‘A Break for Good Samaritans’

Your assessment that the need for prenatal care for uninsured and low-income women is greater than ever is right on the mark (editorial, “A Break for Good Samaritans,” July 31). But your support for a pending bill, Assembly Bill 3473, to extend “Good Samaritan” protections to obstetricians performing emergency deliveries for patients for whom they have not provided prenatal care, usually low-income or uninsured women, is misguided.

In effect, you are saying that these women should be entitled by law to top-quality prenatal care, but not to the same level of care as insured patients at the time of delivery. There is no reason why a trained, practicing physician who performs a delivery in a fully-equipped hospital with a competent staff should be protected from negligence simply because of a patient’s income.

Doctors are protected by “Good Samaritan” laws in emergency cases in unusual surroundings, e.g., at the scene of an accident. It is understood that the unexpected situation, the lack of equipment, and other factors compromise the quality of care. Moreover, we need to encourage physicians to respond to the injured where there is a legal duty to do so.

An on-call obstetrician, however, performs emergency deliveries through the normal course of his or her practice. A physician always has the duty to exercise the same level of care that other physicians would offer under similar circumstances. The fact of the emergency is already taken into account under present law. But negligence cannot be condoned, or accepted, whether the patient is insured or uninsured, rich or poor.

I am currently representing a child who suffers from severe brain damage and paralysis because of an on-call obstetrician’s delay. The child will need $5 million in care as she lives out her “normal” life span with what can be called anything but a “normal” life. Assembly Bill 3473 would let the negligent physician off the hook, and burden all taxpayers with the cost of care and support.

The cost of insurance for on-call services, and the exodus of doctors from the field are legitimate concerns. But there are options: Doctors can be included under the umbrella of the county or state’s malpractice premium, as is the case at several hospitals; or, in hospitals where on-call duty is a condition of private hospital staff privileges, the doctor could be deemed to be an employee or agent of the hospital, thereby making the hospital liable for the doctor’s actions.

RUSSELL S. KUSSMAN

Beverly Hills