THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, September 14, 1996 TAG: 9609140223
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B7 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARIE JOYCE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 66 lines
When Dr. Vincent J. Speckhart faced trouble several years ago for his unconventional treatments, he asked his patients for help.
Robert A. Rizzi, getting homeopathic cancer treatment, wrote to the state Board of Medicine, describing his ordeal at the hands of traditional medicine and supporting Speckhart.
Rizzi later died. His widow is suing Speckhart for $2.3 million over the alternative treatments.
Friday, the fourth day of testimony in Norfolk Circuit Court, a disagreement over whether the earlier state investigation into Speckhart's methods could be brought up in this case almost led to a mistrial.
Rizzi, who died in 1993, had Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. He saw Speckhart for homeopathic therapy, an unconventional branch of medicine that uses drugs derived from natural substances, in very small doses, to spur the body's natural defenses.
Rizzi's widow, Victoria, claims the Norfolk cancer doctor led them to believe that homeopathic therapy was a cure for the disease.
But Speckhart contends he advised Rizzi to get chemotherapy in addition to homeopathy. Chemotherapy is a common drug treatment that kills cancer cells. It generally works well against Hodgkin's disease, according to several doctors who have testified for the Rizzi family.
Rizzi refused because he was so traumatized by an earlier round of chemotherapy, the doctor claims.
Speckhart's alternative methods have aroused criticism before. In 1993, he was accused of violating Virginia's medical ethics code. Speckhart settled the dispute with the Board of Medicine by acknowledging the facts without admitting guilt - similar to a no-contest plea in a court case. The board, which licenses and regulates doctors' practices, put him on probation.
He was ordered to change some of his practices and to alter the patient form to say that the effectiveness of some of the treatments hadn't been proven.
Thursday afternoon, Tom Shuttleworth, one of Rizzi's attorneys, asked a witness if she knew about ``a medical board investigation.''
Earlier, the judge had said the lawyers couldn't talk about the investigation.
Robert W. Hardy, Speckhart's attorney, asked for a mistrial, saying the question had tainted the jury.
Shuttleworth defended his question, saying the judge hadn't specifically forbidden any question about the investigation, only certain aspects of it.
He pointed out that Rizzi's letter supporting Speckhart during the investigation had been mentioned several times by the doctor's attorney, and that other witnesses had alluded to the investigation. He said a mistrial would be a disaster for Victoria Rizzi, who couldn't afford to pursue a second trial.
Friday morning, Judge John E. Clarkson decided to ``plow ahead'' with the trial, after hearing an hour of arguments and reviewing transcripts of his earlier ruling.
He instructed the jurors to disregard the last question asked Thursday afternoon - if they remembered it at all. He didn't repeat the question.
Retrying the case, he said, would create a burden for everyone involved.
``I'm very concerned for the widow, the children, (and) the doctor and his professional reputation,'' he said.
The trial, scheduled to wrap up this week, will continue into next week. ILLUSTRATION: Dr. Vincent J. Speckhart is being sued by a man's
widow over homeopathic treatments Speckhart gave the man - who had
defended his methods.
KEYWORDS: CANCER LAWSUIT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE by CNB