospital, in the corporate world, and in the nonprofit world. I have observed how difficult it is to get rid of someone who is not performing their job well because employers fear a lawsuit for unjust termination. You will have to look far and wide to find someone who is more patient and understanding than I am when it comes to giving people a chance to prove themselves, but incompetence and lack of ethical behavior clearly exists in our society, and when allowed to go unchecked, the morale of others is damaged and the result is inefficiency, and in some cases, even a danger to others.
Are there some commonsense approaches to dealing with things such as unfortunate medical outcomes or job termination? Some will be quick to dismiss this question, saying that without protective regulations and threats of lawsuits, discrimination and bias by employers would reign supreme in the workplaces of America. This, of course, assumes that we have not matured at all from the days of segregation and Jim Crowism, which is a huge and probably inappropriate assumption. One must also bear in mind that media scrutiny and bad publicity are huge deterrents of abusive behavior today compared to decades ago. If we continue to sue and regulate for every possibility, however, soon the level of distrust and suspicion throughout our society will begin to provide a real challenge to healthy interperson
al relationships. I believe it is possible to change the atmosphere of antagonism to one that is friendly and oriented toward the resolution of problems if we can find a way to make litigation the last solution rather than the first.
WHO CONTROLS THOSE WHO CONTROL US?
A great deal of bureaucracy has been added to our government in order to control corruption, but what about corruption in the government — how do we control that? I am aware of numerous patriotic, humanitarian Americans who have been severely abused by components of our justice system, including one of my closest friends.
His parents immigrated to America from Italy and were extremely hard-working, salt-of-the-earth-type people. During the race riots in the late 1960s, their pizza shop was actually protected by rioters when everything else was being looted or burned, because of the respect with which they were held in the community.
He was trained as an oral surgeon and had a thriving practice, but in 1992 he bought a building for $275,000, renovated it, and six months later it was valued at $1 million. Realizing his talent for real estate development, he quickly became one of the most successful developers in his state and went on to complete successful projects in several other states.
My friend has the most wonderful family with a loving and caring wife and extremely bright children, all of whom have stellar academic credentials and not the slightest hint of being spoiled rich kids. In fact, all of their children have been heavily involved in programs to assist poor families. Our families have vacationed together for years, including spending Christmas together. We have such similar values and principles that our bonding was natural.
As his real estate business increased, the available time he had for practicing oral surgery decreased, and he sold his practice to a colleague. Unfortunately, that colleague was later accused of Medicare fraud, but he did not have deep pockets — so the investigating agents came after my friend, even though he no longer owned the practice. They meticulously examined fifteen years of his practice records for evidence of fraud and were only able to uncover two questionable bills, amounting to a total of $180. My friend owns a spectacular home, a Manhattan penthouse, two Ferraris, and a European villa. However, given the fortune he amassed, he lives modestly compared to the lifestyle he could have had if he so desired. I believe the lead agent was either jealous of his success or incorrectly concluded that he had organized crime connections that produced his wealth.
America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great Page 21