The lines are drawn in the tort reform debate, and neither side seems ready to budge.

For anything to happen, however, both sides will have to give. That's the nature of legislative politics, and this is an issue that can only be resolved through an imperfect political system that seeks to balance competing interests.

Balance is the key word. While medical professionals and the business community would undoubtedly love to be free of lawsuits altogether, no one from those groups speaking for reform in the civil justice system advocates cutting off citizen access to the courts. People injured because of the negligence or intentional actions of others must have an available remedy through the courts.

But when the remedy becomes a license for plaintiffs and lawyers to profiteer far beyond all proportionality, the system is out of balance and everyone except a few individuals ultimately suffers.

Mississippi has reached that stage. The huge jury verdicts of recent years have been largely limited to certain areas of the state, but their impact is being felt statewide. All Mississippians are at risk for a future of reduced access to medical care and reduced economic opportunity.

The Legislature must face its responsibility to help restore balance to the system. Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, reluctant until recently to admit the need for change, must step forward as well.

Leading trial attorneys, who vigorously oppose any changes in a system that has rewarded them nicely, must realize that lessening their resistance is the politically prudent course. The tangible results of an imbalanced system are beginning to increase public awareness of what's at stake, and it's in the self-interest of the plaintiffs' bar to give some ground now before a greater public backlash develops.

The medical profession and business community, meanwhile, must keep an eye on their legitimate goals without presuming they will get everything they seek. An "all or nothing" approach will likely result in nothing, given the political clout trial attorneys carry with the Legislature and governor.

While the two sides in this debate represent competing interests, the broader public interest clearly lies with the medical and business communities seeking relief. Yes, there is self-interest involved, just as the trial lawyers' position is grounded in self-interest. But the excessive transfer of huge amounts of medical and business resources to a handful of plaintiffs and their attorneys ultimately places the general public interest secondary, and that's not right.

Mississippi will hardly be carving out bold new ground in adopting reforms. Neighboring Alabama and Louisiana already have in place versions of the reforms sought here. California has had limits on noneconomic damages since the 1970s.

Mississippi's most urgent needs are caps on non-economic and punitive damages and limits on venue shopping and lawsuit-joining by multiple plaintiffs. There is room for reasonable disagreement - and reasonable compromise - in the particulars, but tort reform that does not address these issues won't be adequate.

A joint legislative committee currently is holding hearings on the civil justice system. A report is expected in August. It's incumbent on these lawmakers to propose remedies that can be enacted soon in a special legislative session.

Hard lines must meld into the best political solution achievable or Mississippi will once again inflict self-imposed disadvantage on itself. Continued stalemate and inaction are simply not responsible options.