I was sued only once during my surgical career. The event, in which everyone whose name was in the patient’s chart was included in the suit, occurred during my residency and involved a case in which I had done the admitting history and physical examination and held retractors in surgery. After two years of very little action in the suit, the plaintiff’s attorney dropped the case because it had no merit, and he was threatened with a malicious prosecution countersuit by the university. This event was devastating to this young otolaryngologist, and it made me question at the time whether or not I wanted to continue in medicine, as I (as is every physician named in a malpractice suit) was portrayed by the plaintiff’s attorney as being the most negligent doctor in the world. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues suffer the same assault by plaintiffs’ attorneys in cases without merit and all cite the mental anguish it causes as one of the most distressing aspect of medical malpractice. In most cases, the worst outcomes of a malpractice suit for a physician are the impact of the insurance company’s settlement on the premium and the black mark duly noted on the physician’s record.
Imagine, then, the mental anguish to be accused of multiple murders with the penalty of losing one’s freedom-I can’t. Yet that is what one of our colleagues, Anna Pou, MD, has had to endure for the past two years. She was accused by Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti of euthanizing at least four patients during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina while she and a handful of dedicated health care workers stayed with patients at Memorial Medical Center. She had the opportunity to leave the hospital, but she remained to care for the sick and dying. Mr. Foti turned the case over to Eddie Jordan, the New Orleans district attorney, who ultimately convened a grand jury, which determined there was not enough evidence to support the murder charges.
The Politics Behind the Case
The word on the streets of New Orleans is that Mr. Foti brought the charges to enhance his political career (he was the Orleans Parish Sheriff for many years). According to political wags, Mr. Foti brought the euthanasia charges to court the conservative vote, which is considerable in Louisiana. Does this sound familiar? Three Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape by a district attorney, Mike Nifong, who was courting voters during a reelection bid. In that situation, it was determined that the DA withheld exculpatory evidence, which ultimately resulted in his resignation from office and disbarment.
Notable is that both Messrs. Nifong and Foti used the press extensively to ensure that the public knew of their actions in these high-profile cases. For example, despite an agreement between Dr. Pou’s attorney and the attorney general’s office that she would present herself to the authorities when asked to, she was arrested by four policemen at her home at 9:00 at night after a day in the OR and seeing patients. This dangerous criminal was handcuffed and brought to jail in a very public ceremony.
It is unconscionable that elected officials would use the power of their office inappropriately for personal gain. It is one thing to take a bribe in return for support of a law or bill in which someone’s personal freedom and reputation are not at stake. But Mr. Nifong clearly tried to destroy the lives of three innocent individuals (and even though the charges were dropped, their lives are forever marked with this event) for his personal gain. Attorney General Foti has done the same to a well-respected, caring head and neck surgeon who is, at most, guilty of upholding the noblest tradition of medicine by placing patients ahead of herself.
Some have noted that one of the reasons the Duke lacrosse players prevailed is that not only are they innocent, but they also have the financial resources to fight the system. For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of these two cases is: What about someone who does not have the same financial resources as the lacrosse players and Dr. Pou to fight the system? These cases highlight the fact that we must be vigilant to ensure that the power of the government is not abused for personal gain. In addition to tarnishing Dr. Pou’s outstanding reputation, Mr. Foti has brought great financial strain to her and her family with mounting legal bills. A fund to help defray Dr. Pou’s defense (she still must defend civil suits by the families of the people she was accused of murdering) has been established. The URL for the fund is www.supportdrpou.com .
Having grown up in New Orleans and having served on the Tulane faculty for thirteen years, I have great affection for one of the most unique cities in the United States. Yes, part of the reason for this uniqueness is its laissez-faire attitude toward many issues, including the political system, which has produced such notables as former Governor Edwin Edwards, now serving time in a federal prison, and William Jefferson, a sitting member of the House of Representatives who may very well face the same fate. I should point out that Louisiana is not the only state to have some corrupt politicians-perhaps it’s just that ours do it more out in the open. Unfortunately, Mr. Foti’s actions and the subsequent rejection of his allegations add yet another black eye to Louisiana at a time it is struggling to recover from the devastation of Karina. New Orleans and Louisiana remain wonderful places and should not be judged by the actions of some of its elected officials.
Who Is to Blame?
Who is to blame for this situation? Clearly, the people who sit in these offices and make a conscious decision to advance their careers ahead of doing what is right. Perhaps we share some of the blame by electing these individuals. No voter intentionally selects a bad person, but we should do a better job of finding out more about the candidates, their qualifications and beliefs. With voter turnouts for local races frequently below 50%, it also requires greater participation in the electoral process.
In my 34 years as a physician, I never contemplated being in the position of being falsely accused of a crime that would affect my personal freedom. These two cases have caused me to give a lot more thought to that aspect of our legal system. There are those (mostly lawyers, I would guess) who would point out the system worked because both the lacrosse players and Dr. Pou were vindicated. Yes, ultimately they were, but at what price? The financial aspects can be calculated, but the mental anguish is immeasurable and my guess is that it will continue at some level forever in these defendants. Is that justice?
©2007 The Triological Society