Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (16149)	11/28/1998 6:15:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Thank you for continuing the gory detail recitation, Michael. You really want to understand, don't you. Would you care to give a source for that little missive?

To: greenspirit who wrote (16149)	12/4/1998 4:56:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Inquiry Criticizes A.M.A. Backing of Abortion Procedure Ban nytimes.com Daniel, that's interesting that you pointed out an article from a part of the medical community. Did you know that the AMA has gone on the record supporting the ban on partial birth abortion? Here's an interesting article on that particular issue. Investigators hired by the American Medical Association say that the organization ignored its own decision-making procedures, got swept up in politics and failed to protect the welfare of patients when it endorsed a Republican bill banning a specific abortion procedure last year. In a scathing report, the investigators said that AMA trustees had abandoned the group's longstanding positions on abortion and rushed to embrace the bill even though it did not meet the criteria previously set by the association for such an endorsement. The report, part of a larger investigation of the board of trustees, concludes that "the AMA blundered" in its handling of the bill to outlaw the procedure that opponents call "partial birth abortion." The trustees had been seeking concessions from Congress to make the bill more acceptable to doctors. But the report said the association "set itself up for accusations of playing politics" because it announced its support for the abortion bill on the same day it asked Congress to shield doctors from deep cuts in Medicare spending. "Rather than focusing on its role as steward for the profession and the public health," the report said, "the board got enmeshed in operational issues of lobbying and lost sight of its responsibility for making decisions which, first and foremost, benefit the patient and protect the physician-patient relationship." . . . "As the AMA became determined to cut a deal with the Congressmen," the report said, "the decision-making process began to reel out of the control of the AMA and into the control of the Congressmen on the other side of the negotiating table." While the trustees negotiated directly with congressional sponsors of the legislation, they failed to consult adequately with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups of medical specialists, the report said. Some members of the association said they agreed with the auditors' findings. In the culture of the AMA, "political considerations often take precedence over the profession's needs," said a panel of doctors who studied the structure and governance of the organization, at the behest of the House of Delegates. The investigators from Booz Allen & Hamilton worked under the direct supervision of the doctors' panel. . . . The audit report also makes these points: -- Through the timing of its action on the abortion bill, "the AMA painted a picture of itself as primarily concerned about protecting the financial interests of physicians." -- The trustees had "a general sense, based on national polls, that the American public was opposed to the partial birth abortion procedure," but the AMA did not survey its members to ascertain what would be in the best interest of patients and doctors. -- The decision to support a ban on partial birth abortion "contradicted longstanding AMA policy" and deviated from positions reaffirmed by the house of delegates just five months earlier, in December 1996. -- The association "appeared to get swept up by the high-profile nature of the issue" last year. -- The AMA had well-established procedures to set policy in a "thoughtful, deliberative and democratic way," but disregarded them. Instead, it used a "crisis mode of policy-setting." The trustees decided that they had to take a position on the abortion bill in May 1997, rather than wait for the house of delegates to consider the issue at its regularly scheduled meeting one month later. As a result, the report says, "many doctors were outraged."