Bad resolution

Lawsuit should be Quorum Court’s concern

Among the worst characteristics of resolutions by governing bodies is how they mix lasting insignificance with a capacity to stir up people’s emotions.

Voters have never elected a candidate based on his or her capacity to draft resolutions, because voters know resolutions don’t amount to much in the long run. These statements full of “whereases” and “therefores” offer a momentary opinion on an issue without actually achieving anything. For example, a city council might “resolve” to support recycling, but until it actually adopts a budget or laws that prioritize recycling, nothing much has changed.

That’s not to say resolutions can’t have an impact, at least of the flashin-the-pan variety. And for some politicians, that’s good enough.

Take the resolution the Washington County Quorum

Court will consider Thursday to heap praise on a physician contracted to provide medical care to inmates of the Washington County jail. Mostly, government leaders care about inmates’ medical treatment only insomuch as it affects the annual budget. In these topsy-turvy times, though, the jail’s physician has become a poster child for people who resist the advice of most of the medical establishment, ridicule vaccines and celebrate a drug neither made nor approved for the treatment of covid-19.

How did Dr. Robert Karas and his company, Karas Correctional Health, become that poster child? Back in August, Sheriff Tim Helder revealed to Quorum Court members Karas had been giving covid-infected inmates the controversial drug ivermectin as treatment. Helder said he’d only recently discovered the drug’s use, but said he’d defer to Karas’ medical judgment. Except, in reality, he’s sheriff and can’t deflect that oversight.

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19. The Centers for Disease Control has reported that clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat covid-19 in humans have yielded insufficient evidence to recommend its use. In short, it has not been demonstrated to be effective in fighting covid-19.

Ivermectin has, however, achieved a sort of a cult following, especially among people who resist vaccinations as the most effective means of fending off covid-19 or lessening its symptoms. We unfortunately live in a time in which some declare what’s scientifically supported ought to be resisted and what is scientifically unproven should be embraced. It’s astonishing that people who ignore the science of vaccines will celebrate a drug that’s without a doubt as unproven as they assert the vaccines are.

It’s important to note that Karas has not proven ivermectin was effective at anything. He hasn’t disproven the widely accepted stance of federal and state medical agencies on the drug’s effectiveness with covid-19. His use of the drug wasn’t based on scientific studies. His argument has been that nobody died, as though that’s enough proof. It’s about as much proof as suggesting orange jail uniforms kept infected inmates from dying. Or that the jail’s food kept them from dying. It’s the difference between causation and correlation.

Karas’ actions led to a lawsuit against the county by inmates who claim they were never told Karas was giving them a drug not approved for covid-19 treatment. The lawsuit was filed on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the county infringed on the inmates’ constitutional rights. And before anyone dismisses that as just a bunch of criminals complaining, remember the majority of people in the county jail haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re just awaiting their day in court.

Most often, government officials are smart enough to zip their lips in the face of a federal lawsuit. A good lawyer will advise them it’s best to let the case, including the county’s defense, play out in court. But this is an election year.

Patrick Deakins, a Springdale Quorum Court member, happens to be running for county judge this year. He’s become more, shall we say, promotional of his work on the Quorum Court. That mostly involves press releases and prepared statements sent out to news organizations, social media posts, etc. It’s practically unheard of to get such announcements from a Quorum Court member in the normal course of business.

It’s understandable. Candidates don’t always have all the money in the world to pay for commercials or ads. Promoting themselves by calling attention to their actions is standard stuff in an election year. Unfortunately, that’s when these politicians too often try to use the mechanisms of government to make an even bigger splash for their campaigns.

Deakins proposed a resolution to commend Karas “for his exceptional service” and to express the county’s appreciation.

Maybe Deakins is sincere in his desire to commend Karas. The reality, however, is that he’s placed his own interests above those of the citizens of Washington County in the face of a serious lawsuit over the alleged mistreatment of inmates. At a minimum, Karas knew ivermectin was controversial. Giving it to inmates was a risky behavior for a physician contracted to provide medical care to incarcerated people whose medical options are limited. Karas’ actions created a potential liability for the county. And apparently he didn’t for a long time tell the sheriff what he was doing.

The Washington County Quorum Court is elected to watch out for county residents and county government. Their individual interests ought not prevail when it comes to putting the county at heightened risk. First and foremost, the Quorum Court should do nothing to help cloud the legal case yet to be decided. The end result could cost county taxpayers.

Forget how you feel about ivermectin or vaccines. Forget whether you believe Karas is a good guy or bad guy in all this. What the Quorum Court needs to do is anything that strengthens the county’s defense and nothing that harms it.

Supporters of Deakins’ resolution may get a kick out of stirring up supporters and potentially bolstering their political standing with a certain segment of the county’s voters, but what’s good for the county and its taxpayers should not be set aside in the interests of political gamesmanship.

At a committee meeting last week, some Quorum Court members suggested there’s little harm in giving Karas kudos. There’s little to gain, either, except in some misplaced satisfaction of making a political statement at the very worst time for the county’s interests. They should set aside the inflammatory politics of this resolution and reject it.

Deakins suggests it’s important to give Karas a “pat on the back,” but having ignored doing so thus far, it’s particularly unwise to do so in the face of litigation. For now, Karas’ pat on the back can just be the money the county pays him for medical services. In the future, it may cost the county much more.