THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 TAG: 9609100248
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARIE JOYCE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 77 lines
A Ghent cancer doctor who practices homeopathic medicine, a type of alternative therapy, was in court Monday to defend himself against a malpractice suit from the family of a patient who died.
The suit comes several years after the doctor, Vincent J. Speckhart, was mildly censured by the state Board of Medicine for some of his practices.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, the family's attorney said Speckhart led them to believe that the patient, Robert A. Rizzi, didn't need the typical cancer treatment of chemotherapy. The plaintiff in the Norfolk Circuit Court case is Rizzi's widow, Victoria, who is asking for $2.3 million in damages.
Speckhart's attorney said the doctor urged Rizzi to get chemotherapy in addition to the alternative homeopathy but that Rizzi refused.
Homeopathy is a branch of medicine that uses drugs derived from natural substances, prescribed in very small doses, to spur the body's natural defenses.
Chemotherapy, a tool frequently used by cancer doctors, is a drug treatment that destroys cancer cells.
Speckhart is trained as an oncologist, a type of doctor that treats cancer patients. But Speckhart said he grew disappointed with chemotherapy because it can be grueling for patients, many of whom die anyway, said his attorney, Robert W. Hardy. By the time Rizzi came to his office in 1992, Speckhart was treating many patients with the alternative therapy.
Rizzi, who was in his late 40s, had Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer that affects the body's lymphatic system. Rizzi had battled the cancer once before, in the mid-1980s. After treatment with chemotherapy, the disease went into remission for about seven years.
Even after a recurrence, this type of cancer responds very well to treatment, said Tom Shuttleworth, one of the family's attorneys. If Rizzi had been given chemotherapy, he likely would have survived, the family contends.
``The prognosis,'' Shuttleworth said, was ``very, very, very good.''
Most of Monday was taken up by jury selection and the attorneys' opening statements. The case will probably continue at least until Wednesday and might last the entire week.
Shuttleworth said that the doctor led Rizzi and his wife to believe homeopathy was the only treatment needed and and that he didn't tell them his treatments were on the ``fringe.''
The Rizzis were fooled in part by Speckhart's credentials, Shuttleworth said. Because he was certified as an oncologist and continued to present himself as an oncologist, it appeared as though his homeopathic treatments were more mainstream than they actually were, Shuttleworth said.
``He held out the hope and the promise that maybe he could cure this Hodgkin's disease'' without chemotherapy, Shuttleworth said.
But Hardy, Speckhart's attorney, said the doctor never advocated homeopathic treatment alone for Rizzi, that Speckhart told Rizzi he needed chemotherapy along with the alternative treatment. And, Hardy said, Speckhart documented that advice in the medical records. Hardy said Speckhart required Rizzi to continue seeing his first cancer doctor, who offered traditional treatments, and that that doctor also recommended chemotherapy.
But Rizzi refused, Hardy contended, because his experience with chemotherapy had been horrible. He was an intelligent, independent man who chose Speckhart because of his alternative methods, Hardy said.
Speckhart ``did not, and never does, tell anyone that homeopathy, in and of itself, (can) cure cancer,'' he said.
After opening arguments, the jury heard testimony from Robert A. Rizzi Jr., 25, of Florida, who said his father believed Speckhart would cure him. The jury also heard partial testimony from Dr. James J. Stark, a Hampton Roads oncologist who is very critical of Speckhart's methods. Stark is expected to continue his testimony later in the week.
Speckhart's methods have faced trouble before. In 1993, he was accused of violating the state's medical ethics code. Speckhart acknowledged facts without admitting guilt - similar to a no-contest plea in a court case.
He was ordered to change some of his practices and to alter the patient consent form to say that the effectiveness of some of the treatments hadn't been proven.
Speckhart was placed on probation and allowed to continue practicing. According to the state Board of Medicine, the indefinite probation was renewed in 1995.
KEYWORDS: LAWSUIT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT CANCER by CNB