The Daily Egyptian is published by the students of SIU at Carbondale. Except during vacations and exam weeks, The Daily Egyptian is published Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semesters and TWThF during the summer semester."

[Macro error: Can't include because the file is larger than 32767 characters.]

Council members, citizens react to malpractice ordinance's approval

A week after the malpractice ordinance passed by the Carbondale City Council, the issue remains a controversial and often discussed topic with some questioning what the long-term impact will resonate positively.

The malpractice ordinance, which passed 4-1 at the July 6 city council meeting, requires all malpractice cases that happen in Carbondale to be conducted in Jackson County and limits the "pain and suffering" reward to three times the amount of economic damage.

Councilman Chris Wissmann was the only member to change a vote in favor of the ordinance after he originally voted against the issue at the June 6 meeting.

Wissmann said he wanted a guarantee that if he voted for the ordinance, the council would be willing to work together to produce an additional ordinance that would help patients in Carbondale.

"I traded a vote on an ordinance that I think is harmful to patients," Wissmann said. "But I am certain it will get tossed out in court. I think the trade is worthwhile."

Like Wissmann, councilwoman Maggie Flanagan also voiced other options she believes are available to the council in response to the malpractice problem the region faces. Flanagan was the only council member who voted against the ordinance.

She said she would be interested in seeing Wissmann's suggestions in front of the council once he clarifies exactly what it is he wants to do.

"I would like to see it come back to the council agenda to look at and evaluate," Flanagan said.

Councilman Lance Jack, who abstained from the vote, said he believes Wissmann's suggestion is a helpful idea and a good way to make progress but does not think it will help in the long run.

"It's another good step, but much like the ordinance we passed, it would do nothing," Jack said.

At the July 6 council meeting, Jack abstained from voting on the malpractice ordinance because he said there was not enough debate from both the community members and the council.

"The reason I abstained from the malpractice ordinance was a form of protest," Jack said. "I didn't feel we had sufficient discussion on the topic."

He said if the council wanted to get a malpractice ordinance out there, it should be of high quality.

"I thought we should be going about it in a different way," Jack said. "I thought we needed to bring quality in at the beginning,"

Jack was also upset that community members were not given the chance to speak at the meeting, especially if they had something to say on the subject.

"It's my belief if we have community members who want to speak on the topic, we need to take the time to let them be heard," Jack said.

In addition to the council members' mixed opinions on the malpractice ordinance, professionals who are affected by the ordinance added a similar sentiment.

Memorial Hospital of Carbondale Administrator George Maroney said while the ordinance will not directly help lower premiums, it does show community doctors and state lawmakers Carbondale cares about the medical community.

"I don't think it will have any affect [on insurance premiums] at all, but here again it goes back to the symbolism and it's a message to the governor and to the speaker and to the other people in Springfield to get off their butts and do something," Maroney said.

"That's what I believe the city was trying to do, at least that's what I hope they were trying to do."

Maroney said he believes although Carbondale doctors were originally disappointed by the lack of support, they are now appreciative of the recent action.

Yet Carbondale trial attorney R. Courtney Hughes said the ordinance sends a disappointing message when the city is trying to directly oppose state laws.

Hughes said councilwoman Sheila Simon was correct for questioning the city's choice to control venue.

The control over venue has never been attempted by a city and it is still unclear weather it is going to hold up in court.

"I believe [the malpractice ordinance] will be drop-kicked so fast it will embarrass the city," Hughes said.

Hughes said he is not only concerned about the legality of the ordinance but also about the cost to the city. He said if a person challenges the legality of the ordinance it could take several years to resolve.

"They want a symbolic message but it will be an expensive one," Hughes said.