The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 9)

When Consumer Reports did its rollover hatchet job on the Isuzu Trooper some years ago, Isuzu took the step of documenting the junk science that C-R had engaged in while furthering its coincidental environmental extremist agenda (my words, not Isuzu's). None of the vehicles that C-R tested were instrumented. Therefore, there was no way to validate what speed the vehicle was driving at, what rate of turn the vehicle was forced into, whether or not identical amounts of front wheel angular deflection were demanded by the test driver and at what angular rate of change, etc.

Additionally it was also shown that owners of high performance sports cars were far more likely to roll their vehicles than owners of SUVs, despite obvious differences in centers of gravity and other "controlling" parameters. The demographics of the owners were irrelevant to C-R.

Ditto for the fact that almost all deaths from SUV rollover were caused by drivers who chose to not use their seatbelts, who thus were ejected from the vehicle during rollover, and were then crushed by the vehicle itself. Sounds like a Darwin Award finalist to me.

The Left wants us all singing Rush Limbaugh's "In a Yugo" and thus the "science" to "prove" their point.

p>No thank you. br> -- Frank Natoli br> Newton, New Jersey /p>

You must have missed getting my letters since you have not one, but two fat, juicy articles for me.

First, Eric Peters has an excellent article about SUVs. Why can't someone with such common sense anchor the network news? My only addition would be to point out that most of the dead victims of SUV rollovers were not wearing their seatbelts.

Second, and not so impressive, is Professor Reiland's article on hospital deaths. I think that the point of his argument is that lawsuits are a big impetus for improvement in the hospital system. If that were so, then the number of hospital deaths due to negligence and mistakes should be approximately 74. True, very few patients sue, but the threat is always there and is never far from the minds of the doctors, nurses, therapists, lab personnel, and administrators. I would estimate that at least 20% of the effort to provide care for patients goes towards creating an environment that would decrease a patient's propensity to sue: nice facilities, lots of smiles, addressing mistakes promptly, soothing hurt feelings. In other words, PR. I am sure the threat of being sued motivates some doctors to practice better medicine (not just add to the cost of healthcare), but it also removes the ability to look honestly at ways to improve processes and, if one were to accept Healthgrades' report, has been a spectacular failure.

p>I would also contend that lumping regular complications in with hospital errors is a mistake. I notice that Professor Reiland used the phrase "low risk patients." He didn't use the phrase "no risk patients." That's because there is no such thing. If you are ill, being mildly ill is no guarantee that you won't die from that illness. That's just biology. That's also what the practice of medicine is striving to make sure doesn't happen. It is not an exact science but many highly intelligent people of good will are working hard towards that goal. Lawsuit reform won't hinder their progress. br> -- Andrew J. Macfadyen, M.D.

topics:
Education, Sports, Abortion, Environment, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, Conservatism, Oil, Unions