Court records perused by another reporter showed that the doctor had reached a settlement in a medical malpractice lawsuit. I was assigned the story, so called seeking comment.
Reaching the doctor, I explained that the newspaper would be printing a brief story, that we would be do the same for any doctor under similar circumstances, that I understood the particular litigation risks of his chosen specialty. He politely declined to comment.
A small article, just a few paragraphs long, appeared in the newspaper the next day.
A few years later, the same doctor helped bring our first son, Will, into the world. Two-and-a-half years later, he delivered our second son, Matt.
My wife, Catherine, had no qualms about using him as her OB/GYN. We both recognized that, in a litigious world, many obstetricians will be sued and that settling the lawsuits is often the easiest way out.
Apparently, though, a lot of doctors worry that their patients can't come to same informed conclusions.
The North Carolina Medical Society, which represents about 11,000 doctors, is opposing plans by the North Carolina Medical Board to publish the medical malpractice histories of all practicing doctors in the state.
The plans follow a new law that requires the publication of criminal convictions and loss of hospital privileges. (Disciplinary actions by the board are already posted.) The board, though, wants to post medical malpractice histories on its Web site as well. In doing so, North Carolina would join 25 other states that publish the information.
But the Medical Society is rallying its members, and more than 800 doctors have sent emails to the board opposing the move.
"There are many medical malpractice payments that are made for reasons unrelated to poor medical care," Steve Keene, the society's general counsel, recently told The Charlotte Observer.
He's right. And when the information is put before the public, they'll understand that fact. And when people see numbers of lawsuits filed against a doctor that are well outside the norm for his or her field, they will be able to use that information -- in the context of what else they know about the doctor -- to make an informed decision.
It's not been so long ago that the North Carolina Medical Board came under harsh criticism for failing to provide patients with relevant information about troubled doctors. And the fact is, medical malpractice lawsuits and their outcomes are already public record. They can be found in any courthouse.
Board officials also point to polling data that shows overwhelming public support for the publication of the data.
The board's primary duty is protecting the public. It isn't there to protect doctors, or wade through the pros and cons of tort reform.
Doctors need to look somewhere else for that, and trust their patients so that their patients can trust them.