On September 21 the Utah Medical Association's House of Delegates voted
unanimously:

"RESOLVED, That the Utah Medical Association adopt the following policy
statement:

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MEDICAL PRACTICE

The Utah Medical Association opposes the criminalization of medical care and
sees unfounded accusations of physicians in criminal court and the criminal
trial of physicians' professional judgment and quality of practice as a
serious threat to patient care in the State of Utah and an unreasonable
burden on the medical profession. Although it is acknowledged that the
public must be defended against criminal actions, we do not believe that the
professional assessment of medical competence necessary to discriminate
between medical incompetence and criminal negligence can be judged fairly
and knowledgeably before a lay jury in criminal court in the manner
contemplated in State v. Warden. Instead, we strongly affirm the following
statement of the Kansas Court of Appeals in the public policy defining
decision of State v. Narramore:

"When there is such strong evidence supporting a reasonable, noncriminal
explanation for the doctor's actions, it cannot be said that there is no
reasonable doubt of criminal guilt. This is particularly true in a
situation as we are faced with here, where the only way the defendant's
actions may be found to be criminal is through expert testimony, and that
testimony is strongly controverted in every detail. ...if criminal
responsibility can be assessed based solely on the opinions of a portion of
the medical community which are strongly challenged by an opposing and
authoritative medical consensus, we have criminalized malpractice, and even
the possibility of malpractice."

Lastly, we believe that when a medical expert admonishes a prosecutor
against filing a criminal complaint, it behooves the prosecutor to
reconsider his position and seek the opinion of the Utah Medical
Association, the Physicians Licensing Board, or some other regularly
established and constituted panel of medical peers. Neither Utah's
physicians nor their patients can afford this type of judicial
embarrassment. It is a serious threat to good patient care for all Utah's
citizens."

The fact pattern in my case (Weitzel v. State of Utah) fits the resolution's
wording entirely. I am very grateful that the medical establishment in Utah
is finally speaking out on the travesty of this case in particular, and the
nationwide trend of inappropriately criminalizing compassionate, standard
and entirely legal medical care.

Trial will begin on Oct. 30. Unfortunately, the judge today issued a "gag
order" and told me I cannot update my website, www.WeitzelCharts.com, until
trial is concluded. I will keep people informed as best I can, though.

Robert Weitzel, MD

http://www.WeitzelCharts.com