Both of the medical experts discussed by Miles J. Zaremski, J.D., later had complaints filed against them with their specialty medical societies by the defendant physicians against whom they had testified ("Expert Witnesses Under Fire," Law &: Medicine, May 1, 2008, p. 62).

These societies--the

American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Ophthalmology--conducted investigations of the testimony supplied by the plaintiffs" medical experts and later initiated certain actions against them. Mr. Zaremski decried that professional medical organizations sometimes seek to "muzzle health care providers" when their testimony [on behalf of medical malpractice plaintiffs] is inappropriate in the eyes of such organizations. He counseled, "If you are a physician wishing to consult or testify [presumably for a plaintiff, don't be dissuaded from doing so... " He followed with specific advice for aspiring medical expert witnesses.

In a previous column, Mr. Zaremski spoke out against legislated caps on medical malpractice awards for pare and suffering ("ERISA's Tangled Web," Law & Medicine. March 1, 2008, p. 66). Now, he provides aid and comfort to physicians who testify as plaintiffs" expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. It seems to me that Mr. Zaremski's opinions are contrary to the interests of all practicing physicians, and would be more appropriate in a publication for plaintiffs" attornies than in a medical newspaper.

David L. Keller, M.D.

Torrance, Calif.

Mr. Zaremski replies:

Dr. Keller concluded that my viewpoints should be expressed in a publication for lawyers rather than this newspaper. I have represented health care providers and institutions nationwide 35 years. I am also a writer. But my beliefs, and my representation of clients, does not dictate what should be written and how it should be penned, or for whom.

In writing about the physicians acting as experts, I reported the facts objectively, concluding that the two organizations may have been trying to "muzzle" the two doctors from discussing the actions each organization undertook against them. But this interplay involves physicians as experts (who no doubt also read this newspaper) being subjected to what their professional societies undertook. All that was written is that physicians who testify may have issues with other physicians within a professional organization who see such testimony differently. There are physicians on both sides of this equation. Which side would Dr. Keller have me address?

Moreover, I doubt this shows a bias or inclination on my part in favor of those who would wish to sue physicians at every turn. As for the column on caps on noneconomic damages, this, too, exemplified the notion that there are two sides to every story, and not solely the one Dr. Keller may have wanted to read about. In the end, a columnist such as myself who writes on interesting, thought-provoking topics with limited space attempts to present an issue in a balanced way, with a sprinkling of background and expertise. He does not limit himself to a viewpoint the reader might always want to see. To do otherwise would be disingenuous to all readers of any column.