The Right to Sue and Texas Health Care

In a recent article* by Alex Winslow of the Texas Watch, the claim is made that Perry is defending taking away the rights of Texas citizens to support special interests within the health care industry. Specifically, a ballot proposition which made suing health care providers more difficult was approved in 2003, and Winslow says that this measure is dragging Texas health care through the mud. He brings up an important point: Texas’ health care is indeed broken, as studies and surveys have shown. We certainly have a long way to go before our health system reaches national standards. He also claims that “[n]umerous academic studies by independent organizations and legal scholars prove that it is a fallacy to claim that taking away the legal rights of individuals will benefit the public at-large.”

What studies though? Winslow declines to say. In fact, he gives not a single citation or link to an outside source in the entire article. Are we then to take what he says on faith? Do these claims even make sense? Let’s examine the latter point: Taking away individuals’ rights never benefits the general public. This is a rather broad claim, and we can defeat it through a simple example. Suppose murder were legal. Or theft. Or falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Giving any of these “rights” to individuals would certainly detriment society. Therefore, Winslow’s claim cannot be correct (probably by being too vague), and it would behoove the reader to read the aforementioned studies, if only the author would cite his sources…

Winslow also relies on our failing health care system as evidence that the proposition is hurting the general public. However, the health care system is a complicated machine, composed of many parts and influenced by many laws. Unless he can give us some specific evidence that without this proposition we would be better off, it is far from clear that we are in our current predicament because of the approval of the proposition.

Finally, Winslow states that the proposition protects special interests rather than the general public. However, who exactly those interests are is left out of the article entirely. In fact, even the content of the proposition itself is never explored. All the reader knows is that it in some way made suing people in the health care industry more difficult. This could apply to doctors, nurses, hospitals, insurance providers, and/or others. It might only affect cosmetic surgeons, or life-saving operations, or some very specific treatment that is used by exceedingly few of us. How is the reader to judge what the consequences of the proposition might be if they do not even know what it says? The answer is they aren’t.

Overall, the article was entirely unconvincing because of its reliance on uncited sources and its failure to explain the content of the proposition in question. If Winslow seeks to persuade his audience in the future, I recommend he bring some facts to the table.

*Winslow, Alex. "Taking away right to sue when wrong has been done isn't helping Texans." Austin American-Statesman. Opinion. Published July 17, 2012. Accessed July 20, 2012.