Everybody is lying in the fight between doctors and lawyers over caps on medical malpractice. You can see this if you unravel the statements presented in two initiatives on the November ballot.

I-330 and I-336 are designed to counter each other. I-330 is put forth on behalf of doctors. It caps at $350,000 the amount an injured patient can claim in pain and suffering damages. It also limits fees for plaintiff attorneys, shortens the time limit for filing malpractice claims and allows health-care providers to require binding arbitration for damage claims.

I-336, medical malpractice is supported by trial lawyers, it revokes medical licenses of doctors who have three malpractice jury verdicts against them in a 10-year period and makes it easier for patients to learn about medical errors. It also creates a new state-run supplemental-malpractice-insurance fund and requires public hearings on malpractice-insurance-rate increases.

Tons of money are being poured into these campaigns and used to hire hotshot political consultants to craft clever 30-second television spots meant to convince us of the wrongheaded intent of one group of professionals or the other.

The doctors groups have done some spots that portray lawyers as greedy money grubbers. The lawyers will portray the doctors as inept and careless. Insurance companies are lined up on the side of the doctors against the trail lawyers because they prefer to keep their profits rather than let a lawyer walk away with an oversized judgment.

It seems to me that the public is complicit in all this when they agree with huge awards for medical malpractice suits. This perpetuates a vicious cycle.

Lawyers want us to believe that it is the insurance companies are behind the initiative to caps awards on medical malpractice suits. If awards are capped, it could also establish a ceiling, at least temporarily, on malpractice insurance premiums, which doctors find onerous, but necessary.

This issue seems to have become the locus of contemporary tort reform, likely because of the frequency of incidents and the size of the awards, which sometimes seem grossly large.

The conflict is fueled by money. Both sides are heaping shovels full of dollars on the fire. An Oregon measure that was essentially the same as I-330 was defeated last year in that state when the lawyers more compelling message that you might become the victim of medical malpractice resonated more strongly with voters. Lawyers, 1, doctors, 0.

Isn't it a shame that money is spent this way, to convince us of a point of view that if we accept it, really is intended to line the pockets of one interest group?

If we as consumers of medical services could agree to place more realistic ceilings on jury awards in the case of malpractice, might not all costs follow?

We are the stakeholders in this and the ones to drive a positive change. As long as we continue to think of medical malpractice awards as a sort of potential lottery to which we might become the beneficiary, the battle between the factions will rage on.

When you vote, vote NO on both proposals.