The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Tuesday; then, a debate over whether it`s time for World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz to go; a report on the politics surrounding immigration reform; a Health Unit conversation on doctor mistakes with Dr. Jerome Groopman; and a look at the influences of Jerry Falwell, who died today.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The head of the U.N. nuclear agency warned today it`s too late to stop Iran from gaining nuclear know-how. An inspection last Sunday found the Iranians making nuclear fuel in much larger amounts than before. The New York Times reported today they`ve solved technical problems that plagued the effort.

The U.N.`s chief inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Times, "From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that`s a fact." In response, U.S. officials said the United Nations has to maintain sanctions on Iran.

The U.S. and Russia failed to agree today on a missile shield in Europe to ward off attacks by Iran. At talks in Moscow, the Russians insisted again the missile shield would threaten them. Secretary of State Rice insisted Russia will not have a veto on the issue, but she said discussions will continue.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. Secretary of State: Russia and the United States do not completely see eye-to-eye on the current plans for missile defense deployments. And, although we are continuing to talk about it, it is still quite a long time until such deployments would come into being.

JIM LEHRER: The Russians did say they would tone down some of their tough talk of late, and they stressed cooperation in the war on terror.

The search for three U.S. soldiers missing in Iraq ended a fourth day today, with no sign of the men. U.S. officials confirmed they were with the Army`s 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, New York. Thousands of American troops continued combing the area near Mahmoudiya. Al-Qaida has claimed it captured the missing soldiers there last Saturday.

In other developments today, scattered attacks killed 17 people, and the Iraqi government imposed a ban on filming or taking pictures of bombing sites.

It was widely reported today President Bush has chosen a war czar, Army Lieutenant General Douglas Lute. He`s currently director of operations at the Pentagon. His new job would be to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The position is subject to Senate confirmation.

White House officials defended Paul Wolfowitz again today in the furor at the World Bank. A special bank committee has found he broke the rules as bank president in dealing with a bank employee who was also his girlfriend. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that`s not a firing offense, but he did not rule out change down the road.

TONY SNOW, White House Press Secretary: At some point in the future, there are going to be conversations about the proper stewardship of the World Bank. And Mr. Wolfowitz himself says that what you need to have is a full, fair conversation about what is going to be best for the future of the bank. In that sense, I say all options are on the table. This is not to leap to any conclusions but to give you a statement of fact.

JIM LEHRER: Late today, Wolfowitz made his case before the World Bank`s board in a closed-door meeting. We`ll have more on the story right after this news summary.

At least 14 Palestinians were killed today as factional fighting escalated in Gaza. Gunmen from Hamas ambushed rival Fatah forces near a key crossing at the Israeli border. And in Gaza City, fighters from both sides clashed in the streets.

At least 22 Palestinians have been killed in the last three days. Hamas and Fatah had formed a unity government earlier this year, aimed at ending the violence.

In Pakistan today, a suicide bomber killed at least 25 people near the Afghan border. He struck in the capital of the northwest frontier province. The region is home to militants linked to the Taliban and al- Qaida.

The explosion ripped through a hotel lobby and restaurant, shattering windows along the street. A message taped to the bomber`s leg warned "American spies" would meet the same fate.

Back in this country, Attorney General Gonzales said today his departing deputy was the central figure in firing eight U.S. attorneys. Paul McNulty announced yesterday he is resigning as the number-two official in the Justice Department. Today, Gonzales said McNulty supervised all federal prosecutors and knew the most about the firing list.

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General: At the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names. And he would know better than anyone else, anyone in this room, anyone -- I mean, again, the deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and experiences of the United States attorney community. And he signed off on the names.

JIM LEHRER: McNulty had no comment today. He has acknowledged approving the list of fired prosecutors, but Justice Department documents indicate he was not closely involved in selecting the names. Congress is investigating whether politics played an improper role in the firings.

A pioneer on the religious right, Reverend Jerry Falwell, died today. He was found unconscious in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and pronounced dead later. He had a history of heart trouble.

Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. He credited the group with signing up millions of conservatives to vote and with helping elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980. Jerry Falwell was 73 years old. We`ll have more on him later in the program tonight.

Reuters agreed to a takeover bid today by Thomson Corporation, the Canadian publishing firm. The deal is worth $17.2 billion. The new Thomson-Reuters would be the world`s largest financial news and data provider. The deal is subject to approval by shareholders and regulators.

U.S. gasoline prices are expected to go higher still before easing; the Energy Department`s top forecaster offered that outlook to Congress today. He said, ultimately, prices will fall, as refineries crank up production and gas imports increase. The national average price now stands at a record $3.10 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline.

Inflation at the retail level eased last month, despite rising gas prices. The Labor Department reported today consumer prices rose 0.4 percent in April, less than expected. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 37 points to close above 13,383, another new record. The Nasdaq fell 21 points to close at 2,525.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: a what-now debate over World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz; the politics of immigration reform; a conversation with Dr. Jerome Groopman; and some perspectives on Jerry Falwell.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Judy Woodruff has our Wolfowitz story.

JUDY WOODRUFF: World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz headed to work this morning in anticipation of what could prove to be a fateful meeting with the bank`s 24-member board of directors. The board has the power to dismiss or reprimand him or report a lack of confidence in his leadership.

The meeting comes a day after a special bank panel reported that Wolfowitz broke bank rules in helping to arrange a substantial pay raise and promotion for his companion, Shaha Riza.

In its report, the panel underscored that there is "a crisis in the leadership of the bank," and it urged the bank`s board to decide whether Wolfowitz can, quote, "provide the leadership needed" to run the bank. The committee said Wolfowitz "placed himself in a conflict of interest situation" and "should have withdrawn from any decision-making."

In 2005, as Wolfowitz joined the World Bank, he became involved in negotiations to have Riza re-assigned from the bank to the State Department, with a salary totaling almost $200,000 year. Wolfowitz has said he relied on advice in the matter from the bank`s ethics committee. He has claimed that the ethics committee insisted that Riza leave the bank upon his arrival.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, World Bank President: I didn`t volunteer to get involved in this. I didn`t get involved for any personal reasons, but rather to resolve something that I think posed institutional risk. I didn`t hide anything that I did. And I`m, as I said, prepared to accept any remedies that the board wants to propose.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The board acknowledged in its report that the ethics committee advice, quote, "was not a model of clarity," but said Wolfowitz`s interpretation "turns logic on its head." Since details of the matter emerged last month, Wolfowitz has apologized.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I made a mistake for which I am sorry. But let me also ask you for some understanding. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I had to deal with it when I was new to this institution, and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But that has done little to quell calls for his resignation from the World Bank`s staff association and the Bank`s European members.

The 185-nation institution focuses on lending money to developing countries. In return, those countries are supposed to improve their economies and limit corruption.

The U.S., as the bank`s largest lender, gets to choose its president with board approval. Since his nomination two years ago, Wolfowitz has been criticized for his prior role as a key architect of the Iraq war.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: He ought to stay. He ought to be given a fair hearing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Bush and members of his administration have repeatedly backed Wolfowitz, saying they don`t think the facts merit his dismissal. Today, White House spokesman Tony Snow said they still supported Wolfowitz, but added...

TONY SNOW, White House Press Secretary: Members of the board, Mr. Wolfowitz, need to sit down and figure out what is, in fact, going to be best for this bank to be able to serve as a venue for -- especially in the developing world. Regardless, we have faith in Paul Wolfowitz. We do think it is appropriate for everybody to sit down after the fact, calm down, take a look, and figure out, "OK, how do you move forward?"

JUDY WOODRUFF: The bank`s board is expected to announce its recommendation on Wolfowitz tomorrow.

We get two views now on whether Paul Wolfowitz should stay at the World Bank or go. Andrew Young is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former mayor of Atlanta. He now serves as co-chairman of Good Works International, a consulting firm that focuses on emerging markets in the Caribbean and Africa.

And Nancy Birdsall is president of the Center for Global Development, a Washington think-tank that works to reduce global poverty and inequality. She served as executive vice president of the Inter-American Development Bank and worked at the World Bank for 14 years.

Thank you both for being with us.

Nancy Birdsall, to you first. You believe Paul Wolfowitz should step down. Why?

NANCY BIRDSALL, President, Center for Global Development: Paul Wolfowitz should step down because he believes in the mission of the bank. And if he stays, he cannot be effective anymore in leading the bank in its mission.

He cannot be effective because he`s lost the confidence of the constituencies that the bank serves: its members, its stakeholders, its staff, its board.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the original charge, his handling of the salary and the pay increase for his companion, Ms. Riza?

NANCY BIRDSALL: You know, I don`t really think it`s only or mostly about the pay and promotion package. It is now about the ability of a leader to have leadership which requires confidence from those who are led. And, you know, it would be bad for the bank. It would be bad for U.S. leadership in the world, and I think it would be, most of all, bad for the world`s poor, which is what Paul Wolfowitz cares about, were he to stay.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What exactly are you saying he`s done wrong in all this then?

NANCY BIRDSALL: You know, the question is whether the Shaha Riza affair is only a symptom. It is an issue in itself, a conflict-of-interest issue. I haven`t read the hundreds of pages of documents.

I think the issue that is being raised now and has been raised over the last three weeks is also about this issue of leadership and whether the Shaha Riza business is a symptom of a larger set of problems that people see now with Wolfowitz`s style of leadership.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Andrew Young, Ambassador Young, hearing what Ms. Birdsall is saying, you already have had the view that he should stay, but how do you respond to what she`s saying?

ANDREW YOUNG, Co-Chairman, Good Works International: Well, first of all, I think she said herself that this is not about the girlfriend, and that`s what people have been responding to.

This is a professional woman who was at the World Bank six or eight years before Wolfowitz got there. She was a ranking member. She`s a British woman, who`s a Muslim, who`s fluent in Arabic, and in almost any corporation in the world she could make a half-a-million dollars. She`s at the bank because of her competence.

Paul Wolfowitz coming created a conflict, which he went to the ethics committee to try to solve. The ethics committee would not let him recuse himself, so they put him in this trick. And now they want to use this trick to undermine his leadership.

I think what they`re doing is undermining the credibility, and particularly the Dutch. They have a reputation for tolerance, for generosity, for forgiveness, and an expansive view of the world that I`ve always admired. They were very helpful to us in Atlanta. They were very helpful in the Holocaust, and now, for them to be caught in this bureaucratic crap, is embarrassing to me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Clarify what you....

ANDREW YOUNG: I think who`s on trial here is not Paul Wolfowitz, but that board. In a world where tolerance is required, where women in the Islamic world are the hope of the entire planet, for them to take their prejudices -- which I agree with -- against him on the war in Iraq and resurrect it to try to put it into the World Bank political scene is, in many ways, obscene.

It`s sort of like Imus referring to these young women on the basketball team and ignoring all of the professional competence and all of the skills and talents that are at stake here. Paul Wolfowitz and Riza Shaha have tremendous things to offer the world. And I think, right now, staid bureaucrats who`ve been there 25 years bungling in the bank are trying to make him a scapegoat.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And your reference to the Dutch is a reference to some of the leadership on the board of directors.

ANDREW YOUNG: This is a European...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Nancy Birdsall, let me come back -- if you would, Ambassador Young -- to Nancy Birdsall. You hear what the ambassador is saying, that what he did...

ANDREW YOUNG: Can I say one more thing?

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... was on the advice of the ethics -- excuse me, Ambassador Young, we`ll come back to you in just a moment -- but that this was at the advice of the ethics committee.

NANCY BIRDSALL: Look, I think the issue is really about what`s needed to have a strong World Bank. The world does need the World Bank.

The problem is that, fair or unfair, both to Shaha Riza and to Paul Wolfowitz, there is a time when leadership is needed. And when he is not able anymore to exert the kind of -- the bank is an international organization. Leadership of the bank has to be grounded in passion, in conviction, in use of the bully pulpit effectively. It cannot be based on fiat. It`s about leading a very large, experienced group of people...

JUDY WOODRUFF: So is that what you`re saying he was doing, was leading by fiat, by command?

NANCY BIRDSALL: No, I`m not saying that. But if he stays now, without confidence by those he is trying to lead, how will he be able to bring any new vision, how will he be able to bring to the bank the reform that it does need?

Even on the governance issues that Ambassador Young is raising, it`s a membership organization. He has to lead by building a consensus.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Young, this point that, if he has lost -- no matter what the details were of what originally happened, if he`s now...

ANDREW YOUNG: The problem is...

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... lost the confidence of the board and others.

ANDREW YOUNG: No, the problem is the board has lost the confidence of the world. Paul Wolfowitz responded very well, and is very -- I met him in Anacostia, dealing with poor blacks in Washington. I met him again in Nigeria.

He`s been more in Africa than anywhere else, and the African delegates and the third world generally have appreciated his leadership. The role of women in the world is far more important than these bureaucrats that are making this decision. They probably all ought to retire like me and get out of the way.

But this is not a -- not like Bolton. Bolton was always there to destroy the United Nations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You`re referring to the former acting ambassador to the United Nations.

ANDREW YOUNG: Yes. For me, this is more like the scandal in the United Nations, where when Europe began to feel the influence of new coalitions in the third world threatening their dominance, they sought to get rid of the people who were pulling together these new coalitions.

I think the threat is that Paul Wolfowitz is pulling together a third world coalition that, while it doesn`t have the money, it controls the markets of the future. And the old colonial routines of running Africa from Europe will no longer apply under Wolfowitz.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Nancy Birdsall, to you. The ambassador is describing a philosophy that he says Paul Wolfowitz has about what the World Bank should be. And he`s basically saying that will be gone if he`s gone. And he`s saying it`s the board that`s the problem.

NANCY BIRDSALL: Right. Well, look, I think that Paul Wolfowitz definitely understood the mission of the bank, which is to bring advice to governments in the developing world that will help them reduce poverty. And I applaud him for that sense of mission that he brought to the bank.

This is not about that sense of mission. It is not at all about Iraq. Many people gave Paul Wolfowitz a chance when he came to the bank. It`s true that there -- you know, we had President McNamara coming to the bank many years ago bearing a burden, and he showed effectively leadership.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me pick up on that point. You`re saying it`s not about Iraq. The criticism across the board has been that this is a proxy fight for Paul Wolfowitz`s role earlier as an architect...

NANCY BIRDSALL: I don`t think it is. I don`t think it is.

ANDREW YOUNG: I think it absolutely is.

NANCY BIRDSALL: I think it`s very useful for Americans to understand that 83 percent of the bank is actually owned by these other governments that Ambassador Young is talking about.

And he`s right that it`s important to have a consensus and a sense of collective energy amongst all those shareholders. And the question is whether, if Mr. Wolfowitz stays, he could do the things, including the governance reforms, that the ambassador refers to.

ANDREW YOUNG: Let me break in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Young, you get the last word. We have just under a minute.

ANDREW YOUNG: Yes, this is more bureaucracy. The Chinese are putting money into Africa by the billions of dollars. Private American banks are now beginning to wake up to realize the African market.

We might not need the World Bank, if it continues like it is. It takes so long for them to approve and evaluate projects. And the people who are approving and evaluating projects have never done projects themselves.

And when you bring a sense of competence and an urgency to the World Bank, those bureaucrats are going to kick, as they did when I did it in Atlanta. But I had a constituency of people who stuck behind me, and we were able to make the government and the private sector work together. And we shook it up.

Wolfowitz was shaking up the World Bank in a way that it needed shaking; for its own good, it needed shaking. If he`s gone, and they bring somebody else in, first of all, the term is just too...

JUDY WOODRUFF: We are going to have to leave it there. I think we get a clear sense of two very different views of Mr. Wolfowitz`s leadership.

ANDREW YOUNG: We probably share a view of the world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Point well-taken. Ambassador Andrew Young, Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development, thank you both.

NANCY BIRDSALL: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Another try at immigration reform. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has that story.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: It`s important for our fellow citizens to understand comprehensive immigration reform is in the nation`s interest.

KWAME HOLMAN: For President Bush, signing an immigration bill would be considered one of the top domestic accomplishments of his administration.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader: Some have said to me -- in fact, I just left the Senate floor -- "do it some other time, give us a little more time." We don`t have other time.

KWAME HOLMAN: For congressional Democrats, in the majority for the first time in 12 years, an overhaul of immigration laws would support their promise of bipartisanship. But a deal on an immigration bill remains elusive, despite two months of intense negotiations between the White House and top Senate leaders and a midnight deadline set by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

SEN. HARRY REID: There has been some accomplishments, certainly a long ways from where we need to be, but some accomplishments.

KWAME HOLMAN: There does appear to be unanimity on several core issues, such as stronger border enforcement, employer verification systems, and a path to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

It likely would be an eight- to 13-year process toward permanent residency. During that time, immigrants would have to register with or return briefly to their original countries, formally apply for residency, and pay a fine.

But the insistence by both the president and Senate Democrats that particular provisions of a guest-worker program be included is threatening the support of several key Republicans.

President Bush wants to create Y visas for as many as 400,000 people a year, which would allow non-residents to work in the country for two to three years, leave, and then reapply. But several of the president`s Republican allies want to block guest workers from reapplying for Y visas.

On the other hand, most Democrats and pro-immigrant activists argue that guest workers who wish to should be allowed to stay and seek legal status. Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza has been lobbying the White House and Congress.

CECILIA MUNOZ, National Council of La Raza: It`s like asking people, "Come in and work, but please don`t set down roots. Please don`t become American, because we don`t really want you for the long term."

What we`re saying is, "Bring in workers to meet our economic needs, but invite them to put down roots." It`s healthier for a society, if you encourage people to become Americans. There`s no reason to say, "Because you`re on the low scale, then we don`t want you."

KWAME HOLMAN: In a concession to Republican conservatives who stress border enforcement over broader based reforms, White House negotiators have proposed establishing a merit system that would make it harder for immigrants to bring in siblings and adult children.

MARK KRIKORIAN, Center for Immigration Studies: Mass immigration is a problem for a modern society in a whole variety of ways.

KWAME HOLMAN: Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies has spent years imploring Congress to stem what he calls "chain immigration."

MARK KRIKORIAN: If you start taking in adult relatives, whether it`s brothers and sisters, adult children that have their own families, you create new immigration connections that never end, whereas, if you limit family immigration to husbands, wives and little kids of American citizens, when the husband or the adopted baby or the wife comes in, that`s the end of it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Under the president`s proposed merit system, those who want to join family members in the United States first would be assessed on their job skills and education levels, something La Raza`s Munoz called unfair.

CECILIA MUNOZ: Family needs to count. We don`t want to say to the American people, "Total strangers who have no connection to the United States, but who have lots of education, are more welcome in this country than our own sons and daughters."

KWAME HOLMAN: If no agreement on an immigration bill is reached by tomorrow, Majority Leader Reid says he`ll bring back last year`s immigration bill, which died in the House of Representatives.

SEN. HARRY REID: How can we have anything that`s more fair than taking a bill that overwhelmingly passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis and using that as the instrument to which we`re going to allow amendments? It`s going to be an open amendment process.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Senate Republicans aren`t interested in bringing back last year`s bill, saying they`ve added stronger provisions to this year`s version, and may prevent Democrats from resurrecting the old one. Today Republican leader Mitch McConnell wouldn`t speculate on that.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader: Well, I`m not going to predict how we might feel tomorrow.

KWAME HOLMAN: If Congress, despite all the interest and effort, once again fails to deliver an immigration reform bill, there will be political consequences, according to Cecilia Munoz.

CECILIA MUNOZ: If the Republicans are the ones to stand up and say, "There will be no bill this year because we want some of these radical proposals," I think politically they will take a trouncing, not just by Latinos, but by Americans who want a solution to this problem.

KWAME HOLMAN: Not so, says Mark Krikorian.

MARK KRIKORIAN: The best outcome is no bill at all in the Senate, because, I mean, really, with this Senate, with this House, and with this president, there is no possibility of a bill that would get signed that would actually be good.

KWAME HOLMAN: With such opposing sentiments, reaching consensus on comprehensive immigration reform could be the biggest domestic challenge Washington will face all year.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, a conversation about getting the diagnosis wrong, and to Susan Dentzer of our Health Unit, a partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

SUSAN DENTZER, NewsHour Health Correspondent: Dr. Jerome Groopman of Harvard is a leading authority on blood, cancer and HIV. He`s spent years doing research, treating patients, and training young physicians.

From personal and professional experience, he`s found that doctors frequently make mistakes in diagnosis, figuring out the nature and cause of a patient`s disease. He`s written a new book about it called "How Doctors Think."

We met with him recently at his Boston lab and asked him what led him to write the book.

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN, Author: I was teaching Harvard medical students, and we were seeing patients in the hospital. And these are bright, motivated, compassionate young people. And I realized that they were jumping very quickly to decisions, making snap judgments, not thinking in a deep and expansive way. And often they didn`t come to the right diagnosis about what was wrong with the person.

SUSAN DENTZER: How common did you find that misdiagnosis really is?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: It`s remarkably common: 15 percent of all people are misdiagnosed; some experts in the field think it`s as high as 20 percent to 25 percent. And in half of all of those cases, there`s serious harm or even death to the person.

SUSAN DENTZER: And, in fact, you say this is the most common source of medical errors, not technical errors, like you wrote out the wrong prescription for the patient.

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: In the past few years, there`s been important focus on safety issues, system solutions, make sure the bracelet has the correct name of the patient, that the blood tests are not mixed up in the lab, all very important. But when it comes to correct diagnosis, the roots are in errors in thinking.

SUSAN DENTZER: Now, when doctors think, you say they use heuristics - - or, in laymen`s terms, rules of thumb, shortcuts. What are some examples of that? And what happens when those shortcuts take them down the wrong road?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: Well, it turns out that we, as doctors, from the very first moment we see a patient and listen to the first words out of your mouth, begin to develop an idea in our mind about what`s wrong, and we use a shortcut.

And one of the first shortcuts is called "anchoring." We sort of throw an anchor down and latch on to our initial impression. Often, we`re right, but, in my opinion, too often we can be wrong. And we don`t pick the anchor up; we stick with it, and we stick with the diagnosis.

SUSAN DENTZER: You say you made an anchoring error once yourself. What happened?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: I was a resident at the time. An older woman was complaining of discomfort under her breastbone. I thought it was acid reflux, that the acid from her stomach was moving up into her esophagus.

I gave her antacids, and they really didn`t fix the problem. She continued to complain, but I just didn`t let go. My mind was anchored on this being a form of indigestion.

And then, several weeks later, I was urgently paged to the emergency room, and she was in shock. And it turned out that she had a tear in the aorta, the large vessel that takes blood from the heart, and I had missed it. I had missed it because I was anchored onto indigestion and, also, frankly, because of my own feelings. I was irritated, and I closed my mind off.

SUSAN DENTZER: So what did you do differently after that?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: I tried to be more self-aware. But, frankly, we`re not taught as medical students, or residents, or even senior physicians about these kinds of thinking errors or, frankly, how to keep a sense of our own emotional temperature, whether we dislike a patient or sometimes even like a patient too much.

SUSAN DENTZER: So here you are, you`re one of the leading blood and cancer specialists in the country. You`re at one of the leading academic medical institutions in the country, and even you have been the victim of medical misdiagnoses. What happened?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: Several years ago, I had trauma to my right hand. I saw six hand surgeons and got four different opinions.

The first one I saw, after doing x-rays and an MRI scan, he said, "You know, you have a hyper reactive synovium." The synovium is the lining of the wrist. I`d never heard of such a thing. I asked other colleagues, and I actually went on the Internet, and I couldn`t find it. He invented a diagnosis.

So I left and went to another surgeon. This surgeon looked at every small abnormality on my MRI scan. I`m a 55-year-old man who`s a tired athlete with plenty of trauma, and he said, "I`m going to fix every little thing I see with three sequential operations."

The third surgeon came zipping into the room, looked at my wrist, and said, "Maybe you have gout." And I thought, "Gout?" You know, gout on my wrist and it didn`t show up on the x-ray? I said, "Well, wouldn`t you have seen it, and couldn`t you just put a little needle in?" And he said, "I don`t know, I`ll figure it out when I get in the O.R."

The fourth surgeon examined my left hand, as well as my right hand, and got x-rays of each. And he also had me clench my fist when he got the x-ray, so there was a dynamic movement in my hand. And, sure enough, one of the ligaments between two small bones had been torn. And then he did something even more remarkable. He said, "You know, I`ve only done a repair like this once."

And so I found a surgeon who had more experience, and repaired it, and had a reasonably good result.

SUSAN DENTZER: So let`s talk about patients. What should patients do to help ensure that their doctors reach the right diagnosis?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: I think it`s important for patients to know how doctors think, that doctors think with these shortcuts, they often come to a quick decision, and that their feelings often influence their judgment.

Thinking happens in the moment when we`re talking to the doctor, when we`re being examined. And it`s completely appropriate for a patient or a family member or a friend to ask the doctor certain questions, to make sure that his or her thinking stays on track.

One of the most important questions when a doctor gives a diagnosis is: What else could it be? Now, if things are getting better, it`s likely the right diagnosis. If things are not getting better, then that question should be asked again: What else could it be? And could two things be going on at once?

And the third very important question is: Have you found anything, any laboratory test, or x-ray, or physical finding that isn`t in sync with your presumption, that contradicts what seems to be the diagnosis?

SUSAN DENTZER: How do you think doctors will react to this book?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: There may be some who react negatively, but my hope is that, by showing how we succeed and why we fail, that it will be at least the beginning of a new form of approach to the care of patients.

SUSAN DENTZER: So is the bottom line of all this that doctors are really only human after all?

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: We are human. We`re human and trying to do the best we can, but I believe we can do better. And we can do better by knowing how we think, so that we reduce this rate of misdiagnosis. And we can do better by really partnering with our patients and their families.

SUSAN DENTZER: Dr. Groopman, thank you.

DR. JEROME GROOPMAN: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the influences of Jerry Falwell. Jeffrey Brown has our look, beginning with some background.

REV. JERRY FALWELL, Founder, Moral Majority: Everyone standing, heads bowed in prayer.

JEFFREY BROWN: Jerry Falwell transformed his fundamentalist Christian ideals into a driving political force. An influential televangelist, Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 and soon boasted membership of more than 6 million.

He also claimed to have registered millions more, mostly conservatives, to vote and help put Ronald Reagan into the White House. In 1983, U.S. News and World Report called him one of the 25 most influential Americans.

In December 1989, the NewsHour`s Robert MacNeil asked Falwell how he would characterize the decade just ended.

REV. JERRY FALWELL: I would say the 1980s, most importantly, there`s been a witnessing of the bankruptcy of the liberal philosophy and the anti- moral and amoral philosophies that were so prevalent in the 1960s and `70s, the rebellion of young people, which brought about the drug epidemic in so many to break down the family.

Particularly during this decade, the spiritual rebirth. I`m an evangelical, and I`ve watched the evangelical church here and around the world preaching Christ, the death, burial, resurrection of the savior, receiving more receptivity everywhere, and that growth.

And, finally, as I`ve watched the Berlin Wall come down, the cry for freedom in China, and the eastern bloc nations, I rejoice, because I see the bankruptcy of Marxist-Leninism, socialism in this world.

JEFFREY BROWN: Falwell established his first church, Thomas Road Baptist, in Lynchburg, Virginia, in 1956. What began with 35 members has since topped 24,000.

In 1971, Falwell helped create what is now Liberty University in Lynchburg, an evangelical Christian liberal arts college. Republican candidates still make Liberty an important stop on the campaign trail. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is scheduled to speak at Liberty`s commencement this weekend.

REV. JERRY FALWELL: The myth of global warming...

JEFFREY BROWN: Falwell espoused views that were often controversial and angered many. He was a vocal opponent of homosexuality and gay marriage.

REV. JERRY FALWELL: Clearly, in every civilized culture since recorded history, marriage is always between a man and a woman. And the fact that we`re trying to change it is very serious, because the family is the foundational institution in our culture.

JEFFREY BROWN: In 1999, Falwell suggested that the PBS children`s series "Teletubbies" had a gay character.

One of his most inflammatory remarks came after the 9/11 attacks, which he blamed on certain segments of American society.

REV. JERRY FALWELL: I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians, who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

JEFFREY BROWN: Falwell later apologized.

Jerry Falwell was hospitalized twice for serious health problems in 2005, including heart trouble. He collapsed this morning in his office at Liberty University. He was 73 years old.

And we look at Jerry Falwell`s influence in the worlds of politics and religion with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative political advocacy group. Mr. Perkins is a graduate of Liberty University.

And Tony Campolo, who`s a professor emeritus at Eastern University and founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an organization that develops school programs around the world.

Tony Perkins, starting with you, how do you assess the importance and influence of Jerry Falwell?

TONY PERKINS, Family Research Council: Well, I first met him 20 years ago, as a student at Liberty University on a Wednesday night prayer service. And my background, I had come out of the Marine Corps, had been a police officer, and was pursuing a business degree. And through my experience at Liberty University and my relationship with Dr. Falwell, that took a change. I ended up running for office, held public office, and now I`m at Family Research Council.

I think his legacy really is two-fold. One, he unashamedly preached the gospel of Jesus Christ, led many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus. But then he challenged Christians to take their faith and use it to impact the culture, to be what Jesus said was salt and light.

And he led the way. And he was a pioneer. And I guess to some who didn`t like what he had to stand for, the bad news is there are a lot of settlers coming in behind this pioneer. He`s raised up many, many young people to follow in his footsteps.

JEFFREY BROWN: Tony Campolo, how do you assess his influence? And what was the key to the political strength?

TONY CAMPOLO, Eastern University: Well, his television programming impacted this nation from coast to coast. It was through television that he was able to mobilize Americans in the evangelical tradition to become Republicans.

Up until Jerry Falwell, it was kind of an even split between Democrats and Republicans. He changed the political landscape. Historians will write about him and say, because of Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan became president.

Myself, I have many similarities with Jerry Falwell when it came to our beliefs about Jesus and preaching to the gospel. And he has impacted millions of people with the good news about Jesus.

My problems, of course, is that I often found myself seriously at odds with his political agenda. I think he did not pay enough attention to some of the social justice issues that we needed to pay attention to, dealing with racism, dealing with sexism. I felt that he -- I think that he humiliated a lot of gay and lesbian people.

But beyond all of that, when we debated on television, when we debated on radio, he always seemed to know what he was talking about. He always came on with great effectiveness. And the religious right, of which I`m not a part, has lost its most vocal and effective leader.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Mr. Perkins, the divisiveness, the statements that gave offense, do you think that Jerry Falwell was trying to be provocative? Did he mean what he say and then apologize because of the outcry? What led to that?

TONY PERKINS: Well, that was just that one statement. I think Dr. Falwell, number one, I think was mischaracterized and portrayed in the media. He was portrayed as mean-spirited, a hard-hearted individual.

If you took just a five-minute walk with him across the sprawling campus at Liberty University, you would see not someone who looked like an Elmer Gantry, but you would see a grandfather figure that was giving students bear hugs. I was the frequent recipient of those bear hugs. He was loved on campus.

And Dr. Falwell was the opposite of how he was seen by many people. He was not mean-spirited at all. Even his adversaries, he was kind to them. And I bet Tony would say that, even in their conversations off the camera or along the side, he was always nice to those that he opposed.

But he knew how to work television. He knew how to get headlines. A couple of those events recently were at events that I hosted. I asked him to come to. And he knew how to get a headline.

He would make a statement, usually in jest, knowing that a reporter somewhere would pick it up and run with it. Obviously, taken out of context, it looks horrible, but he got a headline. And he knew how to get his message across. Sometimes that was a double-edged sword, but most of the times he was very effective at doing it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Mr. Campolo, you were an adversary many times on many issues. What is your answer to what Dr. Falwell was trying to do? Was he trying to be purposely provocative? Or was he saying exactly what he meant?

TONY CAMPOLO: Not only did he say what he meant, but I think that was his genius. When he made statements, which a lot of people thought were harsh, he was really articulating what huge numbers of Americans really feel and think. And that`s what made him such a lightning rod.

And when we look at Jerry Falwell and listen to his words, we who do not agree with him realize that we`re not just dealing with Jerry Falwell. We`re dealing with a whole array of people who follow him and think as he does.

He`s a leader because he speaks with clarity and with forcefulness on things that Americans believe in, not all Americans, obviously, not all evangelicals. There are a host of us who call ourselves red-letter Christians who go with the teachings of scripture.

Therefore, we would stand against him on the war issue. We would stand against him on the environmentalist issue. We would stand against him on militarism and on sexism. We stand against him on a lot of issues, but what Tony Perkins said was absolutely right.

My wife, who, unlike myself, is a strong advocate for gay marriage, once had a meeting with him. And she said, "I came away feeling that this man was a gentleman, and he spoke with kindness and with civility." And, off camera, he was as gracious a man as you could possibly imagine. And I have found him to be the same.

We differed politically, not theologically very much, but politically. And we will stand in awe of his impact in history. Of course, his greatest impact is not his politics. His greatest legacy is going to be Liberty University, where thousands of people will be raised up to support the things that he believed in.

TONY PERKINS: Absolutely.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Perkins, finally, we are, of course, in another presidential political season, entering it here. To what degree does his legacy, is his legacy still with us on the campaign trail?

TONY PERKINS: I think it`s still there. Tony hit the nail on the head. Liberty University, now this year reaching some 20,000 students, actually has a member of Congress now, a graduate of Liberty University, and then thousands -- or hundreds, rather -- of elected officials across the country graduates of Liberty University active in the political structure.

Newt Gingrich is scheduled to be the commencement speaker this weekend at graduation. Last year, John McCain was the commencement speaker. The political figures still are going to want to come to Liberty University, to Liberty Mountain, and touch the Falwell legacy, because he`s left not only sons that are going to carry on the ministry of the church and of the university, but he`s left many spiritual sons and daughters that he has mentored and discipled over the last 30-plus years that Liberty University has been there.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Tony Perkins and Tony Campolo, thank you both very much.

TONY CAMPOLO: Good to be with you.

TONY PERKINS: You`re welcome.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the other developments of this day.

The head of the U.N. nuclear agency warned it`s too late to stop Iran from gaining nuclear know-how.

The search for three U.S. soldiers missing in Iraq ended a fourth day with no sign of the men.

And White House officials said again World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz should not be fired. A bank committee found he broke rules in arranging a new job for his girlfriend.

Tonight on "Frontline," civil liberties and the war on terror. Please check your local PBS listings for the time.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, once again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are 18 more.

JIM LEHRER: We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.