Unfair website for physicians ???

Hi there,

I'm fairly new on this website and have come to this conclusion.
As many public websites, on this one, lots of people come here to complain. When do you ever go out of your way to thank somebody or going on a forum to say "thank you".
It is always much easier to be upset and find all of a sudden lots of energy/motivation/time to login on a website and start bashing ... (especially when you can stay anonymous).

It seems to me, it is very one sided !

On one side, you have people (patients) allowed to use doctor's name to describe their opinions publicly.

On the other hand, physicians are not allowed to respond to those comments as the patients are protected by confidentiality.

Patients are able to describe PRECISELY what happened to them ... and if the doctors tries to do the same to give a fair answer, they will be held accountable !

So this create a real UNFAIR situation.

It is very nice to yell as much as you want ... meanwhile on the other side ... they basically have to shut it up.

By the way, I AM NOT A DOCTOR.

Just not into doctor bashing.

Hello Whool I just wonder

Hello Whool

I just wonder how much you could possibly know about what we have to say on this site, having been a "Member for ~ 50 min 28 sec?

My name is Pam Walter, and here is the rating of my doctor.

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/95747/MD/Owensville/Bierbaum

Here is the story of what happened to me that brought me to this site:

[deleted]

Read it ~ you might have a better understanding of why we're here.

Hi Whool and welcome! Many

Hi Whool and welcome!

Many of the people who rate their doctors don't participate in the forum discussions. Most of the regular participants in the forum do give doctors the benefit of the doubt.

I have rated five doctors--all good. Except that Dr. House.

I have also had bad dealings with doctors. I have chosen to address those in private with the doctors and their practices.

Rockygirl

You can read a lot of

You can read a lot of postings in 50 min

I thought your name was

I thought your name was whoof at first, as in woof woof, private joke.
I happen to agree with you a little bit. It's not fair for the physicians not to be able to give their side of the story.
If a patient was bashing me, as a nurse, I'd want to give my side of the story, so I understand what you are saying.
So - what would you recommend we do when we have been harmed, and there's no place to turn to, and the doctor won't take accountability, and in not taking responsiblity for the care or lack of care, you worry that it is possible that he could harm others?
Is it fair to the public to keep quiet?
Do we protect the doctor too?
They have the CMPA to protect them.
The CPSO may or may not protect them depending on the expertise, intelligence and ethics of the investigator.
Who protects the public? Are we on our own?

zzz wrote: You can read a

zzz wrote:

You can read a lot of postings in 50 min

Some of us lurked a while before joining officially. Perhaps that is what Whool did. I used the ratings for a couple of years and lurked on the forum for months before I signed up. That's why when I started joining in the conversations, I knew who was who, and many of their personal stories.

You don't have to be a

You don't have to be a member to be able to read what people have written here. You only need to be one if you're going to post something. So being a member for less than an hour doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in china so far as a determinant of knowlege regarding the content of the website and what's been posted here.

For all we know (and we know nothing beyond what was just posted) Whool could have been lurking for a long time, albeit, from what Whool wrote, most likely with the Wool pulled over their eyes while doing so.

zzz wrote: You can read a

zzz wrote:

You can read a lot of postings in 50 min

Really? You can glance and gloss over lots of postings in 50 minutes. From the stuff you've written since you started posting that's what you been doing while telling yourself you actually read what was written. Don't know how many others you fooled with that but not everyone here was taken in. Mostly, the only one you fooled was yourself.

JaneQPatient wrote: zzz

JaneQPatient wrote:
zzz wrote:

You can read a lot of postings in 50 min

Really? You can glance and gloss over lots of postings in 50 minutes. From the stuff you've written since you started posting that's what you been doing while telling yourself you actually read what was written. Don't know how many others you fooled with that but not everyone here was taken in. Mostly, the only one you fooled was yourself.

Laughing out loud

wow, chapter 18 and still

wow, chapter 18 and still going!! To try to summarize what took me over an hour to read, minus all the side tales about past history and history of the hospital is this. You opted to have an elective procedure done at a hospital and you were one of the few to have a possible but very unfortunate compication as a result, and that is the basis of your grievance. To summarize. And the compication led to a valve replacement which other than the surgery to perform this(which is painful and has risks of its own) it seems the main concern expressed was about being on blood thinners for life. But if you had NOT elected to have the ablation, isn't that what you would be on?? blood thinners for life?? I have a grandmother with atrial fibrillation and she is on blood thinners for life because of it. To prevent blood clots from forming, right? So the ablation was to prevent having to be on blood thinners, if I'm guessing. And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. Not like the other person who had the procedure and is now active and without atril fibrillation (the brochure person) as you refer to, who was one of the MAJORITY that did NOT suffer a complication. Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. And because you believed the risk was less than the benefit, you agreed to take that risk. Unfortunately you were the unfortunate one that day.Truely unfortunate. And I have no doubt that it was a very difficult and painful thing to endure. And be mad at chance or God or whatever for those odds, understandably .... but instead why blame the physician? Even though no surgery or procedure is perfect...ever. And there are no garantees about outcomes. Ever. And you could have opted NOT to have the procedure. Right? But you consented to take the risk. And unfortunately, you were the unlucky person to suffer an adverse effect. You can try to point your finger at the resident, the system, the hospital that has made mistakes before but it is simply tring to lay blame on something. Something more tangible than... the odds.
And I have no doubt it was terrible to go through and that you suffered. And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. You stated that you could(should) have gone elsewhere. Also a choice. who is to say that it would be any different at another Hospital?

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ( I like the passage where you point out that nurses are there to prevent mistakes by doctors) you would not have to tell me that you were a nurse after that one!
Had your story been one of simple suffering from an unfortunate event that had occurred, and how you had suffered and yet perservered it could have been an inspiration. But when it becomes a tale of how you were tragically victimized at every turn, with even the ICU which kept you ALIVE is equated to a "torture chamber".... oh please... it becomes an overacted tale of bitterness and hidden agendas.
I have no doubt that you are now in litigation about this situation after such an elaboration

And probably still in litigation about the car accident that "caused" the atrial fibrillation, as you pointed out.

When I was in Las Vegas recently i had trouble finding medical care and was advised that many doctors are leaving Nevada due to the high litigation rates.
Are all doctors idiots? Why are they all sued? Why are they now practicing without insurance that they can no longer afford? And why is the public so upset about this as they can no longer get "the money" when they sue? Is it truly the "incompetent doctors" that are the problem, or the greedy public with lawyers in tow that are to blame.

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

Whool wrote: wow, chapter

Whool wrote:

wow, chapter 18 and still going!! To try to summarize what took me over an hour to read, minus all the side tales about past history and history of the hospital is this. You opted to have an elective procedure done at a hospital and you were one of the few to have a possible but very unfortunate compication as a result, and that is the basis of your grievance. To summarize. And the compication led to a valve replacement which other than the surgery to perform this(which is painful and has risks of its own) it seems the main concern expressed was about being on blood thinners for life. But if you had NOT elected to have the ablation, isn't that what you would be on?? blood thinners for life?? I have a grandmother with atrial fibrillation and she is on blood thinners for life because of it. To prevent blood clots from forming, right? So the ablation was to prevent having to be on blood thinners, if I'm guessing. And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. Not like the other person who had the procedure and is now active and without atril fibrillation (the brochure person) as you refer to, who was one of the MAJORITY that did NOT suffer a complication. Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. And because you believed the risk was less than the benefit, you agreed to take that risk. Unfortunately you were the unfortunate one that day.Truely unfortunate. And I have no doubt that it was a very difficult and painful thing to endure. And be mad at chance or God or whatever for those odds, understandably .... but instead why blame the physician? Even though no surgery or procedure is perfect...ever. And there are no garantees about outcomes. Ever. And you could have opted NOT to have the procedure. Right? But you consented to take the risk. And unfortunately, you were the unlucky person to suffer an adverse effect. You can try to point your finger at the resident, the system, the hospital that has made mistakes before but it is simply tring to lay blame on something. Something more tangible than... the odds.
And I have no doubt it was terrible to go through and that you suffered. And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. You stated that you could(should) have gone elsewhere. Also a choice. who is to say that it would be any different at another Hospital?

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ( I like the passage where you point out that nurses are there to prevent mistakes by doctors) you would not have to tell me that you were a nurse after that one!
Had your story been one of simple suffering from an unfortunate event that had occurred, and how you had suffered and yet perservered it could have been an inspiration. But when it becomes a tale of how you were tragically victimized at every turn, with even the ICU which kept you ALIVE is equated to a "torture chamber".... oh please... it becomes an overacted tale of bitterness and hidden agendas.
I have no doubt that you are now in litigation about this situation after such an elaboration

And probably still in litigation about the car accident that "caused" the atrial fibrillation, as you pointed out.

When I was in Las Vegas recently i had trouble finding medical care and was advised that many doctors are leaving Nevada due to the high litigation rates.
Are all doctors idiots? Why are they all sued? Why are they now practicing without insurance that they can no longer afford? And why is the public so upset about this as they can no longer get "the money" when they sue? Is it truly the "incompetent doctors" that are the problem, or the greedy public with lawyers in tow that are to blame.

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

Whool,
I read the same story a few months ago and had a totally different take. I was appalled that a patient could go into a hospital thinking that a doctor was doing a procedure assisted by his students and the students could be doing the procedure. I was appalled that true "informed" consent was not received. And the rest of the story, yes, it's pretty awful.

I agree that there are many unnecessary lawsuits in our society. I don't think this is one of them. And the more you with with Heartthrob, the more you'll find out that, whatever you think of her personal story, she is not a doctor basher.

By the way, there are several doctors on the forum who give generously of their knowledge and time to help a lot of people here. We all appreciate them.

rockygirl wrote: Whool

rockygirl wrote:
Whool wrote:

wow, chapter 18 and still going!! To try to summarize what took me over an hour to read, minus all the side tales about past history and history of the hospital is this. You opted to have an elective procedure done at a hospital and you were one of the few to have a possible but very unfortunate compication as a result, and that is the basis of your grievance. To summarize. And the compication led to a valve replacement which other than the surgery to perform this(which is painful and has risks of its own) it seems the main concern expressed was about being on blood thinners for life. But if you had NOT elected to have the ablation, isn't that what you would be on?? blood thinners for life?? I have a grandmother with atrial fibrillation and she is on blood thinners for life because of it. To prevent blood clots from forming, right? So the ablation was to prevent having to be on blood thinners, if I'm guessing. And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. Not like the other person who had the procedure and is now active and without atril fibrillation (the brochure person) as you refer to, who was one of the MAJORITY that did NOT suffer a complication. Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. And because you believed the risk was less than the benefit, you agreed to take that risk. Unfortunately you were the unfortunate one that day.Truely unfortunate. And I have no doubt that it was a very difficult and painful thing to endure. And be mad at chance or God or whatever for those odds, understandably .... but instead why blame the physician? Even though no surgery or procedure is perfect...ever. And there are no garantees about outcomes. Ever. And you could have opted NOT to have the procedure. Right? But you consented to take the risk. And unfortunately, you were the unlucky person to suffer an adverse effect. You can try to point your finger at the resident, the system, the hospital that has made mistakes before but it is simply tring to lay blame on something. Something more tangible than... the odds.
And I have no doubt it was terrible to go through and that you suffered. And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. You stated that you could(should) have gone elsewhere. Also a choice. who is to say that it would be any different at another Hospital?

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ( I like the passage where you point out that nurses are there to prevent mistakes by doctors) you would not have to tell me that you were a nurse after that one!
Had your story been one of simple suffering from an unfortunate event that had occurred, and how you had suffered and yet perservered it could have been an inspiration. But when it becomes a tale of how you were tragically victimized at every turn, with even the ICU which kept you ALIVE is equated to a "torture chamber".... oh please... it becomes an overacted tale of bitterness and hidden agendas.
I have no doubt that you are now in litigation about this situation after such an elaboration

And probably still in litigation about the car accident that "caused" the atrial fibrillation, as you pointed out.

When I was in Las Vegas recently i had trouble finding medical care and was advised that many doctors are leaving Nevada due to the high litigation rates.
Are all doctors idiots? Why are they all sued? Why are they now practicing without insurance that they can no longer afford? And why is the public so upset about this as they can no longer get "the money" when they sue? Is it truly the "incompetent doctors" that are the problem, or the greedy public with lawyers in tow that are to blame.

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

Whool,
I read the same story a few months ago and had a totally different take. I was appalled that a patient could go into a hospital thinking that a doctor was doing a procedure assisted by his students and the students could be doing the procedure. I was appalled that true "informed" consent was not received. And the rest of the story, yes, it's pretty awful.

I agree that there are many unnecessary lawsuits in our society. I don't think this is one of them. And the more you with with Heartthrob, the more you'll find out that, whatever you think of her personal story, she is not a doctor basher.

By the way, there are several doctors on the forum who give generously of their knowledge and time to help a lot of people here. We all appreciate them.

The consent that I signed mentioned students. Pam had looked for a doctor who she trusted and she had no idea that a student would be doing the procedure, and I don't think that's fair.
In Canada, doctors are very well protected by the CMPA, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons need to do a thorough inveestigation in order that patients are protected, otherwise, it is extremely unfair to the patient, in my opinion.

Whool wrote: wow, chapter

Whool wrote:

wow, chapter 18 and still going!! To try to summarize what took me over an hour to read, minus all the side tales about past history and history of the hospital is this. You opted to have an elective procedure done at a hospital and you were one of the few to have a possible but very unfortunate compication as a result, and that is the basis of your grievance. To summarize. And the compication led to a valve replacement which other than the surgery to perform this(which is painful and has risks of its own) it seems the main concern expressed was about being on blood thinners for life. But if you had NOT elected to have the ablation, isn't that what you would be on?? blood thinners for life?? I have a grandmother with atrial fibrillation and she is on blood thinners for life because of it. To prevent blood clots from forming, right? So the ablation was to prevent having to be on blood thinners, if I'm guessing. And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. Not like the other person who had the procedure and is now active and without atril fibrillation (the brochure person) as you refer to, who was one of the MAJORITY that did NOT suffer a complication. Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. And because you believed the risk was less than the benefit, you agreed to take that risk. Unfortunately you were the unfortunate one that day.Truely unfortunate. And I have no doubt that it was a very difficult and painful thing to endure. And be mad at chance or God or whatever for those odds, understandably .... but instead why blame the physician? Even though no surgery or procedure is perfect...ever. And there are no garantees about outcomes. Ever. And you could have opted NOT to have the procedure. Right? But you consented to take the risk. And unfortunately, you were the unlucky person to suffer an adverse effect. You can try to point your finger at the resident, the system, the hospital that has made mistakes before but it is simply tring to lay blame on something. Something more tangible than... the odds.
And I have no doubt it was terrible to go through and that you suffered. And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. You stated that you could(should) have gone elsewhere. Also a choice. who is to say that it would be any different at another Hospital?

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ( I like the passage where you point out that nurses are there to prevent mistakes by doctors) you would not have to tell me that you were a nurse after that one!
Had your story been one of simple suffering from an unfortunate event that had occurred, and how you had suffered and yet perservered it could have been an inspiration. But when it becomes a tale of how you were tragically victimized at every turn, with even the ICU which kept you ALIVE is equated to a "torture chamber".... oh please... it becomes an overacted tale of bitterness and hidden agendas.
I have no doubt that you are now in litigation about this situation after such an elaboration

And probably still in litigation about the car accident that "caused" the atrial fibrillation, as you pointed out.

When I was in Las Vegas recently i had trouble finding medical care and was advised that many doctors are leaving Nevada due to the high litigation rates.
Are all doctors idiots? Why are they all sued? Why are they now practicing without insurance that they can no longer afford? And why is the public so upset about this as they can no longer get "the money" when they sue? Is it truly the "incompetent doctors" that are the problem, or the greedy public with lawyers in tow that are to blame.

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

Whool I haven't been on the site that long either but what brought me here was extreme anger against my dentist. I feel like I have been raped and left for dead , it is another more kindhearted dentist thats restoring my well being now and I have nothing
but praises for him.

If we can post anonymously then a doctor can come on here being anonymous and indirectly put his 2 cents worth in if he/ she wanted to so let's not say they got a
total gag order on themselves.

There are alot people out there that are now living in chronic pain, have lost their jobs, ect ect because of things doctors did and write or wrong they are undoubtedly
madder than hell.

If they wanna bash , let em bash.How monstrous is that if someone is now crippled and all the doctor can think about is how he/she has been slandered and goes sending out high priced lawyers with threats and badgering.? I say if someone has been wronged they should have their say. What happened to freedom of speech?

My dentist is lucky that all I do is bad mouth him whenever I get the chance. If I was a
monster myself he wouldn't be walking right now thats for sure.

Whool wrote: ...... And

Whool wrote:

...... And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. ...... Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. ......

Had it ever occurred to you that the procedure in question was not consented to? Consent to a practitioner to perform a specific procedure (not excluding emergency measures) does not constitute consent to have colleagues, associates, or medical students perform the procedure nor is it de facto acceptance of risks flowing from bad judgment, incompetence, or performing outside of that which has been consented to; the acceptance of risk is limited by those boundaries created by the "standard of care".

Whool wrote:

...... And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. ......

I fail to see the "choice" in having the heart valve replacement surgery. I think you are confusing "choice" as a right with "choice" as a practical and intelligent decision.

Whool wrote:

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

Pam, have you read or been made aware of anything published by Calkins describing his view of your medical case, even "ghosted" as a case file?

Whool wrote:

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ......

Did you mean to say that "not all nurses are saints, and not all doctors are evil"? Smiling I don't know that all doctors are not evil; in fact, I can think of one off hand who might be best described in that light.

Whool wrote:

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

How is "doctor bashing ... destroying our society"? Holding persons to account in light of wrongs done only serves to further demonstrate the ability of members of society to assert their rights to stem the continuance of such wrongs. Perhaps it is not the litigation but the wrongful acts that prompted it which forms a detriment to society. Since when has accountability and responsibility "destroyed society"?

Whool, could you please demonstrate the connection between "doctor bashing" and the destruction of society. Citations would certainly be helpful. Laughing out loud

I think it would be great if more victims of professionals, and I'm including *all* professions here, would be so diligent as to carefully detail and document their voiced comments as Pam has. That's not bashing anyone; it's an aggrieved party presenting their case.

Mic

If you have a procedure done

If you have a procedure done at a "teaching" hospital, be it Canada or the U.S., you will have residents and interns involved in your care. That is a fact. That is part of the accepted Standard of care in a teaching hospital.

Whool wrote: If you have a

Whool wrote:

If you have a procedure done at a "teaching" hospital, be it Canada or the U.S., you will have residents and interns involved in your care. That is a fact. That is part of the accepted Standard of care in a teaching hospital.

Involved in my care? Yes.

Performing the procedure? No. Not without full disclosure prior to the procedure, direct supervision, and only pursuant to my express consent having been given regarding the resident. Not in my neighbourhood.

Mic

In a teaching hospital

In a teaching hospital residents and interns are involved in care and that is a fact. And if you are in a teaching hospital, which you obviously were, you KNEW that they were there. It is part of the "standard of care" in a teaching hospital.

Doctor bashing is simply and unfortunate trend of late, but it is not what is destroying society. It is the endless litigation. It has made this country unfit to live in, and that is my opinion.

But please take note....an "aggrieved party presenting their case" is also, unfortunately, liable. Once again denigrating a professional on a public website comes with "responsibility" for ones actions and if Pam is sued by Dr. Calkin for this, I guess that is simply a righting of a wrong. Isn't that what you support? The righting of a wrong through litigation. Everyone is held accountable for their actions. It is not one sided you know. EVERYONE is accountable.

It is my understanding that the Canadian legal association is presently already looking into this website and the legal repercussions it will elicit. And they are pretty conservative.

You have a point of contention with a physician , you take up up with them. You win a lawsuit, it becomes a matter of public information. The public can be amply warned when this occurs.

But to come on a website anonymously and voice grievances which are unproven and uncontested, seems.... well...... Unproven( completely honest???) and uncontested( I would really like to hear the other side of the story, and there is always another side to the story)

But unfortunately, you will not see physicians presenting their side on a website like this. They are simply not allowed to comment on a patient due to confidentiality. their hands are tied.
so once again, very one sided. Sure if they choose to, they can come on teh website and give general information but they can not directly address the accusations

Let me tell you

Let me tell you something.When a doctor crosses that line between patient physician relationship. Then you will have every right to as you call it bash a doctor.You must either be married to a doctor or have doctors in your family.Remember not ALL doctors are good.

"You opted to have an

"You opted to have an elective procedure done at a hospital and you were one of the few to have a possible but very unfortunate complication as a result, and that is the basis of your grievance."

Nice try Whool.

The basis of the grievance here is that a physician betrayed a patient's trust. Hugh G. Calkins, MD at Johns Hopkins lied to my wife. He lied to me. He lied to my wife's family. He deceived us and he tampered with medical records.

[deleted]

The reactions I get from doctors is generally split: Half of them find the story truly appalling and say the see all too much of these kinds of things and they applaud me for writing it. The other half, whom I consider to be defensive and insecure, react the way you do, i.e. It's the patient's fault.

Whooley wrote: it seems

Whooley wrote:

it seems the main concern expressed was about being on blood thinners for life. But if you had NOT elected to have the ablation, isn't that what you would be on??

NOT I had LAF (lone atrial fibrillation - occurs in the absence of other heart disease), and as such, according to the AHA, does not require Coumadin. I was never on coumadin before the ablation. While that is a very difficult thing for a person to have to do from age 49 to EOL, that is not the greatest loss. What happened to me caused me tremendous loss. I lost my business, because I couldn't run it any longer. I was declared disabled by the USSSA, so I also lost my ability to earn my living practicing nursing, which I had done for 20 years. I have a frontal lobe brain injury, and pretty much live in the moment.

Thanks for your concern

Informed Consent I had a

Informed Consent

I had a procedure performed in a hospital.I did not sign any kind of consent form.
Nor was I ever told about any of the dangers or complications.Nothing was ever mentioned
and I have someone who witness this procedure being done.
I was sent home shortly after the procedure when it would have taken at least two days for
tests to come back to show whether I was infectious.
In less than four hours I became drowsy. I was brought up to a hospital closer to my home and my condition was
immediately label as something else as I am now aware.
I was then refused care.

An extensive cover-up followed and I was left in that condition.I would eventually get the medication I needed
months later.Things did not quite go as planned I guess and that is why I am alive.

Whool wrote: In a teaching

Whool wrote:

In a teaching hospital residents and interns are involved in care and that is a fact. And if you are in a teaching hospital, which you obviously were, you KNEW that they were there. It is part of the "standard of care" in a teaching hospital.

Yes, they were there, sometimes. Please do not tell me what I know or knew. Yes, residents and interns are "involved in care", but so are Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, etc. In my neck of the woods (SPH), interns are not allowed to get sufficiently dangerous to inflict much damage. I have *never* had less than a fourth year resident attend to my care without *direct* supervision.

Whool wrote:

Doctor bashing is simply and unfortunate trend of late, but it is not what is destroying society.

Did I just read an about-face?

Whool wrote:

It is the endless litigation. It has made this country unfit to live in, and that is my opinion.

Just think of how things might be without litigation. It could be open season on customers, clients, patients, whatever. Perhaps what is called for is some measure of law and procedural review.

Whool wrote:

But please take note....an "aggrieved party presenting their case" is also, unfortunately, liable.

I thought parties were not liable until so judged by a competent court.

Mic

"Open season" OMG. Are you

"Open season" OMG. Are you really so paranoid to think that everyone is "out to get you". Open season... that's like hunting season right?
what do you think people did before litigation? Do you think that everyone walked around being abused and victimized by each other without recourse? Think back to times in society before litigation
became front and center. Do you honestly feel things are better now? Sorry, I don't.

And to be clear again to the other writers. I am not a doctor, I am not married to a doctor and I do not have any doctors in my family

It seems rather funny that this is the assumption if I'm not "bashing" them.

Tell me Mic. obviously it is simply a disagreement on terms. You don't like the term liable as apparently it has to be rendered by a court. tell me, has Dr Calkin been found guilty by any court of wrongdoing? I honestly don't know.

Hi Whool,welcome to the

Hi Whool,welcome to the forum. Sad thing is,anyone can say anything they want to on the internet,and NOTHING can be done about it. Take care. P.S. That is in the U.S. that I know of,although there has been cases where something was done about it. So really,I don't know. What I do know is when it comes to one's health that it is serious business,and some don't take things too lightly. I'm certainly not saying there is anything wrong with that,so I hope you and or noone else take my post the wrong way. Since finding this site,I have found it to be very difficult to express anything. Shocked Maybe just love. Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Puzzled Jawdropping!

Whool wrote: ...... Tell

Whool wrote:

...... Tell me Mic. obviously it is simply a disagreement on terms. You don't like the term liable as apparently it has to be rendered by a court. tell me, has Dr Calkin been found guilty by any court of wrongdoing? I honestly don't know.

I have no problem with the word "liable", correctly applied. One is only liable to the extent that a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction finds them so. In a general sense, we are all (potentially) liable for our acts, simply due to the redress that could be brought by an aggrieved party in the courts.

Hey, whool, no-one pulled

Hey, whool, no-one pulled the wool over your eyes. Look at the ratemds policy here.

Privacy Policy
Information Collection and Use

RateMDs.com collects personally identifiable information when you register for a RateMDs.com account, when you visit RateMDs.com pages, and when you enter promotions or sweepstakes.
When you register with RateMDs.com, we ask for your name, email address, birth date, gender, and zip code. Once you register with RateMDs.com and sign in to our services, you are not anonymous to us.
RateMDs.com also automatically receives and records information on our server logs from your browser including your IP address, RateMDs.com cookie information and the page you requested.
RateMDs.com uses information for three general purposes: to customize the advertising and content you see, to fulfill your requests for certain products and services, and to contact you about specials and new products.
Information Sharing and Disclosure

RateMDs.com will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone.
RateMDs.com may send personally identifiable information about you to other companies or people when:
We have your consent to share the information;
We need to share your information to provide the product or service you have requested;
We need to send the information to companies who work on behalf of RateMDs.com to provide a product or service to you. (Unless we tell you differently, these companies do not have any right to use the personally identifiable information we provide to them beyond what is necessary to assist us.);
We respond to subpoenas, court orders or legal process.
Cookies

RateMDs.com may set and access RateMDs.com cookies on your computer.
RateMDs.com allows other companies that are presenting advertisements on some of our pages to set and access their cookies on your computer. Other companies' use of their cookies is subject to their own privacy policies, not this one. Advertisers or other companies do not have access to RateMDs.com's cookies.
If you prefer, you can turn off cookies in your web browser by changing its security settings.
Your Ability to Edit and Delete Your Account Information and Preferences

RateMDs.com gives you the ability to edit your RateMDs.com Account Information and preferences at any time, including whether you want RateMDs.com to contact you about specials and new products.
Security

Your RateMDs.com Account Information is password-protected for your privacy and security.
Changes to this Privacy Policy

RateMDs.com may amend this policy from time to time. If we make any substantial changes in the way we use your personal information we will notify you by posting a prominent announcement on our pages.
---------------
Apparently, we're not that 'anonymous' to the ratemds owner(s).

Yes, some people (if not all people) take their health very seriously. If you can't go back to work because of a serious complication that happened during surgery, then, why not complain about it?

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:
Whool wrote:

...... And very unfortunately you were one of the people who had a complication. But that was a risk going into it. ...... Which is why CONSENT forms exist and are signed in the first place. To outline the risks of the procedure so that you WILL understand it is not without risk. And every single surgery or other major procedure carries risks. It is your decision to take the risk or not. ......

Had it ever occurred to you that the procedure in question was not consented to? Consent to a practitioner to perform a specific procedure (not excluding emergency measures) does not constitute consent to have colleagues, associates, or medical students perform the procedure nor is it de facto acceptance of risks flowing from bad judgment, incompetence, or performing outside of that which has been consented to; the acceptance of risk is limited by those boundaries created by the "standard of care".

Whool wrote:

...... And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no. ......

I fail to see the "choice" in having the heart valve replacement surgery. I think you are confusing "choice" as a right with "choice" as a practical and intelligent decision.

Whool wrote:

As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

Pam, have you read or been made aware of anything published by Calkins describing his view of your medical case, even "ghosted" as a case file?

Whool wrote:

I do not believe that medicine is magic or perfect. All nurses are not saints, and all doctors are not evil ......

Did you mean to say that "not all nurses are saints, and not all doctors are evil"? Smiling I don't know that all doctors are not evil; in fact, I can think of one off hand who might be best described in that light.

Whool wrote:

Your story has affirmed more than ever that doctor bashing , especially in the pretext of litigation is destroying our society. IT is not improving medical care. It is removing it.

How is "doctor bashing ... destroying our society"? Holding persons to account in light of wrongs done only serves to further demonstrate the ability of members of society to assert their rights to stem the continuance of such wrongs. Perhaps it is not the litigation but the wrongful acts that prompted it which forms a detriment to society. Since when has accountability and responsibility "destroyed society"?

Whool, could you please demonstrate the connection between "doctor bashing" and the destruction of society. Citations would certainly be helpful. Laughing out loud

I think it would be great if more victims of professionals, and I'm including *all* professions here, would be so diligent as to carefully detail and document their voiced comments as Pam has. That's not bashing anyone; it's an aggrieved party presenting their case.

Mic

Touche!

Whool wrote: "Open season"

Whool wrote:

"Open season" OMG. Are you really so paranoid to think that everyone is "out to get you". Open season... that's like hunting season right?
what do you think people did before litigation? Do you think that everyone walked around being abused and victimized by each other without recourse? Think back to times in society before litigation
became front and center. Do you honestly feel things are better now? Sorry, I don't.

And to be clear again to the other writers. I am not a doctor, I am not married to a doctor and I do not have any doctors in my family

It seems rather funny that this is the assumption if I'm not "bashing" them.

Tell me Mic. obviously it is simply a disagreement on terms. You don't like the term liable as apparently it has to be rendered by a court. tell me, has Dr Calkin been found guilty by any court of wrongdoing? I honestly don't know.

How can there be a disagreement on terms between you and Mic when Mic understands the terms and you don't have a clue about their concept to begin with, unless the concept you've imputed to them (erroneous, btw) is something you've imputed to them so that using them makes you comfortable with them to use and beat others up with to suit your agenda.

Whool - on Libel "But please

Whool - on Libel

"But please take note....an "aggrieved party presenting their case" is also, unfortunately, liable. Once again denigrating a professional on a public website comes with "responsibility" for ones actions and if Pam is sued by Dr. Calkin for this, I guess that is simply a righting of a wrong. Isn't that what you support? The righting of a wrong through litigation. Everyone is held accountable for their actions. It is not one sided you know. EVERYONE is accountable."

"An aggrieved party presenting their case" is not committing libel -- if their case is being portrayed accurately. Facts are facts. The most damaging information in my story about Pam's care at Hopkins comes from words written and spoken by Hugh G. Calkins himself.

I have been saying these things about Hugh Calkins and Johns Hopkins for years. The "Adventures in Cardiology" website has been up for about 7 months, with over 50,000 views. If there were a case for libel, Hopkins would have made it already.

I say it here again, publicly and for the record: Hugh G. Calkins, MD lied to my wife and to me and to her family. He withheld medical records. He betrayed the trust of a patient. He broke the law.

If these things were not true, I would not write or publish them. But they are true and I can state these facts over and over again in any forum I like -- because they are true.

noot wrote: Hey, whool,

noot wrote:

Hey, whool, no-one pulled the wool over your eyes. Look at the ratemds policy here.

Privacy Policy
Information Collection and Use

RateMDs.com...We respond to subpoenas, court orders or legal process.

The above statement, which can be considered part of a contract between the user and the site, makes it clear that a poster's statements can be used against him, or her, in a court of law. That should make physicians in Canada as well as the United States happy. A great litigator and some tweaks to the law can vomit a poster who's besmirched a physician's reputation. I think that's great! Kudos to John!

Med101 wrote: noot

Med101 wrote:
noot wrote:

Hey, whool, no-one pulled the wool over your eyes. Look at the ratemds policy here.

Privacy Policy
Information Collection and Use

RateMDs.com...We respond to subpoenas, court orders or legal process.

The above statement, which can be considered part of a contract between the user and the site, makes it clear that a poster's statements can be used against him, or her, in a court of law. That should make physicians in Canada as well as the United States happy. A great litigator and some tweaks to the law can vomit a poster who's besmirched a physician's reputation. I think that's great! Kudos to John!

A great litigator? No.

Some tweeks? Boy, you sure haven't read any of the settled cases over the last several years, not even the most recent few.

Whool wrote: But to come

Whool wrote:

But to come on a website anonymously and voice grievances which are unproven and uncontested, seems.... well...... Unproven( completely honest???) and uncontested( I would really like to hear the other side of the story, and there is always another side to the story)

But unfortunately, you will not see physicians presenting their side on a website like this. They are simply not allowed to comment on a patient due to confidentiality. their hands are tied.
so once again, very one sided. Sure if they choose to, they can come on teh website and give general information but they can not directly address the accusations

You'd be surprised how many docs respond to their ratings. Some of them have even been known to say, "I know who you are."

Med101 wrote: noot

Med101 wrote:
noot wrote:

Hey, whool, no-one pulled the wool over your eyes. Look at the ratemds policy here.

Privacy Policy
Information Collection and Use

RateMDs.com...We respond to subpoenas, court orders or legal process.

The above statement, which can be considered part of a contract between the user and the site, makes it clear that a poster's statements can be used against him, or her, in a court of law. That should make physicians in Canada as well as the United States happy. A great litigator and some tweaks to the law can vomit a poster who's besmirched a physician's reputation. I think that's great! Kudos to John!

Vomitting a patient that has been harmed is called re-victimization, and it's cruel. I hope that if you are in Med101, that you fail. I guess what you are saying here is that a great litigator is a bully, and you think that's great. Right?

However, if a poster besmirches a physician's good reputation, without having any facts to support the besmirching, then that shouldn't even take a great litigator; it's libel.

Med101 wrote: A great

Med101 wrote:

A great litigator and some tweaks to the law can vomit a poster who's besmirched a physician's reputation.

Dear Med ~ All we had to do was to relate what Hugh Calkins said to me, my husband, my mother, my sisters and my daughter, and then write some quotes from the good doctor's lectures and publications. In that case, did said doctor besmirch his own reputation? I surely didn't do it.

Pam Walter

Whool wrote: And to be

Whool wrote:

And to be clear again to the other writers. I am not a doctor, I am not married to a doctor and I do not have any doctors in my family
It seems rather funny that this is the assumption if I'm not "bashing" them.

The assumption is to be expected because you are extraordinarily passionate about your perspective.

I don't guess he is too

I don't guess he is too concerned about it, Puzzled Seems he'd be here denying or defending himself. Puzzled

http://www.dobhran.com/greet

Whool wrote: ... you KNEW

Whool wrote:

... you KNEW that they were there. It is part of the "standard of care" in a teaching hospital.

Whool, You may have some understanding of teaching hospitals but there are many who do not, nor should they should they be expected to have this knowledge. Try not to assume that you "know" what people understand.

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:

albeit, from what Whool wrote, most likely with the Wool pulled over their eyes while doing so.

I couldn't agree more!

Whool: Not All Say Bad

Whool:
Not All Say Bad Things About Doctors If I Was Upset At My Doctor I would Never Give His/Her Name Reason Is Cause Its Just One Person Mad At The Doctor And I Hold Alot Of Respect To Keep There Name Out Sec I Have A Great Doctor, Others Who Have Been Hurt By A Doctor Can Stand Up And Be Upset Thats There Right To Speak I Will NOT TELL THAT PERSON HE/SHE IS WRONG" Cause I Never Walked In There Shoes And Some Of The Story's I've Been Reading I Thank God I'm Me Oh I'll Pray Each And Everyday For Them But Never Would I Want To Suffer As They Do, There is alot of people who suffer and my heart go's to them, Just to close my eyes and think about there night mare makes my belly scared, After i read a story i will look at myself and that god i'm not in there shoes and sure i will let a tear go for the one who suffers, I don't like anyone to hurt even a Doctor they need the respect as we do,
Whool i'll wish you a very merry Christams and pray you have a great New Year God-Bless and thanks for posting, I respect your words and do understand what your saying

Dan Walter wrote: The

Dan Walter wrote:

The reactions I get from doctors is generally split: Half of them find the story truly appalling and say the see all too much of these kinds of things and they applaud me for writing it. The other half, whom I consider to be defensive and insecure, react the way you do, i.e. It's the patient's fault.

My old cardiologist from when I lived in Florida read [delete], and he sent me an email saying how sorry he was to know about my problems. He told me that for some time he has been the director of CCU at a major hospital, and requested permission to use Adventures as a teaching tool in that hospital. So, I know that most doctors don't look at it the way Whool does.

heartthrob wrote: Dan

heartthrob wrote:
Dan Walter wrote:

The reactions I get from doctors is generally split: Half of them find the story truly appalling and say the see all too much of these kinds of things and they applaud me for writing it. The other half, whom I consider to be defensive and insecure, react the way you do, i.e. It's the patient's fault.

My old cardiologist from when I lived in Florida read [delete], and he sent me an email saying how sorry he was to know about my problems. He told me that for some time he has been the director of CCU at a major hospital, and requested permission to use Adventures as a teaching tool in that hospital. So, I know that most doctors don't look at it the way Whool does.

I would imagine that most of the 50,000 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

rockygirl wrote: I would

rockygirl wrote:

I would imagine that most of the 50,000 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

Mairen wrote: Whool

Mairen wrote:
Whool wrote:

And to be clear again to the other writers. I am not a doctor, I am not married to a doctor and I do not have any doctors in my family
It seems rather funny that this is the assumption if I'm not "bashing" them.

The assumption is to be expected because you are extraordinarily passionate about your perspective.

Whool, that be a presumption which due to "passion" as Marien puts it, not the word I'd use, but then again...

rockygirl wrote: I would

rockygirl wrote:

I would imagine that most of the 50,000 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

53,155.............

Mairen wrote: rockygirl

Mairen wrote:
rockygirl wrote:

I would imagine that most of the 50,000 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

I Agree 100%...Thank You! for pointing that out

heartthrob

heartthrob wrote:
rockygirl wrote:

I would imagine that most of the 50,000 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

53,155.............

Well, then I would imagine that most of the 53,155 people who have read it don't look at it like he does.

Whool wrote: ...As

Whool wrote:

...As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

My, my, my, Madam!! I hate to quote Med101, where he calls you the "VIRGIN goddess." If you're not the bitter, angry goddess, then you and she have a lot in common. You attack; you belittle; and you are both literary and artistic critics. Oh, I almost forgot! You, Whool, are a soap opera expert, unlike the goddess, who according to Med101, used to be an adult movie expert. How quaint!

What's wrong with the two of you? Or is it one? Oops!

An old Spanish saying: A thief judges by his own condition. In case your literary genius is a bit off...it means that a person judges another based on their own behavior. Have you ruined someone's reputation? Have you been malicious? Do you really give a rats ass about doctors, or do you just want to cause trouble?

Dan and Pam have been consistent in what they've said all along. If the good Dr. Calkins wanted to sue them, he would have done so already, but alas, he has not. Why? because what they say is true and documented. I think Dan has a right to tell his wife's story, however many chapters it takes. It's called "free speech." He's a damn good writer too!

Now, either get thee to a Nunnery or start contributing 75% of your salary to the doctors malpractice fund.

edit: I meant, "My, my, my, Dude," since I just found out you're a guy

There was another poster

There was another poster that criticized many on this board. Apparently, she also said she wasn't related to a doctor. She ended announcing that she was going to marry a doctor. She might have been a troll. Who knows. I would hazard a guess that you're not a troll. I figure you might know a son/daughter of a doctor. I don't mean to offend you but that is the 'vibe' I'm getting from you.

LEVICULUS_SCRIPTOR

LEVICULUS_SCRIPTOR wrote:
Whool wrote:

...As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

My, my, my, Madam!! I hate to quote Med101, where he calls you the "VIRGIN goddess." If you're not the bitter, angry goddess, then you and she have a lot in common. You attack; you belittle; and you are both literary and artistic critics. Oh, I almost forgot! You, Whool, are a soap opera expert, unlike the goddess, who according to Med101, used to be an adult movie expert. How quaint!

What's wrong with the two of you? Or is it one? Oops!

An old Spanish saying: A thief judges by his own condition. In case your literary genius is a bit off...it means that a person judges another based on their own behavior. Have you ruined someone's reputation? Have you been malicious? Do you really give a rats ass about doctors, or do you just want to cause trouble?

Dan and Pam have been consistent in what they've said all along. If the good Dr. Calkins wanted to sue them, he would have done so already, but alas, he has not. Why? because what they say is true and documented. I think Dan has a right to tell his wife's story, however many chapters it takes. It's called "free speech." He's a damn good writer too!

Now, either get thee to a Nunnery or start contributing 75% of your salary to the doctors malpractice fund.

edit: I meant, "My, my, my, Dude," since I just found out you're a guy

Ach meine kishkas!

Oh my guts?

Oh my guts?

Yeah.

Yeah.

JaneQPatient

JaneQPatient wrote:
LEVICULUS_SCRIPTOR wrote:
Whool wrote:

...As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

My, my, my, Madam!! I hate to quote Med101, where he calls you the "VIRGIN goddess." If you're not the bitter, angry goddess, then you and she have a lot in common. You attack; you belittle; and you are both literary and artistic critics. Oh, I almost forgot! You, Whool, are a soap opera expert, unlike the goddess, who according to Med101, used to be an adult movie expert. How quaint!

What's wrong with the two of you? Or is it one? Oops!

An old Spanish saying: A thief judges by his own condition. In case your literary genius is a bit off...it means that a person judges another based on their own behavior. Have you ruined someone's reputation? Have you been malicious? Do you really give a rats ass about doctors, or do you just want to cause trouble?

Dan and Pam have been consistent in what they've said all along. If the good Dr. Calkins wanted to sue them, he would have done so already, but alas, he has not. Why? because what they say is true and documented. I think Dan has a right to tell his wife's story, however many chapters it takes. It's called "free speech." He's a damn good writer too!

Now, either get thee to a Nunnery or start contributing 75% of your salary to the doctors malpractice fund.

edit: I meant, "My, my, my, Dude," since I just found out you're a guy

Ach meine kishkas!

Please do quote Med101. So I can see where he calls her a "VIRGIN goddess" or adult movie expert. These inside conversations are so confusing. Oh Levi your PM is off. So I sent it to Long in the Tooth.

I'm new to this site also. I

I'm new to this site also. I however did not come here to complain. I took the time to give a great Dr. great ratings. I think this website could be helpful to people looking for a good Dr. There are a lot of good ones out there but just like anything else, there are a lot of bad ones too.

georgia1986 wrote: I'm new

georgia1986 wrote:

I'm new to this site also. I however did not come here to complain. I took the time to give a great Dr. great ratings. I think this website could be helpful to people looking for a good Dr. There are a lot of good ones out there but just like anything else, there are a lot of bad ones too.

Welcome, Georgia Smiling

You understand what this site is about. I hope you stick around and join in the discussions.

Whool wrote: And I have no

Whool wrote:

And I have no doubt it was terrible to go through and that you suffered. And then opting to go forward for the valve replacement surgery, another procedure with known risks that you had to consent to, was difficult. But as much as you made it sound like there was no choice. There is always a choice. For the first procedure without a doubt it was elective. And also for the valve replacement. you could have said Yes or no.

Oh my, it's a good thing you're no a doctor, Whool:
Haemodynamic consequences of each type of rupture:
b) Mitral valve:
......"Complete transection of left ventricular papillary muscle —> sudden massive mitral regurgitation - not compatible with life."

Adventures in Cardiology wrote:

I was being told with increasing frequency that, while this surgery was not an emergency as such - and Pam was at liberty to refuse it - she would die if she elected to forgo it.“And we can’t wait too long,” “If we don’t do this right away, she will not make it.”

She was serious about not consenting to open heart surgery. I went out in the hall occasionally to tell the hovering surgical personnel that she will do it, just give me some time. They said that time was short.

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that gathering a signature from someone who’s doped up and crying because she’s literally just had part of her heart ripped out — and who has been told to sign or die — well it seems to me that violates the spirit of the ACC directive on informed consent. But what do I know?

Here is the informed consent supplement:

1. Indications for the operation:Acutely Leaking Heart Valve
2. Risks:Bleeding, Infection, Heart Attack, Stroke, Death
3. Alternatives to the Proposed Operation:Not to Operate

Well, there you have it — sign and maybe die, or don’t sign and definitely die — your choice, and either way you can’t blame Johns Hopkins.

There was a choice?

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

MisFit wrote: Was Stuff

MisFit wrote:

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

During consultation, success rates were grossly exaggerated, while risks were grossly minimized, and the fact that a trainee would be doing part of the procedure was completely withheld. The document stating that the trainee was at the wheel when the "accident" happened, that document was withheld until after the statute ran out. That document was added to the records once the hospital thought it unlikely that I might again request records. There is still documentation that should be in my chart that is missing.

When I had the heart perforation during pacemaker placement, the Xray that showed the perforation was *lost* by the hospital.

Now these were all *accidents* you understand.

pineappleprincess

pineappleprincess wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
LEVICULUS_SCRIPTOR wrote:
Whool wrote:

...As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

My, my, my, Madam!! I hate to quote Med101, where he calls you the "VIRGIN goddess." If you're not the bitter, angry goddess, then you and she have a lot in common. You attack; you belittle; and you are both literary and artistic critics. Oh, I almost forgot! You, Whool, are a soap opera expert, unlike the goddess, who according to Med101, used to be an adult movie expert. How quaint!

What's wrong with the two of you? Or is it one? Oops!

An old Spanish saying: A thief judges by his own condition. In case your literary genius is a bit off...it means that a person judges another based on their own behavior. Have you ruined someone's reputation? Have you been malicious? Do you really give a rats ass about doctors, or do you just want to cause trouble?

Dan and Pam have been consistent in what they've said all along. If the good Dr. Calkins wanted to sue them, he would have done so already, but alas, he has not. Why? because what they say is true and documented. I think Dan has a right to tell his wife's story, however many chapters it takes. It's called "free speech." He's a damn good writer too!

Now, either get thee to a Nunnery or start contributing 75% of your salary to the doctors malpractice fund.

edit: I meant, "My, my, my, Dude," since I just found out you're a guy

Ach meine kishkas!

Please do quote Med101. So I can see where he calls her a "VIRGIN goddess" or adult movie expert. These inside conversations are so confusing. Oh Levi your PM is off. So I sent it to Long in the Tooth.

http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/33866

astraea

astraea wrote:
pineappleprincess wrote:
JaneQPatient wrote:
LEVICULUS_SCRIPTOR wrote:
Whool wrote:

...As eloquent a narrative that you write ( 18 chapters!!! and not finished) trying to sweep us into an almost surreal world not unlike a soap opera of the 80's, it seems to be more an expression of your husbands testing his short story prowess than a statement of facts.

My, my, my, Madam!! I hate to quote Med101, where he calls you the "VIRGIN goddess." If you're not the bitter, angry goddess, then you and she have a lot in common. You attack; you belittle; and you are both literary and artistic critics. Oh, I almost forgot! You, Whool, are a soap opera expert, unlike the goddess, who according to Med101, used to be an adult movie expert. How quaint!

What's wrong with the two of you? Or is it one? Oops!

An old Spanish saying: A thief judges by his own condition. In case your literary genius is a bit off...it means that a person judges another based on their own behavior. Have you ruined someone's reputation? Have you been malicious? Do you really give a rats ass about doctors, or do you just want to cause trouble?

Dan and Pam have been consistent in what they've said all along. If the good Dr. Calkins wanted to sue them, he would have done so already, but alas, he has not. Why? because what they say is true and documented. I think Dan has a right to tell his wife's story, however many chapters it takes. It's called "free speech." He's a damn good writer too!

Now, either get thee to a Nunnery or start contributing 75% of your salary to the doctors malpractice fund.

edit: I meant, "My, my, my, Dude," since I just found out you're a guy

Ach meine kishkas!

Please do quote Med101. So I can see where he calls her a "VIRGIN goddess" or adult movie expert. These inside conversations are so confusing. Oh Levi your PM is off. So I sent it to Long in the Tooth.

http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/33866

Oh, Astraea, so what already!!!!! These attacks are getting old fast. You've yet to show where any member of this family has hurt you, all you do is link us to another attack you've made. Honestly, it's like dealing with a child. The only thing you're doing is making yourself look bad.

Why don't you do YOURSELF a favor, drop the seemingly unwarranted attacks, and get back to the intelligent postings you've shown yourself capable of making????

Hi ! I have to add my

Hi ! I have to add my opinion also! You say this is for bashing doctors & they can't reply?! I know of one doctor that has registered on this site under his name only , not using Dr. in front. Why? I don't know! But he can have his say if he chooses to.

I came on this site to voice what happened to me so others can judge the doctors I had before they elect to have surgery with these doctors! I wish , I had heard from others before I had surgery!! The doctor above is one surgeon I had & his work was so bad, I want other to know what I experienced!!

There are so few ways patients can share with others to aid them in making a wise choice!

many times a consent form

many times a consent form does not even play a part. after hearing from several attorneys and see the state laws they can be ripped apart by any good attorney. bottom line is many times not much use to anyone.

Hi Whool! Check out the

Hi Whool! Check out the rating feedback for Dr. Rasmussen (747118) or (660648) as these are replies by this doctor to a patient that gave him a negative rating!

He apoligises for his behavior and says he will try to be a better doctor! So, this site helps doctors who are willing to learn & improve.

But also, it is a site where we can help each other by sharing our experiences!

heartthrob wrote: MisFit

heartthrob wrote:
MisFit wrote:

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

During consultation, success rates were grossly exaggerated, while risks were grossly minimized, and the fact that a trainee would be doing part of the procedure was completely withheld. The document stating that the trainee was at the wheel when the "accident" happened, that document was withheld until after the statute ran out. That document was added to the records once the hospital thought it unlikely that I might again request records. There is still documentation that should be in my chart that is missing.

When I had the heart perforation during pacemaker placement, the Xray that showed the perforation was *lost* by the hospital.

Now these were all *accidents* you understand.

Just *accidents* huh.....Do you think they miss'd placed them, Are do u think it really was a Ummmm accident (?)

I don't intend to bash a

I don't intend to bash a doctor. But I am still upset about the way a doctor treated me, and there is no way to complain. Because he is a psychiatrist, he isn't the "crazy one".
He treated everyone in the unit this way, except for staff.
If someone had warned me about him, I would have had a different outcome. I don't think that's bashing.
He is a psychiatrist, he is young, I am old, and I have more knowledge of some things than he does. It is my brain we are talking about not his. But because he is a doctor and I'm the patient, he is automatically right and I'm wrong?
His main problem (I have degrees in Psychology and worked as a Social Worker for 25 years-- I'm not stupid) is that he is afraid of patients. He is obviously very nervous and this comes across to the patients. He has the facial expression of a 14 year old geek who has been asked to change a baby's diaper.
He is cold. The other staff members said, after I first spoke to him, "Oh, yeah. He isn't 'friendly'."
No, it's worse. I question the possibility that he has a rich doctor daddy or something. When I suggested that he take another residency in pathology at the end of our first ten minute "session", he got up and walked away without saying anything. OK, maybe I hit a nerve, granted.
NO, he does that with all the patients, and he does it every time.
A shrink with NO SOCIAL SKILLS is unacceptable. He doesn't even know how to begin and end a patient contact.
I felt dehumanized. Like a piece of dirt. Humiliated.
One patient returned to our group session in tears after talking to him. We were cut off by the "therapist" when we began to share stories.
I watched him laugh and chat with female staff members, so it is definitely a problem with patients, not people. THAT'S IT! He does't see patients as people!
The common myth these days is that shrinks "really know their chemistry."
WRONG! They know what drug sales reps tell them. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain. No blood tests or brain scans exist to determine such a thing. Hormones, blood sugar levels, maybe, but not the neurotransmitter theories they push. There are several books out now on this subject, and I spent the past year reading up on it. Wait and watch as this comes to light more and more... I hope it is in my lifetime.
When a young shrink is afraid of me for no reason, it makes me want to give him one. Just kidding.
But that is why I am participating in this forum. Not to bash. But human beings deserve better. I worked with poor and homeless people as a career, and I always saw them as human beings who deserve to be treated with respect.
This young doctor is a human being, and he deserves the advice I gave him. Go work with dead people.

I'm new, too. And I told my

I'm new, too. And I told my story. I have to agree that there are good doctors out there. I came to vent, did it, and now I hope to find a good doctor!
I hope this site helps, though I live in the US and most folks on here seem to be UK or Canadian.

kat ink wrote: I don't

kat ink wrote:

I don't intend to bash a doctor. But I am still upset about the way a doctor treated me, and there is no way to complain. Because he is a psychiatrist, he isn't the "crazy one".
He treated everyone in the unit this way, except for staff.
If someone had warned me about him, I would have had a different outcome. I don't think that's bashing.
He is a psychiatrist, he is young, I am old, and I have more knowledge of some things than he does. It is my brain we are talking about not his. But because he is a doctor and I'm the patient, he is automatically right and I'm wrong?
His main problem (I have degrees in Psychology and worked as a Social Worker for 25 years-- I'm not stupid) is that he is afraid of patients. He is obviously very nervous and this comes across to the patients. He has the facial expression of a 14 year old geek who has been asked to change a baby's diaper.
He is cold. The other staff members said, after I first spoke to him, "Oh, yeah. He isn't 'friendly'."
No, it's worse. I question the possibility that he has a rich doctor daddy or something. When I suggested that he take another residency in pathology at the end of our first ten minute "session", he got up and walked away without saying anything. OK, maybe I hit a nerve, granted.
NO, he does that with all the patients, and he does it every time.
A shrink with NO SOCIAL SKILLS is unacceptable. He doesn't even know how to begin and end a patient contact.
I felt dehumanized. Like a piece of dirt. Humiliated.
One patient returned to our group session in tears after talking to him. We were cut off by the "therapist" when we began to share stories.
I watched him laugh and chat with female staff members, so it is definitely a problem with patients, not people. THAT'S IT! He does't see patients as people!
The common myth these days is that shrinks "really know their chemistry."
WRONG! They know what drug sales reps tell them. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain. No blood tests or brain scans exist to determine such a thing. Hormones, blood sugar levels, maybe, but not the neurotransmitter theories they push. There are several books out now on this subject, and I spent the past year reading up on it. Wait and watch as this comes to light more and more... I hope it is in my lifetime.
When a young shrink is afraid of me for no reason, it makes me want to give him one. Just kidding.
But that is why I am participating in this forum. Not to bash. But human beings deserve better. I worked with poor and homeless people as a career, and I always saw them as human beings who deserve to be treated with respect.
This young doctor is a human being, and he deserves the advice I gave him. Go work with dead people.

I am with you on this. If it wasn't for the internet how could a patient possibly ever get widespread exposure for all the rotton things that doctors do. Other than telling
your family and friends the docs thing that the info will go no further thus not affecting their bread and butter. Now that that world is changing and bad doctors will
be paying attention or run thi risk of just such exposure happening to them.

Incidentally I remember reading something about people taking drugs in clinical trials and double blind experiments. I remember reading how a rep from the pharmaceutic company referred to the volunteers as "subjects" I don't think thats right and I think the terminology is probably alot more widespread. The medical schools are not teaching young doctors to think of their patients as patients but to think of them as subjects.

There are some badd Doctors

There are some badd Doctors and some good, Maybe if we post on the good as well to see that where not pointing at just all doctors, They can also put there 2 cents in if they feel that person is wrong about them JMO,

whatistruth

whatistruth wrote:

...pharmaceutic company referred to the volunteers as "subjects" I don't think thats right and I think the terminology is probably alot more widespread.

Would you prefer the word "clients"? Eye-wink

MisFit wrote: heartthrob

MisFit wrote:
heartthrob wrote:
MisFit wrote:

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

During consultation, success rates were grossly exaggerated, while risks were grossly minimized, and the fact that a trainee would be doing part of the procedure was completely withheld. The document stating that the trainee was at the wheel when the "accident" happened, that document was withheld until after the statute ran out. That document was added to the records once the hospital thought it unlikely that I might again request records. There is still documentation that should be in my chart that is missing.

When I had the heart perforation during pacemaker placement, the Xray that showed the perforation was *lost* by the hospital.

Now these were all *accidents* you understand.

Just *accidents* huh.....Do you think they miss'd placed them, Are do u think it really was a Ummmm accident (?)

My guess is, and always has been that the doctor burned them in his fireplace. Jawdropping!

Kat, In Canada, Social work

Kat, In Canada, Social work is one of our most overworked and underpaid disciplines. I can appreciate that with your work experience (segments of the population that are dear to me) it must have been quite trying for you in your attempt to connect with this fellow. It's quite possible that he doesn't have clue, as yet, as to what goes on "out there." There are lots of good ones and I know you'll find a doctor who will fit.

heartthrob wrote: MisFit

heartthrob wrote:
MisFit wrote:
heartthrob wrote:
MisFit wrote:

Was Stuff Deleted (?)

During consultation, success rates were grossly exaggerated, while risks were grossly minimized, and the fact that a trainee would be doing part of the procedure was completely withheld. The document stating that the trainee was at the wheel when the "accident" happened, that document was withheld until after the statute ran out. That document was added to the records once the hospital thought it unlikely that I might again request records. There is still documentation that should be in my chart that is missing.

When I had the heart perforation during pacemaker placement, the Xray that showed the perforation was *lost* by the hospital.

Now these were all *accidents* you understand.

Just *accidents* huh.....Do you think they miss'd placed them, Are do u think it really was a Ummmm accident (?)

My guess is, and always has been that the doctor burned them in his fireplace. Jawdropping!

Thats got too be rude. Lets say theres something in that file that tells others she can't take this pill or can't do other stuff whatever the means are, If your in the Hosp/ and they want a fallow up fast cause you can't wake up what would happen if they treat you and its not what helps you but gets you sicker whos at fault

I found this website today

I found this website today looking for some information on a doctor that I was planning on visiting. I am trying to find a knowledgeable doctor for thyroid and female hormone issues in Cincinnati, Ohio. I thought the review on the doctor that I found was very informative and based on that review I decided not to seek treatment from her. If I can barely understand her english then it would not be a good fit for me. If she rushed me through the appointment and did not take my being well informed into consideration then I did not want to see her.

Personally, I did not see the review as a complaint, merely an explanation as to what happened! Thanks for the help because it saved me a doctor's visit. I can move on to the next one that had good reviews on this site!

Family doctors, in

Family doctors, in particular, have very difficult and stressful jobs. I'm sure they do the best they can under very trying circumstances. The circumstances they work under, however, are partly of their own making. Some of the more negative ratings on this website may be the result of physicians seeing too many patients in a day. Perhaps they should scale back their appointments (and salaries) and spend more time listening to their patients. Yes, there are probably some unfair comments on this site but I bet most of the ratings reflect honest and sincere assessments of people's experiences. Open-minded MDs should read the reviews and, where warranted, adjust their approaches to increase patient satsifaction.

neilr wrote: Family

neilr wrote:

Family doctors, in particular, have very difficult and stressful jobs. I'm sure they do the best they can under very trying circumstances. The circumstances they work under, however, are partly of their own making. Some of the more negative ratings on this website may be the result of physicians seeing too many patients in a day. Perhaps they should scale back their appointments (and salaries) and spend more time listening to their patients. Yes, there are probably some unfair comments on this site but I bet most of the ratings reflect honest and sincere assessments of people's experiences. Open-minded MDs should read the reviews and, where warranted, adjust their approaches to increase patient satsifaction.

I think some specialists

I think some specialists likely have very difficult and stressful jobs too, and slowing down could avoid a lot of bad outcomes and bad ratings.
Nobody expects perfection, but you expect to be treated like a human being.

A successful physician I know

A successful physician I know had an ex-patient carrying a sign about how bad he was outside his office, and a big bad sign on his vehicle. This physician was not visibly disturbed by these actions and only said the patient could sue if they liked. If the compliant isn't true then this so called bashing shouldn't stick. Some postings here have been reprinted and attached to defame suits, which is the U.S. way of life. Hiring an attorney to make claims of defame and slander may not make it so. Just because a counter claim is formulated by an experienced attorney doesn't make it OK. The truth will come to the surface if you're patient enough. For the most I would say a physician filing a defame suit fears the truth; ie. if the bashing is false the physician should continue on with his stable practice. People have the right to complain about treatment, but should not lie about it.

My daughter died due to the

My daughter died due to the surgeon's negligence. Bled to death 12 hours after discharge.
See my blog for the whole story.

My daughter's Death via negligence:
Think about it, a surgeon is going to cut an 10 cm incision into your abdomen, move internal organs around, cut out a tumour and cut a section of your colon, then reattached the colon all done without antibiotics.

How on earth can they all state my daughter had the proper care and the "Standards of Care" were met when she had absolutely no antibiotics?
--- open abdominal surgery to remove a tumour and a colon resection done without the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis
----- abdominal incision infected oozing purulent fluid and all staples removed with no antibiotics given
----test result came back stating "many gram negative bacilli" (in same category as C Difficile) and still no antibiotics? She bled to death less than 12 hours after being discharged. Plus numerous other issues ignored.

I have tried by using all the so-called procedures to get transparency and accountability.

This surgeon is responsible for 4 deaths when the Chief Coroner's Office shut down his department in 2010 and brought in an expert. This was done secretly. This surgeon is responsible for at least 7 deaths that I know of, the most recent last December 2010-- a 27 year old woman. He has never been disciplined.

People who use this website at least can be warned and tell their loved ones and friends to no use this hospital and/or surgeon.

Arnold Kilby

Terra Dawn Kilby
"An Angel In Our Lives"
April 22/78 to July 21/06
http://anangelinourlives-awk.blogspot.ca/

condor wrote: A successful

condor wrote:

A successful physician I know had an ex-patient carrying a sign about how bad he was outside his office, and a big bad sign on his vehicle. This physician was not visibly disturbed by these actions and only said the patient could sue if they liked. If the compliant isn't true then this so called bashing shouldn't stick. Some postings here have been reprinted and attached to defame suits, which is the U.S. way of life. Hiring an attorney to make claims of defame and slander may not make it so. Just because a counter claim is formulated by an experienced attorney doesn't make it OK. The truth will come to the surface if you're patient enough. For the most I would say a physician filing a defame suit fears the truth; ie. if the bashing is false the physician should continue on with his stable practice. People have the right to complain about treatment, but should not lie about it.

The general idea of filing a defamation lawsuit is to make the truth surface more quickly. Of course, patients have a right to complain, and they should. At the same time, anyone, physician or otherwise, has a right to have their story (as well as the other party's) heard before a competent tribunal or court of law. Defamation is a destructive activity.

I think this website lets

I think this website lets patients vent and complain, true, but it's not like it's the same person complaining over and over again it's different people making similar complaints. Also people make compliments too, like I have. I have reviewed what other people have to say about doctors that I know and I can sympathize with them or see where they are coming from. It's hard to believe that you're not a doctor, and if your not you probably work in the health care field, or are connected to it somehow. This site is not just about complaining, it's about recommending doctors too. I say that if there is no review or no complaint that is a good thing. But if multiple people are complaining about the same thing, then it should be noted and the DR can use the feedback to improve their practice because they are getting honest feedback from the people they treat.

Since my daughter's death in

Since my daughter's death in 2006, I have done everything possible to find accountability and transparency with regard to her death, but all the institutions have failed in Ontario, Canada. So, this website, will at least let me send out a warning with respect to this certain surgeon and hospital. Hopefully saving lives. This surgeon is responsible for at least 7 deaths most recently in December of 2012. I only wished that this young 27 year old woman would have seen my blog post or other postings on other sites. It may have made her change her mind.

How on earth can they all state my daughter had the proper care and the "Standards of Care" were met when she had absolutely no antibiotics?
--- open abdominal surgery to remove a tumour and a colon resection done without the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis ----- abdominal incision infected oozing purulent fluid and all staples removed with no antibiotics given
----test result came back stating "many gram negative bacilli" (in same category as C Difficile) and still no antibiotics?
Plus numerous other issues ignored by all of the above.

Official Records for 22 October 2013
Hansard Transcripts
MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY
Mr. Steve Clark:

I rise on behalf of a constituent whose name should be familiar to every MPP. We’re just some of the many people Arnold Kilby has written to in his quest for truth behind the death of his daughter, Terra Dawn. She died seven years ago at the age of 28, following routine surgery at Humber River Regional Hospital.

Since that terrible day when his daughter died shortly after being discharged, Arnold has been on a mission—not for revenge, not for money. He wanted two simple things—two things he frankly should never have had to ask for, let alone wage a seven-year battle for that continues today. He wanted an admission that basic precautions weren’t taken prior to her surgery and afterwards, when it was clear something had gone terribly wrong. He also wanted what every parent would: an assurance that Terra Dawn’s death wasn’t in vain, that the mistakes made would lead to changes.

It proved to be a mission impossible. If the seven years of hell Arnold spent trapped in an alphabet soup of agencies tells us anything, it’s that true accountability and oversight of Ontario’s medical profession exists in name only. No patient or parent should have to endure this. I commend Sun Media columnist Alan Shanoff for bringing Arnold and Terra Dawn’s story to light.
That’s why today I’m calling on the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the College of Physicians and Surgeons to create a truly open and transparent medical oversight and accountability system.
***********************
ONTARIO, CANADA GRANTS SURGEONS/DOCTORS
“MEDICAL IMMUNITY”
The above title for this article is the absolute truth! After my seven plus year adventure searching for true transparency and accountability within Ontario’s health care system, I have come to accept this. The very institutions that supposedly protect patient safety are, in fact, covering up “adverse events” including deaths and harboring negligent surgeons and doctors. I am confident any Ontario citizen dealing with these institutions would agree.

To provide some brief background, my daughter Terra Dawn went to the hospital for a scheduled day surgery to remove a tumor from within her abdomen. Now the procedure was to be done in a minimally evasive manner. (Laparascopic Surgery). The surgeon discovered the tumor was attached to the colon. He decided to change the procedure to open abdominal surgery to remove the tumor and perform a colon resection. Unfortunately, for my daughter, he did so without administering the mandatory “antibiotic prophylaxis”. In fact, no antibiotics were administered at any time prior, during, or post operation even when the abdominal infection became very infected leading to all the staples being removed and test results indicating “many gram negative bacilli”. My daughter bled to death less than 12 hours after being released from this hospital as the colon resection broke down due to “necrosis of the tissue”.
The hospital took five months to provide me with the hospital records. I met with five administrators whereby they entered the room carrying only two blank scratch pads. They did not answer one single concern I addressed to them, except to defend their in-hospital mortality rate which was the second highest in all of Canada. After a three-year ongoing conversation, the COO of the hospital finally admitted there was no record of the antibiotic prophylaxis being administered. Of course, they would not provide any documentation I could use against the surgeon. They would not provide me with a copy of the internal hospital investigation. But, I do appreciate the hospital creating a memorial garden outside the main entrance with a plaque in Terra’s name. Thus, this is the first example of “medical immunity” given to the surgeon by a government funded (taxpayers’ dollar) institution.

The local investigating coroner informed me the Chief Coroner’s Office of Ontario had deemed the death unusual and was going go look into the matter further. I had looked forward to this until they rendered their decision. The motto for this office is “We Speak For the Dead To Protect The Living”. I would discover, after many years, this to be a fallacy. When it comes to investigating a death associated with medical care or lack there of, this Office will ignore the evidence even when pointed out to them.

This office denied my request for a public inquest, (they have never granted one involving a hospital), denied my request for my daughter’s death to go before the Patient Safety Death Panel, denied my request for an Eastern Ontario Regional Coroner’s Investigation, denied Mr. Robert Runciman my MPP, presently a Canadian Senator, to reconsider the public inquest, denied my request to assemble a Chief Coroner’s panel to look into Deputy Chief’s decisions, denied a request from the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office to meet with me and address my concerns and finally denied an Ontario Provincial Police Detective’s request to meet with me and address my concerns. No, instead they used their persuasive authority to contact the Toronto Metropolitan Police to investigate my e-mails. When the O.P.P. detective came to my home, he stated that the Chief Coroner’s Office had cut and pasted and taken my e-mails out of context. This was just an attempt to silence me! Did this stop my e-mailing and faxing? No! Behold, twice more I had to meet with this O.P.P. detective at the station for video taped interviews! Nothing even close to the laying of charges; it was merely a continued attempt to silence me. Gee, has this Office ever heard of “block sender” so they wouldn’t receive my e-mails? No, they wanted to continue to know what I might be up to. I found out later with the co-operation of the Chief Coroner’s Office this hospital department was shut down temporally in 2010 due to several (5 or 6) deaths similar to my daughter’s –bleeding to death. This is the second example of a government funded (taxpayers’ dollars) institution granting “medical immunity” to this surgeon.

The third institution is not funded by the Ontario government but is supposed to be overseen by the Ministry of Health. C.T.V.’s “W-5” and the Toronto Star have in the past exposed the failings of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. They have been granted self-regulation and Ontario citizens are to go to them if they have a complaint against a doctor/surgeon. I did and they appeared very sincere and helpful, but only to make my complaint weaker. They suggested I rewrite my complaint so it would be more concise and actually did it for me and asked me to consent to the rewrite. What a mistake that was, easier for them to dismiss, but fortunately when I appeal it, I include my original. This College rendered its first decision after seven months. I appealed it and the decision was sent back. It then took more than 400 days to receive the second decision that I immediately appealed. The third decision was done in record time and of course I appealed this. At this time it should be noted that no Canadian doctor/surgeon would offer up an opinion with regard to the care of another Canadian doctor/surgeon. So, to prepare for all of my appeals, I sent more than 3,000 e-mails to surgeons throughout the world. I received more than 100 responses providing me with valuable expert opinions. This was a complete waste of my time as all institutions ignored these opinions. It should be noted that the College and their own expert stated in the second decision with regard to the mandatory antibiotic prophylaxis that the surgeon “neglected” this and that this was an “oversight”. Being a teacher, I am quite aware the noun form of neglected is “negligence” which is exactly what I was maintaining. If one goes to the College website, the surgeon’s record would be spotless, not even the lesser punitive warnings will show up. The College only acts if there is a police investigation involved, just look at their decisions over the years. (sexual impropriety, selling or using illegal drugs, defrauding the government and oh yes, I did discover that a doctor was severely reprimanded for prescribing drugs to his neighbour’s dog. Of course the complainant for this was the College of Veterinarians)
Now, we have the third institution entrusted to protect patient safety opting to protect a surgeon’s reputation and grant this surgeon “medical immunity”

One may expect, as I continue my quest for transparency and accountability, I could depend upon two institutions funded by the Ontario government (taxpayer’s dollars) and created to give citizens another avenue to pursue should he or she feel the College of Physicians and Surgeons had erred and/or the Chief Coroner’s Office had erred.
These accountable institutions are, in fact, created to give the illusion that an Ontario citizen will not really recognize the mirage until they have closely examined it.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board is what I turned to next. Their mandate is to look into College decisions when a complainant submits a request within 30 days of receiving the College’s decision. I have made three requests and submissions to this board and had moderate success with the first two appeals and was totally bewildered by the third appeal decision. This Board can only examine to see if the College’s decisions are “adequate” and “reasonable”. I somehow expected the College’s decisions would be held to a higher degree! This Board totally ignored my expert’s opinions, the irrefutable facts contained within the hospital records, and documentation from medical books, journals, articles etc. and the panel without question accepted the College Of Physicians and Surgeons’ unsupported opinions. Oh yes, it should be noted that a College representative is not required to appear before this H.P.A.R.B. panel and they do not! Their attendance is via a telephone conference call even though the College’s Offices are within walking distance to the H.P.A.R.B. office building. I traveled over 300 kilometers to be present. This panel and the Board lack plain common sense. If H.P.A.R.B. felt they couldn’t do an “adequate” and “reasonable” job, it should be asking the Ontario Government through legislation to give them more authority. After all, all they can judge the College is on adequacy and reasonability! The fourth institution within Ontario to grant a surgeon/doctor “medical immunity”!

The fifth institution is the Death Investigative Oversight Council created to handle complaint against the Chief Coroner’s Office. Its own mandate states when an Ontario citizen submits a complaint against the Chief Coroner it is to be handled immediately.
Well, two years after my initial submission, they started to investigate.
It should be noted they failed immediately with respect to transparency and accountability as they meet behind closed doors and the complainant and the public is prevented from attending. Now there is an excellent start to a citizen’s complaint! When I received their decision approximately two and a half years after my submission, I was shocked to see they can not comment on the medical aspects of my daughter’s care!
So, why were they created as an avenue for one to pursue? Of course, any complaint against the Chief Coroner would have to be about a death investigation, and of course, it would have medical aspects related to the case. Again, we have another government funded (taxpayers’ dollars) institution within Ontario that has granted “medical immunity” to a surgeon by not challenging the effectiveness of a death investigation by the Chief Coroner’s Office of Ontario.

At this point, a reader may ponder, “Why did Mr. Kilby not pursue a malpractice suit?” Three law firms stated that the expense would be great, as would the amount of time that would go by. Should I win, the judgment would be between $45,000 and $135,000. This is not the United States of America. This was never about money, but the truth, transparency and accountability. As well, the Canadian Medical Protection Association (the medical insurer for all Canadian doctors) has of this date a Three Billion Dollar Reserve Fund to be used to provide legal council and to settle malpractice suit that would be the last thing they would do, and only after years of exhausting delays to a trial. Every trick in the book would be used with the intent of draining you financially, emotionally and physically. One must wonder why our own Ontario Government pays 85% of the surgeons/doctors membership fees (insurance) to the C.M.P.A.?

The final institution to grant “medical immunity” to Ontario surgeons and doctors is our Liberal Provincial Government, and unfortunately all MPP’s within Ontario whose salaries are paid for by Ontario taxpayers. I have sent e-mails, and faxes continuously throughout the years pleading for the Premier, his Ministers and his Caucus to look into my substantial and very serious concerns and have been totally ignored. Unfortunately, the Conservative and New Democratic Party have failed not only me but also all the citizens of Ontario. So they have become the final party to grant “medical immunity” to all surgeons/doctors within Ontario.

It is so wrong to think this, but I am convinced. In a hospital setting a surgeon/doctor could actually commit a murder and get away with it. They are getting away with negligence contributing to adverse events and deaths taking place in hospitals with no fear of being reprimanded or held accountable. The record of Terra’s surgeon remains spotless although there are more deaths associated with him, and there is no way for citizens to be aware of his past. This is the reality within Ontario.

I would propose the Ontario Government abolish the H.P.A.R.B.'s and the D.I.O.C.'s authority to investigate complaints submitted by Ontario citizens and use this financial savings to allow the Ontario Ombudsman to expand their role. (Ontario is the only province/territory whereby he does not have the authority to investigate Health Institutions or those related to it)

view whole story at:
http://anangelinourlives-awk.blogspot.ca/
*********************************
Why did woman die after routine surgery?
Terra Dawn Kilby died at age 28 — and no one is to blame?

By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun
First posted: Saturday, October 12, 2013 06:32 PM EDT

Arnold Kilby wants answers. He wants to know why his daughter, Terra Dawn, died at the age of 28 after routine surgery to remove a noncancerous tumour from her abdomen.
The operation took place in July, 2006 at Humber River Regional Hospital. Shortly after commencing the operation in a minimally invasive laparoscopic manner, the surgeon converted the surgery to an open operation.
The surgery was said to have been “uneventful,” in other words successful.
Terra was discharged on July 20. She was dead within hours of arriving at home and Kilby has been searching for answers ever since.
Among his questions: Why was Terra discharged when, according to a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, there were “consistent observations in the nursing charts of a foul odour and an oozing incision with large purulent discharge — commencing July 15 and continuing to the date of his daughter’s discharge”?
Why was she released when her abdomen was distended, at a time when she hadn’t had a normal bowel movement?
Why had the surgery taken place without the prior administration of antibiotics?
Kilby didn’t sue. He didn’t want money; he wanted an apology, an acknowledgment of error and a commitment to fix things.
So in 2007, he filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario complaints committee.
But the CPSO dismissed the complaint. In doing so, it couldn’t come up with any reason why Terra died.
Not satisfied, Kilby requested a review of the decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
The HPARB concluded the CPSO decision was unreasonable and sent the case back to the CPSO, directing it to address Kilby’s questions.
The second CPSO decision wasn’t much better.
There were answers of a sort, but the CPSO still wasn’t certain of what occurred. The direct cause of death could not be ascertained.
Yet the CPSO was clear no one was to blame and there were no grounds for a disciplinary hearing against the surgeon.
But the CPSO did caution the surgeon over his five-month delay in completing Dawn’s discharge summary and stated “the routine use of antibiotics prior to bowel surgery is an important aspect of care that was neglected by (the surgeon) in this case. The Committee would suggest that (the surgeon) consider the routine use of antibiotics in such circumstances. Having said that, we do not consider this oversight to have contributed to the unfortunate outcome in this case.” The surgeon was told he “may wish to consider” the use of preoperative antibiotics in future cases.
Of course Kilby sought review of the second CPSO decision. If the routine use of antibiotics prior to bowel surgery is “important” then why was the surgeon merely told to “consider” its use? How can we be sure the surgeon’s “oversight” did not contribute to Terra’s death?
The HPARB agreed and sent the case back to the CPSO.
The third CPSO decision didn’t advance the situation much further. There was still no answer as to the reason for Terra’s death. Kilby sought review by the HPARB for a third time.
But this time the HPARB decided to uphold the CPSO decision. It’s almost as if the HPARB threw up its arms and said, “we’re sorry, we tried to help you but we are up against a brick wall.” So, six years after the initial complaint, with three CPSO investigations and three HPARB reviews, no one seems to know why Terra died.
Barring any formal inquest, and Kilby has been denied his request to hold one, he still has no answers.
He only has the fact of his daughter’s death, which apparently occurred for no reason. No one is to blame. No one was at fault. No one has apologized.
But the hospital did create a memorial garden with a plaque in Terra’s name.
**************************

Secret medical cautions

CPSO’s remedial disciplinary action for doctors is kept confidential to protect docs’ reputations
alan-shanoff

From Mr Shanoff's second article

First posted: Saturday, October 19, 2013 06:33 PM EDT

Last week’s column on the unexplained death of Terra Dawn Kilby leads me to the topic of secret medical cautions issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

Cautions issued to doctors are a form of remedial disciplinary action taken by the CPSO.
They don’t constitute findings of negligence or professional misconduct. They are intended to be educational or remedial, to provide advice and direction to physicians.

The CPSO issued two cautions to Terra’s surgeon.
The first arose from the surgeon’s five-month delay in completing Terra’s patient discharge summary.
The CPSO cautioned the surgeon on the need for timely documentation of discharge summaries.
The second caution related to the failure to use antibiotics prior to Terra’s bowel surgery.
The CPSO cited the surgeon’s failure to use pre-operative antibiotics as an “oversight” and cautioned him to “individualize the use of pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics for patients where it is warranted”.
While the CPSO was generally satisfied with the surgeon’s care, these two cautions seem far from trivial, particularly since Terra died within days of her surgery.

They are the sort of thing that ought to be on the surgeon’s public record.
But even if you knew this surgeon’s name — and, of course, you wouldn’t because the cautions are not associated with his name on any public record — you wouldn’t find any record of these cautions on the CPSO site.
That’s because the CPSO treats its cautions as confidential, something the public isn’t allowed to access.
In addition, the CPSO doesn’t do any follow up to verify whether recipients of cautions modify their practice to comply with the cautions.
It’s almost as if the cautions don’t really exist, as if they’ve been issued solely as an attempt to placate angry complainants.
But why does the CPSO treat its cautions as confidential? Everyone knows doctors make mistakes.
If a doctor has made a mistake serious enough to warrant a caution, surely the public has a right to know.
But at present, the protection of a doctor’s reputation is considered more important than the public’s right to know.
That’s the case even where multiple cautions have been issued against the same doctor. Record not available
I’m not saying that’s the case with Terra’s surgeon because I don’t know. There is no record anyone can access to find the number of cautions issued against any doctor.

************************
And a response from a nurse to Mr Shanoff's articles:

I read with interest your article in the Sunday Sun October 13, 2013. titled “Why did woman die after routine surgery?”. I applaud you for bringing the circumstances surrounding this case to public attention. I feel it is a pity that innocent people must bare their hearts and their private lives in such a public fashion to get the attention they deserve and also to expose the injustice that permeated their lives.

As a former ICU nurse, who spent most of my nursing years in large academic teaching hospitals, I could say the reason for the woman’s death is a no brainer! However, not having seen the hospital records, I speak cautiously.

Several indicators from nursing records points to a “foul odour” and “purulent discharge” Both of these observations strongly point to an underlying infective process going on beneath the skin surface. Purulent discharge, as observed in this case, means the pus from the infection is significant enough in quantity that it is draining out wherever it can, which, after surgery, is usually through the operative incision. This is one of the VERY basic and elementary observations after any surgery. AND the procedure once the discharge has been observed, is to “swab” (do a culture of) the discharge, so that microbiology can determine the type of bacteria responsible. The microbiology / bacterial report then identifies which antibiotics would be best used to combat the infective process, so that appropriate antibiotics can then be ordered by the physician/surgeon. “Cultures” used to take a few days to process, but currently, preliminary results can be obtained the same day. Even without microbiology testing, surgeons have been educated to know what types of bacteria are most prevalent in certain situations.

I see no mention at all that the woman was started on antibiotics either on the 15th of July, the day the nursing records indicated the purulent drainage was first observed. or, at any point in time prior to the woman’s discharge. If this is the case would negligence be a good word to use here? It is a standard of Nursing Practice, to report such findings as “discharge” immediately to the Surgeon and obtain an order for antibiotics. If the hospital utilized the “Pathways” model of post-op care, then there should have been “standing orders” in place to give direction. Regardless, there is absolutely no excuse for antiobiotics not being ordered immediately when discharge was first observed.

It would seem to me that having had this discharge for 5 days…. at least for 5 days that it was observable…… where was the surgeon doing his post-operative checks on his patients? It is also a well know fact that abdominal infections are a dangerous game to play. It is also well known that by the time the infective process is observable on the surface of the skin at the incision, there is much more going on “inside”, beneath the skin surface. You are only seeing what is “overflowing”, so to speak.

Some surgical procedures are best handled with antibiotics given prophilactically prior to surgery, especially when the risk of infection is high (such as is the case with certain abdominal surgeries). Optimal post operative care and surgical ourcome is sometimes contingent on good pre-operative care. For both agencies, the CPS and the HPARB to give minimal attention to the fact that antiobiotics were NOT given, is totally inexcusable.. It is almost like they are denying the contribution this makes to the post-operative infective process…..like they are excusing themselves from antibiotics having any responsibility or role in the woman’s health… or lack of it. Malpractice? Whatever it is, this is inexcusable, both for the two review boards and for the surgeon..

Further to the infective process ongoing in this woman’s abdomen, the infection sometimes does NOT stop here. It is also a basic concept in medicine and very elementary, that infective processes, when untreated or not affectively treated, can evolve into septicemia (infection in the blood) and septic shock (where your body starts to shut down from the infection) ….. and death. This is the NO BRAINER ! This is where I fail to see how both agencies, the College and the Review Board, don’t seem to be paying any attention, whatsoever, to rudimentary medicine !!

I am also dismayed at the length of time it took for this surgeon to complete the Hospital Discharge Summary and I also assume that the operative records are included in this five month delay. Every hospital has policies governing the length of time physicians have to complete paperwork before hospital privileges are revoked…. Which means that that doc cannot practice in that hospital. Health Record Departments are very diligent in constantly reminding the offenders of unfinished paperwork and of consequential impending suspensions. Five months is a long time. Was this period of time within the framework of that hospital’s policy…. Or was his privileges suspended which prompted him to complete the operative records and then have his privileges re-instated? My biggest concern with incomplete or absence of prompt record keeping is that the margin of error increases exponentially as time passes.

I am also troubled by the reactions of the College and the Review Board. The shrugging -off of responsibility back and forth speaks to me of not wanting to address this issue and get to the bottom and be forthcoming with answers.,,,, or not wanting to give answers. Often in cases where there is compelling evidence of mismanagement and allegations of mismanagement, this behavior by The College is repeated. Is this a “big name” or prominent surgeon that is involved in this case, and both agencies are trying to minimize the impact on his career and reputation? Who is covering for who here? Having worked in the system for 46 years, I feel confident in saying that this is not an uncommon practice amongst physicians and also not an uncommon practice by the College. If you look at other “worst scenario” cases where there have been complaints or questions asked of the College, how many times have complaints been dismissed when the evidence is pretty compelling? The “Old Boys Network” is still alive and kicking even in this era of supposed accountability.

I also question the reason Humber River Regional Hospital would “create a memorial garden with a plaque in Terra’s name”. This is again not the “normal” or usual practice after a patient dies expectedly or unexpectedly, whether inside its doors or without. What does the hospital know that they are not telling….. or even worse, not admitting to. A friend of mine received a card and gift basket after being hit in an accident. Legally, this is an admission of guilt. Are we seeing the same admission of guilt here? Is this the hospital’s way of offering an “olive branch” to cloud the truth. I believe there is more to this than meets the eye.

I have many opinions about the Legal system in this great land of ours, but this may be the only way this poor father is going to get any answers to his questions. Docs are terrified of legal action, but it usually gets their attention. What is needed is a careful and shrewd lawyer who is knowledgeable in medical practice; that is, has available the academic knowledge with acceptable and competent medical practices required for this case, Armed with knowledge, should he delve into available information on this woman’s case, I am assured the answer should come pretty quickly.

No, the father has a very valid and heartfelt point of view when it comes to finding answers to his daughter’s death. Money does not bring your child back, and this reflects my own thoughts after I lost my son tragically at the same age. To lose a child, no matter the cause, is very painful, and for many years to come. The pain is magnified many times over, when negligence and stupidity is at the root of the cause of death. I admire his persistence and his thinking. However, in spite of our best hopes and well intended thinking, legal action may be the only way to eventually find the answer he seeks. My heart goes out to this father. I truly hope that some of the things I have said, will be of help in finding his answers; and maybe some day bring relief and comfort to his heavy heart.
******************************************
A PRIMER ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN ONTARIO
"Defamation is comprised of two subcategories between libel (libel refers to written defamatory statements)and slander(broadcasting of spoken defamatory words)

Proving a Claim in Libel and/or Slander
"the statement must be false!"

Defences to Actions in Libel and Slander
TRUTH--
"The first defence is the defence of truth. The defence can be made that the statement was truthful and therefore there was nothing false about the statement, meaning therefore, that the statement was not defamatory."

FAIR COMMENT--
"The second defence to an allegation of libelous statement is that the statements made were made as a fair comment. The defence of fair comment would be considered by the Court in situations where, by looking at the statement made, the facts and the situation, a conclusion can be made that the statements made were in actuality a fair commentary on the situation at hand and that the comments were fair and were not malicious."

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE--
"The defence of qualified privilege arises normally in situations where the individual publishing these statements will escape any liability if it can be proven that the public good could be furthered in open debate.
******************************************************************************

A PRIMER ON THE LAW OF

A PRIMER ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN ONTARIO
"Defamation is comprised of two subcategories between libel (libel refers to written defamatory statements)and slander(broadcasting of spoken defamatory words)

Proving a Claim in Libel and/or Slander
"the statement must be false!"

Defences to Actions in Libel and Slander
TRUTH--
"The first defence is the defence of truth. The defence can be made that the statement was truthful and therefore there was nothing false about the statement, meaning therefore, that the statement was not defamatory."

FAIR COMMENT--
"The second defence to an allegation of libelous statement is that the statements made were made as a fair comment. The defence of fair comment would be considered by the Court in situations where, by looking at the statement made, the facts and the situation, a conclusion can be made that the statements made were in actuality a fair commentary on the situation at hand and that the comments were fair and were not malicious."

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE--
"The defence of qualified privilege arises normally in situations where the individual publishing these statements will escape any liability if it can be proven that the public good could be furthered in open debate.
******************************************************************************

These quotes are either from

These quotes are either from a non-legal reference or they've been taken out of context.

AWK wrote:

A PRIMER ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN ONTARIO
"Defamation is comprised of two subcategories between libel (libel refers to written defamatory statements)and slander(broadcasting of spoken defamatory words)

Libel and slander are not sub-categories of defamation. It's the other way around. Slander is making of a statement containing a defamation. Libel includes slander and any form of defamation which may be recorded and reproduced. It may be a non-worded statement as in a suggestive graphic representation. Libel can also comprise the truth, where it is malicious and done with intent to harm reputation.

AWK wrote:

Proving a Claim in Libel and/or Slander
"the statement must be false!"

Libel is the only tort which (in Canada, the Commonwealth, and some twelve US states) where the burden of proof is on the defendant (to prove that the statement is the truth), rather than the plaintiff (to prove that the statement was false). A plaintiff needs only prove that a defendant called them a thief with the defendant being unable to prove that it was true, to prevail in court.

AWK wrote:

Defences to Actions in Libel and Slander
TRUTH--
"The first defence is the defence of truth. The defence can be made that the statement was truthful and therefore there was nothing false about the statement, meaning therefore, that the statement was not defamatory."

If a statement is true, was made with malice, and is part of a campaign of bringing harm primarily to ruin a plaintiff's reputation, it may still constitute libel. In some jurisdictions (check Criminal Code of Canada) it may also constitute criminal libel.

AWK wrote:

FAIR COMMENT--
"The second defence to an allegation of libelous statement is that the statements made were made as a fair comment. The defence of fair comment would be considered by the Court in situations where, by looking at the statement made, the facts and the situation, a conclusion can be made that the statements made were in actuality a fair commentary on the situation at hand and that the comments were fair and were not malicious."

From "The Law of Defamation in Canada", R. Brown:

"In order to be fair, it must be shown that the facts upon which the comment is based are truly stated and that the comment is an honest expression of the publisher’s opinion relating to those facts. Where a comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives to a person, it must be shown that such imputations are warranted by, and could reasonably be drawn from those facts.

"The comment must be made on a matter of public interest. It could be of public interest because of the importance of the person about whom the comment is made, or because of the event, occasion or circumstances that give rise to the opinion.

"The protection may be lost if it is shown that the comment was made maliciously, in the sense that it originated from some improper or indirect motive, or if there was no reasonable relationship between the comment that was made and the public interest that it was designed to serve [my emphasis]."

This is often where people get into trouble.

AWK wrote:

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE--
"The defence of qualified privilege arises normally in situations where the individual publishing these statements will escape any liability if it can be proven that the public good could be furthered in open debate.

Qualified privilege is an immunity from lawsuit, usually a lawsuit for defamation, for acts committed in the performance of a legal or moral duty and acts properly exercised and free from malice. If malice can be shown, qualified privilege is not a protection against defamation.

An example of qualified privilege would be statements made in the course of an employer's duties where one is commenting to another employer on an former employee who is applying for employment. Another is the immunity of the press from defamation charges for statements made in good faith, unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.

AWK wrote: ....He wanted an

AWK wrote:

....He wanted an admission that basic precautions weren’t taken prior to her surgery and afterwards, when it was clear something had gone terribly wrong. He also wanted what every parent would: an assurance that Terra Dawn’s death wasn’t in vain, that the mistakes made would lead to changes.

That is what patients and their families want and need after unsafe, ineffective care.

AWK wrote:

It proved to be a mission impossible. If the seven years of hell Arnold spent trapped in an alphabet soup of agencies tells us anything, it’s that true accountability and oversight of Ontario’s medical profession exists in name only.

From what I can see, these agencies contribute to unsafe, ineffective care.

AWK wrote:

That’s why today I’m calling on the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the College of Physicians and Surgeons to create a truly open and transparent medical oversight and accountability system.

The CPSO is looking at the principles related to transparency.

http://policyconsult.cpso.on.ca/?page_id=2420

From what I can see, the current system permits and promotes additional unnecessary harm instead of healing.

TRANSFORMATIONAL JUSTICE is needed.

Patients and their families should not have to endure years of unnecessary harm from not being heard, and not receiving the apology they deserve.

Likewise, doctors (and other healthcare providers) should be offered the choice of taking part in transformational justice. The CMPA and the CPSI could work together to offer this.

I am currently substituting a friend's story with my fantasy about transformational justice.

Instead of appearing for Examinations for Discovery on May 11, 2000 - the doctor and just one lawyer from the CMPA met with the patient and his family and their fully funded lawyer. Unbiased medical expert reports had been completed and the best two (determined by the lawyers and the psychiatrist), were purchased for a generous amount of money. The others received CME credits for their time. The medical expert for the doctor, and a medical expert for the patient were to be available by Skype if needed.

The goal of the day was to see if the doctor and the patient could undertake a recovery process, rather than a discovery process. If not, the next step would be a lawsuit.

The psychiatrist/professional mediator with excellent communication skills and mediation skills facilitated the recovery process.

The lawyers for the doctor and the patient each presented their stories, allowing time for questions and answers.

Then the doctor and the patient were allowed to share their thoughts and feelings.

There was learning, forgiveness and healing that day.

And it made all the difference - to the doctor, the patient, and every other patient in the future.

The past was changed, and it changed the future. It is a very healing fantasy, and it could permit and promote transformational healing.

More research is needed.

It would be nice if a trial

It would be nice if a trial was in fact a search and display of the truth. More often than not it is a demonstration of who has the most money and the time to spend it. I would call defamation a destructive activity for sure, however once its associated with the truth it sometimes can be demonstrative of real criminal activity. There are real criminals wearing the white coat, make no mistake, bringing them forward sometimes takes a little crime to get noticed. In the U.S., please do not make the mistake in thinking just because a court says something that it is anything close to the truth. The right to have a story heard often times comes from here--ratemds.com. I can tell you the health care in the U.S. is in a crisis. Both in quality and in finance. It needs a house cleaning. One way to do that is don't use it. Otherwise you're going to need luck.

condor wrote: It would be

condor wrote:

It would be nice if a trial was in fact a search and display of the truth. More often than not it is a demonstration of who has the most money and the time to spend it.

In Canada, that would very clearly be the CMPA.

condor wrote:

I would call defamation a destructive activity for sure, however once its associated with the truth it sometimes can be demonstrative of real criminal activity.

In Canada, rather than criminal activity, the problem could be a blind spot.

condor wrote:

There are real criminals wearing the white coat, make no mistake, bringing them forward sometimes takes a little crime to get noticed.

Here in Canada, I don't know if criminals wear a white coat, but I do believe the white coat is worn by people who need Transformative Justice.

condor wrote:

In the U.S., please do not make the mistake in thinking just because a court says something that it is anything close to the truth.

In 2004, I was told the truth. Doctors and lawyers play golf together. I was very naïve. In 2005, I learned the truth: "There is no justice" here in Canada.

condor wrote:

The right to have a story heard often times comes from here--ratemds.com.

That's true for Canadians too. However, doctors and lawyers are still on the golf course together - without the patient. Patients on Ratemds can be dismissed as "NUTS".

condor wrote:

I can tell you the health care in the U.S. is in a crisis. Both in quality and in finance. It needs a house cleaning. One way to do that is don't use it. Otherwise you're going to need luck.

The vast majority of doctors in Canada are competent, ethical doctors. Look at RandomThoughts Twain, and Chris Aldridge for example. There is full disclosure with Chris; I would know what to expect if I needed a pain doctor. (Thank God I don't!) The other two - it's purely chance. You're really lucky if you have a good family doctor like Twain, (I do), and if your situation is a matter of life and death - you couldn't get luckier having an E.R. doctor like R.T. Smiling

Still, you could get unlucky and get a doctor very simply unworthy of his white coat on the day you see him. Nobody is perfect.

To increase your odds of good health, Canadian patients need to be PROACTIVE.

PROACTIVE PATIENTS AND ACCESS TO TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE is the answer, IMHO.

I agree with most of what you

I agree with most of what you said condor, but I completely disagree that our healthcare in the US lacks in quality. There are a few bad apples that should be in prison no doubt, but that is not the majority of our doctors.

People should avoid our healthcare system. We put way too much confidence in a doctor's ability to fix everything. No one should undergo surgery unless his or her life depends upon it. It is a risk. Patients need to do their homework and with the Internet as a resource homework is a lot easier these days.

Surgery with the hopes of relieving extreme persistent pain is not elective in my opinion. If a person can manage their pain, still function and enjoy life I think they are better off avoiding surgery.

This website is not unfair to doctors. It's about time patients have a place where they can share their experiences.

The information about

The information about defamation(libel and slander) was taken from a Toronto Law Firm.

AWK wrote: The information

AWK wrote:

The information about defamation(libel and slander) was taken from a Toronto Law Firm.

Well, it's either out of context or needs to be edited for clarity. What firm?

My references include http://www.duhaime.org/Faculty.aspx (a family which has provided expertise in legal education in Canada and the US for generations, authored various legal dictionaries in contemporary use, and been involved in development of law school curricula), as well as the Criminal Code of Canada.

Of interest to all Bloggers

Of interest to all Bloggers and further clarification of Defamation. IF YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE BASED UPON FACTS THEN YOUR WORDS CAN BE DEFENDED IN THE COURT. But be sure you speak truthfully. The rules of defamation are very complex. The Primer I spoke of is simplified and true.

Justification

The law will not permit a plaintiff to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he or she either does not, or ought not, to possess. Justification, or truth, is a complete defence.

The law presumes in favour of the plaintiff that the words complained of are false, and the defendant must disprove this. Justification must be as broad as the defamatory imputation itself. The defendant must prove the truth of all material statements contained in the libel. It is the imputation contained in the words that must be justified, not the literal truth of the words.

Fair Comment

A fair comment on a matter that is of public interest or is submitted to public criticism is not actionable, even if it is defamatory. The right to fair comment is one of the aspects of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression, and the courts are zealous to preserve it unimpaired. The jury are the guardians of public comment as well as of private character. It is only on the strongest of grounds that a court will set aside a verdict for a defendant when fair comment is pleaded.

The defence of fair comment requires the defendant to establish that: (a) the words complained of are recognizable by the ordinary viewer as comment, although the comment may consist of, or include inferences from, facts; (b) the comment is based on true facts set out in the article or broadcast or clearly indicated in it; (c) the comment is on a matter of public interest; and (d) the comment is one which a person could honestly make on the facts proven, and some authorities indicate must, at least if it imputes dishonourable motives, be fair, in the sense that a fair-minded person could believe it.

The defence fails if the plaintiff shows that the defendant was actuated by express malice. It is here that the question of actual belief in the comments made becomes an issue.

“Comment” does not mean merely “opinion”. Comment is something which can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, or the like. Fair comment protects only comment or opinion; it does not protect statements of fact.

Fair comment must be a comment on a matter of public interest. In general this consists of two broad categories: matters in which the public in general has an interest, and matters submitted to public attention and criticism. Matters of public interest are very numerous. It is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others. “Public interest” is not to be confined within narrow limits.

Burden of Proof

The burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based. The defendant must also prove that the subject-matter is one of public interest, that the words are a fair comment on it, and that the views expressed are ones which could honestly be held. The plaintiff has the burden of proving malice.

Also see: Libel and Slander Act

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l12_e.htm

AWK wrote: Of interest to all

AWK wrote:

Of interest to all Bloggers and further clarification of Defamation. IF YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE BASED UPON FACTS THEN YOUR WORDS CAN BE DEFENDED IN THE COURT. But be sure you speak truthfully. The rules of defamation are very complex. The Primer I spoke of is simplified and true.

AWK, your primer is not entirely accurate, such as truth effectively being an absolute defence. While it constitutes a valid defence, it is not absolute, particularly for purposes of CCC Sub-section 300(1), which states 298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published. The section is used when someone bends the truth and embarks on a malicious campaign to ruin someone's reputation. Notice that the sub-section refers to "matter" and not "defamation" or "libel" in defining "defamatory libel".

Criminal libel is defined at being malicious libel which of itself constitutes a breach of the peace or seriously or significantly injuring the reputation of another person. In R v Stevens, Justice Twaddle of the Manitoba Court of Appeal succinctly described the offence as "character assassination".

Opinions are just that; they are not statements, and as such, while they may be truthful in nature, they do not necessarily constitute the truth.

You may wish to read a little more on the narrow definition of "truth" at http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/62699. If your lawyer lost several cases for you, making him technically "a loser", and you wrote "that scumbag loser lawyer of mine", you'd likely find yourself in trouble, for malicious libel. In conveying the truth, statements alone, as well as when taken in the whole, must be accurate and fair, and conveyed without malice, for "the truth" to constitute a defence. It does not operate as a piecemeal defence. Further, if you refer to someone as "a thief", having full knowledge that they were convicted of theft forty years ago, you could be in trouble if the court reasoned that the public reasonably inferred the statement to mean that the person continued to be of poor character.

In addition, revealing that a person has a debilitating disease may be defamation, if it was done solely to hurt the person's reputation. Therefore, "truth" is not always a complete defence to defamation in Canada (this is especially so in Quebec;

Is this the Toronto law firm you wrote of? "Dawg’s Blawg" is not an authoritative reference. It's a starting point on the subject. It's also very dated (2009). Since that time, there have been many changes in libel law in Ontario and BC, these two provinces observing the other's precedents.

AW wrote:

Also see: Libel and Slander Act

If you rely on this, you may be misleading yourself. You need to read it in conjunction with:

Ontario lower court rulings
Ontario Court of Appeal rules regarding interpretation of the Libel and Slander Act
Ontario Court of Appeals judgments (e.g., it overturned the single publication rule (http://thetrialwarrior.com/2013/06/18/ont-c-a-libel-and-slander-act-notice-and-limitation-periods-apply-to-internet-libel-single-publication-rule-rejected))
BC Supreme Court (user names can be sued now and identified later)
BC Supreme Court (decision as to where comments are deemed to have been published)
Supreme Court of Canada rulings on cases, as well as questions

The law of libel and slander in Ontario (as it has been interpreted and amended by at least three courts, since 1990) includes a new defence.

Responsible communication on matters of public interest
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:

the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.

The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”

MicOnTheNorthShore

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

The general idea of filing a defamation lawsuit is to make the truth surface more quickly.

If that is the truth, then the Investigator from the College and Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario who tried to sue me must believe she did nothing wrong in her investigations. In my opinion, there should be laws against what she did and what she didn't do.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Of course, patients have a right to complain, and they should.

Although I still believe patients should complain, I believe patients should not expect to have their concerns listened to. I also believe patients should expect the doctor to lie to the College (because it is "normal" for a doctor to lie to protect himself), and patients should be prepared to have the College protect the doctor at the expense of patients' health and safety. At some point, a tipping point may be reached, and the College may see the truth.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

At the same time, anyone, physician or otherwise, has a right to have their story (as well as the other party's) heard before a competent tribunal or court of law.

The College Complaints system doesn't work this way. The patient's story is not heard before a competent tribunal. The investigator's version of the story is heard. From what I can see, that version is a biased version, gained from a biased investigation where the true story can be covered up. Patient's records are not questioned. OHIP records are not questioned. Evidence from other health care providers can be disregarded or highlighted to bias the story as needed to protect the doctor.

From what I have seen, the College works with the doctor's lawyers throughout the investigation. The CMPA lawyers' story is heard. The doctor's story is supported and defended. I can only imagine what the CMPA, a mutual defense organization, would advise doctors who are asked for information from the College.

Stare

With the doctor's story and the CMPA lawyers' story the patient's voice is not heard.

MicOnTheNorthShore wrote:

Defamation is a destructive activity.

Silencing is a destructive activity.

Silencing the patient's voice in order to protect anyone and everyone wearing a white coat is unethical. Patients need to be heard in order to heal.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.