What if you were prescribed a medicine that actually made your already difficult illness worse?

That is precisely what has happened to hundreds of patients suffering from osteoporosis, osteopenia, and other bone loss conditions. Patients who took a class of drug known as “bisphosphonates” have suffered severe bone fractures, such as long bone femur fractures, as a direct result of their use of these drugs.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous safety concerns relating to the entire class of bisphosphonate drugs, which have been used by millions to treat osteoporosis, osteopenia, and other bone loss conditions.  This class of drug includes:

• Skelid
• Didronel
• Aredia
• Fosamax
• Boniva
• Actonel
• Aclasta
• Bondronat
• Fosavance
• Reclast
• Atelvia
• Zometa

Fosamax is the best known and most popular of these medications. It was approved for use in the United States in 1995.  The safety concerns have raised such significant alarm that many prescribing physicians and patients are questioning whether the risks of the drugs outweigh the benefits, especially for patients with osteopenia. Patients with osteoporosis are questioning whether long-term use of the drugs provides sufficient benefit, given the severe complications.

The first safety concern regarding these osteoporosis drugs related to the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (also known as “ONJ” or “bisphossy-jaw”).  This very serious condition involves necrosis (death of bone) in the jaw bone.   This condition can rarely occur spontaneously, but tends to come about after major dental procedures, such as tooth extractions.  Early symptoms include pain and inflammation of the gums or oral tissue, drainage and infection, and leads to lesions and exposed bone.  Sadly, there is no cure for ONJ, and patients who suffer extreme cases usually end up having portions of their jaw resected.  It was not until 2005 that Bisphosphonate manufacturers finally acknowledged these adverse effects and added the risks to the drug labels.  Even today, many patients and dentists are ill-informed about this potential for harm, and, given the drugs’ extremely long half-life, patients may be at risk for the development of osteonecrosis for up to 10 years after discontinuing the medications. Thislong half-life is especially true for patients receiving the high-dose IV bisphosphonates Aredia and Zometa, which are often given to patients as a part of their chemotherapy regimen for bone metastases.

The second and third waves of safety issues relating to osteoporosis drugs related to reports of arrhythmias and a possible link to esophageal cancer.  Many patients have discontinued taking oral bisphosphonates or switched to injectable forms of the drugs due to esophageal irritation and discomfort.  In fact, patients should take the medication on an empty stomach, swallow the pill with water, and remain upright for at least thirty minutes afterward in order to minimize the irritation. These recommendations are supposed to reduce the risk of inflammation in the esophagus, which has been theorized to be related to the development of esophageal cancer.    The FDA has documented at least 68 cases of esophageal cancer in patients using oral bisphosphonates, many of whom died, but has not yet drawn a clear link.  Early studies indicate that patients taking these osteoporosis drugs face twice the risk of esophageal cancer than the general population, especially when used long-term.

(more…)

It is disappointing when otherwise intelligent, insightful people simply choose to ignore facts and fail to protect the very people they have sworn to serve.

It is no secret that many industry-wed lawmakers have been working for a long time to place damage caps on injuries caused by the negligence of others.

Those same industry-owned lawmakers stand for protecting the profits of hospitals and insurance companies over the protection of citizens. These are legislators and executive branch folks who are willing to sacrifice our rights in the interests of promises to lobbyists or keeping alive their favorite bill.

Currently, Congress, state legislators and governors are busy trying to protect corporate healthcare and insurance companies on the backs of victimized patients. Add to that a concerted effort to dismantle the only attempt, albeit flawed, to fix a flawed and dysfunctional health care system. These politicians are not builders; they seek to create or enhance nothing. These lawmakers want to dismantle anything lobbyists tell them to defeat in the best interests of their corporate constituents.

Fact: It has been estimated that medical errors cause $17 – $29 billion every year in lost income, disability and healthcare.

Fact: The Department of health & Human Services estimates that medical errors result in $4.4 billion in additional Medicare costs.

Fact: Patient rights have been taken away or diminished in 48 of the 50 states already. This has done nothing to improve health care quality or costs in any of those 48 states.

Fact: In the 48 states already enacting limits on the rights of the injured there has been no tangible savings in terms of insurance reductions or health care cost reduction.

Fact: Preventable medical errors cause the death of 98,000 people each year (Institute of Medicine). Limiting the constitutional right of injured victims has done nothing to improve the quality of health care or to reduce the numbers of injured people or the number of patients killed by preventable medical care errors.

Fact: Defensive medicine is a myth dreamed up by those who desire increased corporate profits. Defensive medicine may be motivated more by a desire to increase profits to doctors and hospitals as the alleged defensive medicine.

Fact: The “lawsuit crisis” is a well conducted campaign of propaganda, spin and lies.

Fact: Lawsuits filed by injured people represent a very small percentage of the total burden on the court system. Actually, the largest numbers of lawsuits involve divorce, estates and corporations suing each other.

Fact: Passing laws to protect one special class of Americans to the detriment of the majority of Americans is in violation of the constitution. Protecting doctors, hospitals and insurance companies while denying patients their rights, is simply unfair and unlawful.

Fact: The groups fighting the hardest to infringe on the rights of citizens of individual states are the same groups who have repeatedly told Americans that “Big Government” is bad and that the federal government should stay out of the business of the states. So much for smaller government.

Fact: People in favor of tort reform can not use facts to support their arguments. They rely on hyperbole and spin fed to them by groups supported by business interests.

Fact: Who will pay for the costs of medical care, lost income and rehabilitation caused by medical errors if the rights of victims to pursue legal remedies are taken away? You and I will pay through increased taxes to fund medicare, social security and increased insurance premiums.

Fact: Who will benefit from taking away rights? Hospitals, insurance companies and corporations.

Before you take a position on this very important constitutional battle, educate yourself, be informed, and do not blindly accept information given to you by anyone.

Read, research and rely on your own common sense.

Who is paying for all these campaigns and lobbyists who have the ears of YOUR law makers?

How many people actually are wireless in 2011?

We know that in 2010, 292,800,000 people had wireless subscriptions.

We know that wireless-only households went from 2,138,400 in 2005 to 71,736,000 in 2010. An increase of over 30 times 2005.

We also know that the time people spent on wireless phones in 2005 amounted to 1,026,000,000 minutes (over 17,100,000 hours) and in 2010, increased to 2,026,000,000 minutes (over 33,700,000 hours).

In addition to talking to people, our phones have now gotten “smart” and we are able to email, text and post on the web. In fact text messaging has gone from 12,200,000 in the year 2000 to 135,200,000,000 in 2009. That accounts for over 370,410,958 text messages per day.

Let’s face it, we have become and are daily increasing our ability to be mobile; to communicate from anywhere and at anytime. But, that also suggests the question: Should we be communicating without regard for where we are and what we are doing?

I can tell you from my own recent experience that talking on a cell phone while driving a tractor is a really bad idea. Your ability to maneuver the tractor around obstacles and ditches is greatly reduced while focusing your attention on holding a cell phone and talking on it.

So what happens at 30 mph, 50 mph, or 70 mph while you are trying to drive a car and manipulate your smart phone?

Let’s break down the things you are doing just to operate a car down a road:

Visual: you are looking from one point to another in your field of vision. This includes managing a visual field that encompasses: front center, right and left; rear center, right and left; side view mirror to the right and side view mirror to the left; dash gauges including speedometer, temperature gauge, oil pressure gauge, and gas gauge.

Audible: you hear traffic road noise; you hear horns and must discern those warning you and those of an ambient nature; you hear the sound of your own vehicle and try to determine whether the noise is usual or unusual; you may hear the sirens of emergency vehicles and then must rely on additional visual responsibilities; and you are probably playing the radio or other listening device.

Physical: you are using your right foot to move between the accelerator and the brake; both hands are engaged with the steering wheel (when not changing radio stations); your eyes move from one point to another (see visual); your left hand must handle the turn signals; and your right hand may be shifting gears.

Mental: Your brain is engaged in all of the visual, auditory and physical activities; moving your eyes, taking in sounds, and moving limbs. In addition, it is processing all the input from your eyes and ears; trying to determine whether it is “business as usual” or whether that semi is going to suddenly change lanes into you.

Bottom line is your brain is functioning at its peak capacity while trying to drive a car, truck, boat or, well, a tractor.

But “I can multitask” you say? Really?

Multitasking is a myth. Human brains do not multitask, but rather they select. Your brain is engaging in a constant process of picking and choosing what it needs to focus its attention on at any given second:

• Selection – the brain tries to choose what information it will process
• Process – the actual handing out of information and instructions to the body
• Encode – the brain creates memory. You cannot process information and take ANY action without the brain storing the information in at least short term memory
• Store – the brain store the information
• Retrieve – the brain must access the information stored in memory
• Execute – the brain instructs some part of the body to act on the information and then guides the necessary neurological responses to cause the action

While the brain is going through these steps for each piece of information it is receiving and for each action it is taking, it can be placed into a state of overload. Think of your brain trying to process multiple pieces of unrelated information as a computer would. What you often see when your computer van not process is the hourglass appearing on your screen and not going away. Nothing will work and you are forced to reboot. Your brain does not reboot, it simply selects what it is going to pay attention to and in what order it will process the information before it takes action. If the process is interrupted, the execution will be flawed or compromised in one way or another.

A perfect example for the tragic outcome of trying to multitask while doing something as important as driving can be found at the National Safety Council website:

In January 2004, at 4:00 p.m., in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a 20-year-old woman ran a red light while talking on a cell phone. The driver’s vehicle slammed into another vehicle crossing with the green light directly in front of her. The vehicle she hit was not the first car through the intersection, it was the third or fourth. The police investigation deter­mined the driver never touched her brakes and was traveling 48 mph when she hit the other vehicle. The crash cost the life of a 12-year-old boy. Witnesses told investigators that the driver was not looking down, not dialing the phone, or texting. She was observed looking straight out the windshield talking on her cell phone as she sped past four cars and a school bus stopped in the other south bound lane of traffic. Researchers have called this crash a classic case of inattention blindness caused by the cognitive distraction of a cell phone conversation. The driver responsible for the above crash was on the phone with her church where she volunteered with children the age of the young boy who lost his life as the result of her phone call. She pled guilty to negligent homicide and the lives of two families were terribly and permanently altered. Countless numbers of similar crashes continue every day.

So, when driving a 3000 pound piece of metal hurling along a roadway, don’t ask more from your brain than it can reasonably deliver:

• Stay off the phone
• Don’t put on makeup or shave
• Don’t read the newspaper
• Don’t eat your breakfast, lunch or dinner
• Don’t talk on the phone
• Don’t text or email

Finally, never forget that, in 2008, 1,400,000 vehicle crashes happened as a result of cell phone use and as many as 1,000,000 crashes happened as a result of texting and driving; that is 2,400,000 unnecessarily hurt and injured people.

This past weekend, I joined the estimated 11 million people who last year fell prey to identity thief.

I knew something was up when my wife, as she was listening to what was evidently striking her as a curious voice mail message, asked me mid-message if I had ordered $849.78 worth of merchandise from Kohls; and my response was, “what is Kohls?”  So while my wife was listening to the message and probably wondering about my motives for going all-out on Valentine’s Day gifts this year, I was having very naïve thoughts, about phone number mix-ups, or after learning that Kohls is a department store, that some unknown benefactor had bestowed gifts upon us.

But that is not the world we live in today, is it?

After speaking with the Kohls representative, I learned that my full name, date of birth, social security number, current home address and current home telephone was used to open an on-line credit card.

That is the bad news and it was not a very good feeling.

However, ironically, it allowed Kohls to find me very easily.  Had it not been for the store flagging the order – new account, large order, shipping address different than billing address; in other words, the identity thieves being greedy – I wouldn’t have known until it was much too late.  I was lucky, and am very thankful to the people that recognized this, and followed through on it.

Sadly, most people are not as lucky as I was.

As has been previously discussed on this very blog site, identity theft is a costly, frequent and growing problem in today’s society; and the practical advice given regarding what to do when you discover identify theft is sage.  For the proactive among us (not I, at least in this particular arena), many of these same steps can be utilized in an attempt to minimize your exposure once someone has stolen your information and attempted to use it.

1) Check your credit reports.  A credit report is a record, both past and current, of your credit activities.  Therefore, any attempt by an identify thief to use your personal information to open a credit card account or obtain a loan, would appear as an entry on your credit report.

Equifax, Experian and Trans Union are the three major, nationwide credit reporting agencies.  Federal law permits consumers to request a free copy of their credit report every 12 months from each of the big three.  Visiting their websites, or sites such as www.annualcreditreport.com or www.freecreditreport.com, will provide guidance on how you can obtain your credit reports.  In addition to obtaining copies annually, a consumer may also be able to review certain aspects of your credit report on-line as you wish.

2) Monitor your financial statements.  Whether you access to your monthly bank and/or credit card statements on-line, or receive paper copies of them, look closely for transactions that you did not make.

Incorporating these steps into your routine will make for an informed consumer, and one who will be more apt to recognize fraud not long after it has occurred.  Prior to this past Saturday, I cannot tell you if I have ever seen my credit report.  And if I were a betting man, I would bet that many of you can’t either.

3) Fraud alert. A fraud alert means that creditors will have to follow certain procedures before they open new accounts, or make certain changes to an existing account, in your name.  For example, if I had a fraud alert in place, then Kohls would have been required to contact me to alert me that a card was being opened in my name.  You can put a fraud alert on your credit by contacting any of the big three agencies:

• Equifax 888-766-0008;
• Trans Union 800-680-7289;
• Experian 888-397-3742

Just follow the automated instructions.  This is a free service, and you don’t have to speak to anyone.  This will only take about 5 – 10 minutes.  Calling only one agency will suffice.  You can do the same by visiting any of their websites.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this initial fraud alert is good for only 90 days.

4) Consider permanent protection.  All of the big three agencies offer some form of a permanent fraud alert.  It this is not free; so think of it as “credit insurance.”  For example, Trans Union charges $9.95/month for a permanent fraud alert and continual credit monitoring.

In addition to the big three, your financial institution might offer a service that includes a permanent fraud alert/credit monitoring.  As a result of direct deposit at my bank, available to me free of cost is a subscription to Identity Theft Protection and Credit Monitoring through Equifax, which includes weekly monitoring for any changes in my credit file, and up to $25,000 Identity Fraud Expense Coverage.  This feature is one of those contained in the “fine print,” but nonetheless is available.  Inquire next time you go to the bank.

If you do not, or cannot, go so far as getting a fraud alert placed on your file, then you really must become diligent at reviewing your credit report and bank/credit card statements.

5) Add extra layers of protection to your bank and/or credit card files.  With customer service representatives of most banks and credit cards available 24/7 to assist over the phone, an identity thief with your personal identification information, including your social security number, will have all he needs to get information from these institutions.  Consider adding a password, or requiring a question to be asked that only you could answer, to access your account.

If you have been the victim of identity theft, contact your local law enforcement agency.  With a police report documenting identity theft, a consumer will be able to receive seven years of fraud free alert protection on their credit file, as opposed to only 90 days.  Additionally, a police report will be helpful in cleaning up any problems that might arise down the road due to your identity being stolen.  And who knows, maybe the police will be able to track down the “perps” or the people who ultimately tried to use your identity.

Oh, and buy a shredder for your home use.

Imagine waking up one morning to the above headline, and wondering whether the world of law and order, at least as you knew it, was coming to an end. Imagine also that the entire rest of the planet, or at least the small portion with which you commerce, just continued to carry on, business as usual. You would likely pinch yourself, hoping to awaken from a dream that was beginning to shade toward nightmare.

That’s precisely what happened to me last week when I opened the newspaper to a Los Angeles Times story concerning a new website, EBookFling, that exists solely for the purpose of enabling electronic book readers to “borrow” books off the site, without providing compensation to either publisher or writer.

“Logically, one could say that publishers can end up losing money,” said Nick Ruffilo, an executive with the company. “It would be hard to argue with that, because it’s not incorrect. But it’s also not the whole picture.” Presumably, that is NOT the whole picture – the whole picture would include the fact that Mr. Ruffilo’s hands would be reaching into the pockets of copyright owners (authors) and licensees (publishers), the lawful recipients of compensation for enabling access to the content under their purview, and transferring that compensation to him. Regardless of the spin Mr. Ruffilo wishes to put on his business methodology, that’s conversion – in both a literal and legal sense.

Whistling in the dark, the company is cited by the Times as claiming their service to be “perfectly legitimate and allowed by the lending policies set by Amazon for the Kindle and Barnes and Noble for the Nook,” (although “calls to [both companies] were not returned”). Ruffino adds, “Legally, this is using a feature that already exists. It fits with the terms of use.”

Whose terms?

One of the oldest premises of the law – some would say the reason for its very existence – is the recognition and protection of private property. The protection of physical property is not an exclusively human trait. Animals mark the boundaries of their territories with urine (we use surveyors), and will defend them with tooth and nail (we use the sheriff, or the militia), but it is the establishment and protection of intellectual property that is unique to our species. Now, I am an intellectual property developer – not a lawyer – but my understanding of the entire coda of copyright, trade mark and patent law has evolved around the concept that the novel product of one’s mind is worth protecting, and the violation of it is no less an offense than the unpermitted trespass to our land, our bodies, our “stuff”. Mr. Ruffino thinks that it should be okay if he “borrows” it for a while, without permission, so that millions of others can “borrow” it from him – for a price. If that’s not illegal – no, downright cheeky – I don’t know what is. Why is it, I wonder, that his company can even entertain the notion that what is mine should be theirs?

The answer is because they can. The same electronic medium in which my publisher insists my work must appear (you’re reading this on line, after all), is prone to getting reproduced – a nice way of saying ripped off – by the very audience to whom I am addressing it. Technology enables the crime, and renders the punishment problematic, but that doesn’t make it right. Just ask the parents of kids who thought it wouldn’t hurt to download a song or two without permission, and found themselves on the wrong end of a six-figure judgment.

There are those who feel that art should exist for a purpose higher than that of material compensation, but the vast majority of those who feel that way about art are incapable of generating it. I admit to having a dog in this fight: I own dozens of patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and I have fed my family with the fruits of my labors only because the law has protected my right to obtain compensation from anyone who wishes to benefit from my work product. There’s the operative word – wishes.  The creator of intellectual property relies on a contract with his public, the willing exchange of pleasure or utility for a fee. The notion that the artist should create a gratuitous endowment out of what was once the exclusive province of his mind is as fundamentally unfair as it is unsound. Am I to work for free?

Check that – I suppose Mr. Ruffilo would hold that I should work for HIM.

For many young women, the introduction of the NuvaRing in 2001 as an alternate form of birth control seemed to be just the right fit for their active lifestyles.  They no longer had to worry about taking a pill at the same time every day.

This new form of contraceptive could be inserted vaginally by the user, left in place for three weeks, removed for one week to allow for menstruation, and then a new ring inserted continuing this pattern.

Just like oral contraceptives, the NuvaRing contains estrogen and progestin.  These two hormones work together to prevent the ovaries from releasing mature eggs and thinning the uterine lining to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.  Once inserted, the ring releases a low dose of hormones which are absorbed and distributed throughout the bloodstream.

When used as directed, the NuvaRing claims to be just as effective as the pill, preventing 99%of pregnancies.

So why not use this much more convenient method of administration?

Studies demonstrate that third-generation contraceptives, such as the NuvaRing, can double the risk of life-threatening blood clots when compared to second-generation contraceptives.  These blood clots can lead to:

• Myocardial infarction (heart attack)
• Cerebrovascular accident (stroke)
• Elevated blood pressure
• Pulmonary embolism (blood clot obstructing the lungs)
• Deep vein thrombosis (blood clot in deep veins, usually in the leg)
• Gall bladder disease
• Ocular lesions
• Death

The culprit in these third-generation contraceptives is the progestin component called desogestrel, which was developed to replace the norgestrel, levonorgestrel or norethindrone found in the second-generation pills.

This newest class of contraceptives was introduced with the intention of reducing adverse reactions such as acne and excessive hair growth associated with the second-generation predecessors.

If you have been using NuvaRing and develop any of the following side effects, please immediately consult with your physician:

• Chest pain
• Difficult breathing—shortness of breath or labored breathing
• Coughing up blood
• Severe headaches
• Weakness or numbness
• Pain in the arms or legs (especially calf or thigh)
• Vision loss
• Flashing lights in the field of vision
• Severe abdominal pain
• Jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes)
• Unusual breast lumps
• Drastic change in mood
• Sever fatigue
• Sleeplessness for an extended period

Trading clearer skin for the risk of life-threatening blood clots just doesn’t add up!  So while it may be more inconvenient, the daily dosing required with the second-generation pills seems like the obvious and safer choice.  They offer exactly the same benefits of efficacy as the NuvaRing, without the heightened risks of life-threatening injury and death.

In a world where we seem to be placing so much emphasis on cosmetic perfection… “Is the risk worth the reward?”

Fosamax is the oldest, most prescribed and most studied of the bisphosphonate drugs (BPs) used to treatment “porous bone” or osteoporosis.

The other bisphosphonate drugs used to treat osteoporosis include Fosamax Plus D, Actonel, Actonel with Calcium, Atelvia, Boniva and Reclast.

Osteoporosis is a bone weakening condition that affects almost 10 million women in America and causes approximately 1.5 million fractures each year.

Since 2008, concerns over Foxamax and other BPs have been raised by medical doctors  who noted  atypical fractures to  the femur (thigh bone) experienced by some long term users of the drug.  According to Harvard Health Publications, researchers in Singapore in 2008 reported 17 postmenopausal women who had taken Fosamax for an average of 5 years experienced atypical fractures of the femur (i.e. fractures not caused by major physical injury).  Harvard Health Publications reports: “… given what we know about the effects of bisphosphonates on bone remodeling, the findings seem plausible.  In the short term, slowing bone resorption increases bone density. But in the long run, it may impair new bone formation and reduce the bone’s ability to repair microscopic cracks from wear and tear.” Harvard Health Publications, Health.harvard.edu/newsletters.

Later, doctors at New York’s Hospital for Special Surgery reviewed patient charts from 2002 to 2007 and identified some 70 patients with atypical fractures.  More than a third of the 70 patients who suffered atypical fractures had been taking Fosamax and and 4/5^th of those were fractures of the femur .  Significantly, 95% of the atypical femur fractures occurred in patients who had taken Fosamax for an average of 7 years.

On September 14, 2010, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (the leading organization concerning the science of bones)  issued a report calling for additional BP product labeling and an international patient registry. This was after the task force reviewed 310 cases of atypical femur fractures and found that 94% of the patients had taken a BP, most for more than five years. The task force found that many of the patients with atypical femur fractures had experienced groin or thigh pain for weeks or months before the fracture and that more than 25% of the patients had experienced fractures in both legs.

On October 13,2010, the FDA issued a Safety Announcement noting that while atypical fractures appear in less than 1% of the hip and femur fractures overall, “these unusual femur fractures have been predominantly reported in patients taking bisphosphonates such as Fosamax.”

The FDA also set forth that:

Although the optimal duration of bisphosphonate use for osteoporosis is unknown, these atypical fractures may be related to long-term bisphosphonate use.  FDA will require a new Limitations of Use statement in the Indications and Usage section of the labels for these drugs.  This statement will describe the uncertainty of the optimal duration of use of bisphosphonates for the treatment and/or prevention of osteoporosis.

A Medication Guide will also be required to be given to patients when they pick up their bisphosphonate prescription.  This Medication Guide will describe the symptoms of atypical femur fracture and recommend that   patients notify their healthcare professional if they develop symptoms.

The FDA issuance of the Safety Statement is part of its ongoing safety review of BP use and its relation to atypical femur fractures.

If you are currently taking Fosamax or one of the other BPs listed above, you should:

• Immediately report any unusual symptoms to your doctor (especially groin or leg pain;
• Review your treatment plan at least yearly with your doctor;
• Eat a balanced diet that contains fruits, vegetables, low-fat or fat-free calcium rich foods;
• Engage in regular (at least 3 times a week) weight-bearing exercise;
• If you are under 50, take 1000mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of Vitamin D daily;
• If you are 50 or older, take 1200 mg of calcium and 800-1000 IU of Vitamin D daily;
• If you smoke, try to quit and limit your intake of alcohol.

I propose we overhaul the criminal justice system in the United States. We can save billions, possibly trillions, of dollars by simply instituting a new way of handling the criminal process:

YOU are now presumed guilty of any crime with which you are charged until YOU prove yourself innocent. In addition, when accused of a crime, YOU will be immediately jailed and no bail will be granted. YOU will not be released from jail until YOU can prove yourself innocent.

YOU have no right of privacy in your home if criminal officials believe YOU have committed a crime. Police are free to search YOUR home whenever they reasonably suspect YOU are (or probably are guilty) of a crime.

Think about all the money it would save if police and prosecutors do not have to spend the time and resources to prove YOU are guilty of a crime. Think about all that money saved if prosecutors do not have to spend their time proving YOU are guilty, they simply have to prove why YOU are not innocent.

How does that work for everyone?

What? You have constitutional rights?

But, as I have already told you, it will save billions, probably trillions, of dollars.

What? You are not willing to sell or compromise your constitutional rights simply to save money in the criminal justice system?

But, it’s a great deal of money we are talking about saving. I mean don’t you think you are being a little unreasonable? I mean it’s only a couple of constitutional rights and it will save so very much money.

What? You are worried that by giving up these rights the government might take advantage? You are worried that giving up these constitutional rights might make it that much easier for the government to steal the next constitutional right away from you?

R-i-g-h-t.

But, “tort reformers” are eager, in fact nearly giddy, to require that Americans give up the constitutional right to access to the court system in civil matters. Why not go all the way and include the criminal side?

“Tort reformers” are very eager to deny Americans the right to trial of ALL their legal rights before a jury of their peers in civil court. Why not take it all the way and include criminals.

I mean its criminals after all, right?

What? You are afraid someone may be unjustly accused and be convicted because they do not have access to the courts and to competent representation; particularly if they are trying to accomplish all that from a jail cell?

But, It will save all that money!

Sound ludicrous and silly? Maybe, but we should not place ourselves in the position of choosing “which” constitutional rights we are willing to give up.

“Tort reformers” are currently proposing on a federal level; what they have sadly, but successfully accomplished on a state level in over 35 states. They want to compromise the constitutional right of access to the courts because they claim it will save money.

Now, they will tell you they are not affecting any constitutional rights and they provide spin for this proposition; spin that they have paid big money to produce. As far as their spin goes, it’s like my great aunt always said: “you can spray air freshener all over a pig, but it’s still a pig”.

The fact is they are lying. They have every intention of compromising constitutional rights in favor of saving money.

Who do “tort reformers” want to benefit? Consumers? No.

Tort reformers want to benefit corporations, insurance companies and other big lobby concerns.

Let’s look at a few FACTS:

• Fact: Tort reform on a federal level would not save more than one half of one percent (according to the Congressional Budget Office).
• Fact: Tort reform would do nothing to the 98,000 patients killed every year by medical negligence.
• Fact: Tort reform will do more to increase social burden than anything else. Injured people with no constitutional access to courts will be forced to use medicare, medicaid, unemployment, and social security more.
• Fact: Frivolous lawsuits are largely a myth. A May 2006 Harvard study demonstrated that 97% of all medical negligence claims are meritorious.
• Fact: Cases are not “flooding” the court system. In fact, lawsuits have decreased by 79% since 1985.
• Fact: Businesses and corporations are far more likely to file “frivolous” lawsuits than are individuals.
• Fact: Capping damage awards has no affect on reducing insurance premiums.
• Fact: Capping damages DOES result in increased profitability for insurance companies.