Using the M word When It Comes To Protecting One's Parent(s) or Family

[Guest guest]

Re Your open and honest communication with doctors,

you might find the following article worthwhile. In

addition to medical records, incident reports, which

you cannot access, could be used to signal other

health professionals about what you are reported to

have said. ( " Patient became angry and threatening. " )

Think Totalitarian State. Best Advice-Avoid doctors

in the first place. If you must see one, Zip the Lips.

Some Asian needs to give classes for those of us who

don't know how to live in a Totalitarian State.

 

Printed from Windsor IMC

http://windsor.indymedia.org/ [return]

 

--

Commentary: Civil & Human Rights

--

 

DEADLY MEDICAL PRACTICES

by Trudy Newman

Email: n_trudy (at) (verified) Current

rating: 0

26 Sep 2003

Most patients go to their doctor in good faith that

they will receive the care and attention that they

need. Patients trust that their physician will have

their best interests at heart. Many people are not

aware that there is a seedy side to medicine.

There is a practice in medicine known as COVERT

RATIONING that threatens the doctor-patient

relationship. The public should be aware that the

medical profession does not treat all patients

equally. There are basically two different

stratifications with patients being given a

designation of either “high priority” or “low

priority.” Patients with a high priority status will

receive the best care available. Patients who,

unbeknownst to them, are given a low priority status

will receive only minimal, rationed or experimental

care. Patients are under tested and under treated—if

they are treated at all. Alternatively, patients with

a low priority status may be over tested, but they

will be denied proper care or treatment. The patient

may find that he is tested to death with the wrong

tests being ordered for his condition. Especially

vulnerable are those with chronic illnesses, the

elderly, and any others whom physicians deem

undesirable. Covert rationing is the same practice

that was utilized by German doctors in Nazi Germany.

 

Patients who dare to question or challenge their

doctor’s authority, or the medical treatment that they

receive, may find that they become BLACKLISTED (i.e.

denied specialist care). Physicians demonstrate a

stronger allegiance to their colleagues, than they do

towards their innocent and trusting patients. Patients

with iatrogenic illnesses often become victims of the

blacklist. The problems usually start when medical

mistakes are made (either intentionally or

unintentionally) and denied. Then the lies and

cover-up begin. Documents are often modified,

falsified, mysteriously disappear, or important

information is excluded from the record. Doctors will

go to great lengths to avoid being held accountable,

and are generally protected by their professional

associations. Once the patient is blacklisted he can

then expect to be subjected to character assassination

from the medical profession. The patient can

anticipate being attacked, discredited and demonized.

How dare a patient challenge a doctor's authority? To

avoid taking any responsibility for their errors,

actions or behavior, doctors--and their governing

bodies--will often employ the same tactics that

communist countries use to quash political dissent.

The patient will be labeled " difficult " or

" psychiatric. " Such pejorative labels are given to

divert attention away from the negligent, incompetent

or malpracticing doctor. Patients should not take such

labels personally, because these labels say more about

the physicians than they do about the patients.

Blacklisting is not an error. Blacklisting is an

intentional act.

 

Because a patient is dealing with their doctor in good

faith, it will often take a patient several years to

realize what is happening. Once the veil has been

lifted and the trusting patient realizes that he is

being blacklisted, and is no longer in denial, he may

initially experience a sense of shame questioning what

he did wrong to deserve such treatment. This shame is

usually transient, because after careful examination

and reflection the patient rightfully realizes that he

is truly the victim. Sensitive patients may experience

shame for the doctor’s depravity and lack of moral

character. The patient will then move on to experience

a righteous indignation. Because of the incredible

abuse that a patient endures, he will often experience

unbelievable pain, suffering, distress and intense

anger. Unfortunately, patients are often isolated and

left to try to deal with this trauma on their own.

 

Patients who pursue the complaint process through the

College of Physicians and Surgeons--because of the

substandard care that they have received--often find

that they are victimized a second time, because their

complaints are not dealt with honestly, fairly or

objectively. In the letter that outlines the

conclusions of the review, the patient may find that

he is attacked by the very organization he was

petitioning for assistance. Patients discover that

there isn’t an independent outlet to correct and

resolve physician error or problems. This additional

abuse from the complaint process exacerbates the

existing trauma and isolation that the patient is

already trying to deal with.

 

In attempting to pursue justice through the legal

system, patients often find that the door is closed to

them. Additionally, doctors are protected by the

government, as well as by their professional and legal

associations. Patients do not have any protection.

 

Because of the medical profession’s CODE OF SILENCE,

the public is often unaware of physicians’ corrupt

practices of covert rationing and blacklisting

patients. Many patients are afraid to speak out about

these abuses, because they fear RETALIATION by the

medical community. Retaliation is a legitimate fear.

 

Patients will often find emotional healing only when

they are able to connect with other patients who are

also being abused and bullied by the medical

profession.

 

To receive any meaningful medical treatment,

blacklisted patients often turn to alternative

medicine.

 

As a society, Canadians are in desperate need of an

independent agency with the mandate to independently

investigate, adjudicate and resolve patient complaints

in a timely manner. It is imperative that there be

legislation requiring full disclosure and mandatory

reporting of all medical error, injury and/or harm to

patients and that patients be informed of such and

receive proper redress. The current complaint system

with the College of Physicians and Surgeons must be

abolished. The cozy setup of self-regulation within

the medical profession has gone on far too long. It is

high time that “professionals” be held accountable for

their actions and inactions.

 

We live in dark and dangerous times. These are times

that try mens’ souls.

 

PATIENT BEWARE!

 

 

RESOURCES

 

1) The Grand Unification Theory of Health

http://www.yourdoctorinthefamily.com/grandtheory/default.htm

 

 

2) Why Do We Need Patient Protect

http://www.patientprotect.org/

 

3) Patient Protect

http://www.patientprotect.com/en/index.html

 

4) Pre-MEDitated Medical Malpractice on the

Defenseless

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Medical/premed_malpractice.htm

 

 

5) American Doctors, or Nazi Doctors

http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1006.html

 

6) The Nazi Doctors and Nuremberg: Some Moral Lessons

Revisited

http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15aug97/naziedit.htm

 

 

7) " Doc Knows Best " (Futile-Care Theory)

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith010603.asp

 

 

8) Suffers of Iatrogenic Neglect

http://www.sin-medicalmistakes.org/AboutSIN2.html

 

9) American Iatrogenic Association

http://www.iatrogenic.org/index.html

 

10) Iatrogenesis and Misdiagnoses

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eye-openers/iatrogenesis.htm

 

 

11) MEDICAL: Tips for Detecting Altered Medical

Records

http://www.kandsonline.com/art_001.html

 

12) My " 5 Minutes "

http://www.hepatitiscfree.com/messages/2003/march11-2003.htm

 

 

13) Dangerous Minds

http://www.undercover-medicine.com/s3/s2/article49.shtml

 

 

14) Mediation Considered for Complaints Against

Doctors

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_doctors20030210

 

 

15) Glasnost Report

http://www.collegeofphysicianswatchdog.com/userfiles/page_attachments/1378647_GL\

ASNOST.pdf

 

 

16) How I Am Using " Legal " Remedies to Treat the

College of Physicians and Surgeons

http://www.drjerrygreen.com/my_alive_article.htm

 

17) The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=22260 & group=webcast

 

 

18) In the Doctor's Corner (Canadian Medical

Protective Association)

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030211_cmpa/main.html

 

 

19) Judge Dismisses Hantavirus Lawsuit Against Doctor

http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory.asp?id=9A07F177-077C-4C0F\

-B532-AF5B9E519BCD

 

 

20) When Nurses, Doctors and Social Workers Keep

Silent

http://www.hospicepatients.org/hospic53.html

 

21) Patients in Arms

http://members.aol.com/carmilarms/PatientsInArms.htm

 

22) The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation

http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

 

 

Trudy Newman

Email: n_trudy (at)

..

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

AS,

 

I do not know whether it was you who wrote that post

about " blacklisting " by doctors, etc, or someone else. But this

cannot be bad:

 

" To receive any meaningful medical treatment,

blacklisted patients often turn to alternative

medicine. "

 

Sounds like being " blacklisted " might actually be a benefit!

 

Secondly, whoever wrote that keeps referring to people treated by

doctors as " patients. " I have not used the term " patient " for years.

If I see a doctor, I am his client, not his " patient, " and he is

working for me, just as if he were a plumber, carpenter or accountant.

 

I expect that those who are elderly and helpless or those who are

ignorant could fall victim to the practices mentioned. But I would

not allow myself to be victimized by a doctor or doctors in such a

fashion, nor do I believe I have been.

 

In his book, " Examining Your Doctor, " Dr. Timothy McCall mentions

some of what you are talking about, including the " White Wall " of

silence doctors put up around themselves. I am going to reread the

book to see what he says about the phenomenon and how to combat it.

 

Best wishes,

 

Elliot

[Guest guest]

Re the blacklisting article, it was written by

Elizabeth La Bozetta of victims of laparoscopic

cholecystectomy.

A lawyer would never let you visit a doctor alone

because he knows how easy it is for the to

misrepresent your words, especially if there is some

kind of percieved problem with you. As you know, the

system is rigged to let doctors get away with literal

murder.

Doctors have been known to lie, twist, embroider

facts, delete key details, create entire discussions

that never took place, all in a permanent electronic

medical record which other doctors will see each time

you are seen in the future. Doctors in trouble are

especially fond of trying to make the patient look

emotionally unstable or irrational. A firm statement

on your part could be exaggerated as, " Patient became

angry and agitated and threatened a malpractice

lawsuit. " You might say, " Who cares. " but with the new

HIPAA laws and Homeland Security, you might find

yourself in unexpected problems crossing the border or

taking a plane, for example. Other doctors in the HMO

might all shun you or the patient you were defending.

Doctors are often very antagonized by an educated

assertive patient, so it's hard for someone such as

yourself to get along in their subculture.

I'm talking about a reality the average patient is

unaware of, so I understand if you find it hard to

believe.

 

 

What Doctors Didn’t Want Me to Know about Gall Bladder

Surgery http://www.a-r-m.org/gallblad.htm by Elizabeth

E. LaBozetta, editor, Mongoose News, Central Ohio

Patient’s-rights Service. Originator of The Support

Network (for injury victims of laparoscopic

cholecystectomy) 1562 Picard Road, Columbus, Ohio

43227-3296 (614) 235-0421 In the winter of 1990-91

laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in Ohio.

The newspapers ran articles extolling the virtues of

this new technology saying: " Patients recover faster

and return to work sooner, have smaller scars! The

one-day stay in the hospital saves money for health

insurance companies! " Prospective patients were given

packages of information telling only good things about

this new procedure, both hand-made by the medical

community itself and also color brochures created by

the laparoscopic equipment manufacturers. The color

brochures begin with a drawing of a woman bent over in

agony and finish with a picture of her after the new

laparoscopic cholecystectomy smiling and enjoying time

with her family. There were other articles being

written by the medical community at this time but

these articles were not given out to prospective

surgery patients: these were articles written by

doctors for doctors and appeared in all the major

medical trade journals; these articles, written by the

top biliary specialists in America, told a very

different story of injury and death than the upbeat

and encouraging material created for and handed out to

the prospective patients. For example, the printed

material I was given says " bile duct injury is a

SLIGHT risk " and if it occurs will be handled properly

and promptly. I came to learn the hardest way possible

that neither statement was true. And much too late I

learned that at the same time my surgeon was handing

out this misleading printed material to prospective

surgery patients he had co-authored two articles about

laparoscopic cholecystectomy that appeared in two top

medical journals and expressed concern about the true

injury and death rates. This expression of concern

about the very high injury and death rates associated

with this new procedure in its introduction phase was

expressed by many surgeons and is heavily reflected in

the literature written by doctors for doctors from the

years 1991-1995. Unfortunately the prospective surgery

candidates were not given this " other " information and

allowed the opportunity for a true informed consent

because if they had been told the truth and allowed

access to the same information available to doctors

nobody in their right mind would have exposed

themselves to such a dangerous thing. A thing is

either dangerous or it isn’t, people are being injured

and killed or they are not: both statements cannot be

true. Yet my surgeon was handing out material saying

one thing to patients and writing the exact opposite

to other doctors. The lying started before I ever

entered his office for the first time. In June of 1991

I woke up to a boring pain at the pit of my stomach.

I’d been having problems with indigestion at night. My

husband had been ill several months, had been

hospitalized for a few weeks in the winter, and

because I had three children and a home to care for

figured that the extra work and stress was getting

hold of me. So when I woke up to that continuous pain

I knew I’d better seek relief from my family doctor

pronto because with my husband so debilitated and

struggling to recover we could not afford two health

problems going on at once. My family doctor prescribed

Tagamet, Librax, and Tylenol 3. The symptoms subsided.

I was fine for a while then things flared up again.

One night in July I started vomiting. I went to the

emergency room at Grant Medical Center. I was told I

needed my gallbladder out and to " stop fooling around

and just have it done—the hospital has this easy new

way of doing it, so what am I waiting for? " I was

given a referral to a surgeon before leaving. Months

later when I was more experienced I wondered at how

the E.R. doctor arrived at his conclusion because no

definitive testing was performed: all I had was blood

work and a short examination. I made an appointment to

see the surgeon I was referred to and got shifted to

the newest member of that group since the surgeon

whose name I was given was leaving the state. The

nurse took a history and the surgeon came in and did a

short examination, set up a couple of tests, told me

he was excited because Grant Medical Center had just

purchased new laser equipment---laser dissection was

superior to electrocautery, he told me, because it

cuts and cauterizes at the same time and reduces

bleeding. He actively discouraged the alternate

treatments for gallstones: lithotripsy and ursodiol

dissolution, said " once a person makes gallstones they

will always make gallstones—surgery is better because

it is permanent! " He’d done plenty of these

procedures, he assured me, and told me there were no

deaths and just one injury---a bile duct was nicked,

no big deal, and it was closed with one stitch. He

said that if a bile duct is severed it’d be patched

with a piece of small bowel, and if nicked closed with

a stitch. I was left with the impression that

everything would be taken care of and any potential

problems were easily fixable. It was not true. What I

wasn’t told is that a bile duct injury is a major

disaster and is almost irreparable in even the best of

hands, requires prompt repair from a biliary

specialist at a specialty center equipped to handle

such complicated tragedies. Biliary repair is not for

the novice: longevity, morbidity and mortality, is

determined by early proper repair by experienced

hands. I did not know that most injury victims would

not be offered that biliary specialist referral at a

specialty center either: we’d be " patched " , lied to,

and sent home to die wondering what happened to make

us so sick. There is a one-month window of opportunity

to correctly repair a bile duct injury and its

resultant stricture before progressive and permanent

liver damage sets in. After that, cirrhosis and

fibrosis comes and an infectious process that is

almost untreatable. This infectious process erodes

heart, liver, joints, spleen and kidneys. The symptoms

are all over the body. In 1991 I did not know the

things I know now and had no way of knowing that the

testing my surgeon ordered, just ultrasound and chest

x-ray, is not the definitive testing for gallstones:

ERCP and cholecystography are. I did not know about

infection possibilities and helicobacter pylori

either. I had stomach symptoms. Later I learned almost

nobody really needs their gallbladders out at all,

that even if a person has gallstones there is nothing

wrong about choosing to repeat the non-invasive

therapies as many times as necessary. I had the

laparoscopic cholecystectomy August 9th, 1991. A

resident physician performed it without my knowledge

or consent and the consent form I was given makes no

mention of a resident substitution for the licensed,

credentialed, already-practicing doctor I had chosen

to do it. With this new procedure, outcome is directly

related to experience; I believed I was getting the

man I picked never suspecting that once on the table

I’d be getting a trainee. The doctor trainee severed

the bile duct, patched it with a piece of small bowel,

and I was sent home to die, deliberately kept ignorant

of what had happened and left wondering why I was so

sick, getting sicker. The horror of those days is

beyond words and when I remember all that I suffered

in 1991 to 1993 at the hands of my surgeon and his

consultants. I have to wonder how they are able to

sleep at night: I went back to my surgeon for help

when I developed a septic complication and he ran me

around to consultants who verbally abused me, called

me a " hypochondriac " even in the face of testing that

showed abnormal liver functions, heart problems,

kidney problems---and none would help me. I got lots

of testing but no actual intervention. The doctors I’d

see on my own wouldn’t take me as a patient, would see

me once or twice, maybe order some further testing,

then say I had to return to my surgeon for care, kept

tossing me back to him. They’d say: " I don’t want to

get involved " . Involved in what? Nobody would tell me.

The medical bills stacked up and up for all that

" care " I never actually got. For the first time in my

life collection agencies started to call me demanding

payment. I owed Grant Medical Center hundreds of

dollars. With no job where was the money to come from?

My credit rating was ruined. In June of 1992 my

surgeon performed another surgery on me, said he was

going in to have a look around---and removed a portion

of my small bowel without my permission. Later I learn

he needed this piece of small bowel to reconstruct

that patch made when my bile duct was severed at the

first surgery; that " quicky repair " failed and

necessitated another " quicky repair " . This is the

cheap repair that can be sneaked in through a one-inch

cut at the uppermost trocar site, saving money for the

insurer and limiting potential for the victim’s

discovery of the malpractice event. I was cheated

forever of a good repair by a specialist at a

specialty center. The damage done by a bad failed

repair is irreversible and opportunity for best

outcome is gone. The opportunity for free choice was

removed also; I got what someone else wanted me to

have based on needs that were not mine. The medical

community, governmental bodies, and legal community

tell me over and over: " accidents happen; you should

forgive and forget. " I have no trouble forgiving an

accident—accidents do happen. But what happened to me

and many others like me was no accident: we were not

given full information about this new surgery, were

misled about the true injury and death rate, were

cheated of the opportunity to give an actual informed

consent, and were lied to about the actual

reparability of a bile duct injury and how often it

really occurs in inexperienced hands. We were promised

prompt response if injury were to occur and were

misled to believe we’d be getting the surgeons we’d

chosen from our healthplan booklets when most everyone

but the patients knew full well resident physician

substitution was the common practice once we were

unconscious on the operating table without out

knowledge or consent, adding additional risks onto an

already risky procedure. Tired of the run-around and

getting no help, I decided to go to Canada to see if I

could get help there. I was told to research " bile

duct injury " and " bacterial endocarditis, " given a

referral to a Canadian surgeon and a liver specialist

in Ontario. In February of 1993 I confronted my

surgeon with some disturbing discrepancies between my

written records and what he had told me, confronted

him with some questions he didn’t want to answer on my

x-ray films, and he dropped me as a patient. In June

of 1993 I was very ill and asked a surgeon who’d

successfully treated a family member for a difficult

cancer for a referral and this man told me: " If I were

in your situation this is the man I would get care

from: he is the best liver specialist I know " and gave

me a referral to a gastroenterologist in New York

City. This gastroenterologist turned out to be all the

other surgeon said he was and had his partner perform

a balloon dilatation of a biliary stricture. I was

told it would last for six months and I got two years

off it. I was grateful for the help; it bought me a

little more time. Later, I sought care in Ohio from a

friend of the New York doctor who has a practice at

Ohio State University: this man was a top-drawer liver

specialist and did something few doctors are willing

to do: he wrote me a letter and put the truth down on

paper. That letter was the best thing that happened to

me since 1991: I’d been mired in a fight for my life

against people determined to hide the truth at any

cost to me. Finally here were two gastroenterologists

in a row standing up for me and doing the right thing.

But I had found them on my own. In March of 1993 I

placed an ad in our local newspaper hoping to find

other injury victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Other victims responded in large numbers, even people

from other states responded to the ad. All of us had

been mistreated the same standardized ways, coast to

coast. All of us were cheated on informed consent. All

of us were called " hypochondriacs " when we presented

afterwards with serious problems even in the face of

abnormal test results. All of us were told " you are

the only one having problems like this after that new

surgery! " When we got the chance to talk and trade

information, we found that several of us had been

referred to the same gastroenterologist’s group in

town and these doctors had told each of us they’d

never seen anything like this before. Each of us were

told we were the only ones having problems! It was

like they had one script to read from and read it to

each of these injury victims word for word. I have had

quite an education about the medical, legal,

governmental bodies, and the media since I started a

national support network for injury victims of

laparoscopic cholecystectomy. I have listed below some

of the most revealing articles written by the medical

community itself. They explains everything and should

be available from medical libraries. · JAMA May 24/31,

1995 Vol. 273, no. 20 pages 1581-1585 " Falling

Cholecystectomy Thresholds Since The Introduction Of

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy " · *ARCHIVES OF SURGERY

October 1990 Vol. 125, page 1245 " Laparoscopic

Cholecystectomy: Threat or Opportunity? " · *THE

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY March 1991 Vol. 161, page

408 " Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Gateway To The

Future " . · *PRIMETIME LIVE December 16, 1993

Burrelle’s Transcript #328 " Too Good To Be True? " .

Before this happened I never imagined such misery and

suffering was possible. I never imagined the

irresponsible and callous behavior of people we have

placed in positions of trust either. I was used as a

guinea pig without our knowledge or consent and left

to suffer the consequences and bear the enormous

financial burden of the misbehavior and misadventure

of doctors. I am now 43 and have irreversible liver

damage; the domino effect to all organ systems from

this injury will kill me eventually. I have cirrhosis

and the consequences of chronic untreatable infection

that a bile duct injury brings. I and others like me

were sacrificed to build a very lucrative laparoscopic

surgery industry. Because I have spoken out about what

happened to me, I cannot get medical care no matter

where I go or what happens to me. I had to learn as

much as I can and treat myself. Would I do things

differently knowing silence and compliance is the

" price of admission " to medical care in a system that

is built on secrecy? No. Sometimes we have to stand up

and do what is right no matter the consequences. I

made my choice when I decided to become a patient’s

rights activist and leader and will accept whatever

comes: I made my decision and will have to live, then

die, with it. Some things are just worth it.

http://www.a-r-m.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

When you say " get across the border, " which border are you talking

about, please, and are you talking about what is happening in Canada

or in the USA? Thus far, since recovering from cancer using

alternative means, I have been any arrogant mainstream doctor's worst

nightmare, and it has worked just fine for me.

 

You sound unnecessarily paranoid to me.

 

Also, I hope not to see any doctors again, other than for a broken

bone or something one has to see one for.

 

Elliot'

 

 

> work and a short examination. I made an appointment to

> see the surgeon I was referred to and got shifted to

> the newest member of that group since the surgeon

> whose name I was given was leaving the state. The

> nurse took a history and the surgeon came in and did a

> short examination, set up a couple of tests, told me

> he was excited because Grant Medical Center had just

> purchased new laser equipment---laser dissection was

> superior to electrocautery, he told me, because it

> cuts and cauterizes at the same time and reduces

> bleeding. He actively discouraged the alternate

> treatments for gallstones: lithotripsy and ursodiol

> dissolution, said " once a person makes gallstones they

> will always make gallstones—surgery is better because

> it is permanent! " He'd done plenty of these

> procedures, he assured me, and told me there were no

> deaths and just one injury---a bile duct was nicked,

> no big deal, and it was closed with one stitch. He

> said that if a bile duct is severed it'd be patched

> with a piece of small bowel, and if nicked closed with

> a stitch. I was left with the impression that

> everything would be taken care of and any potential

> problems were easily fixable. It was not true. What I

> wasn't told is that a bile duct injury is a major

> disaster and is almost irreparable in even the best of

> hands, requires prompt repair from a biliary

> specialist at a specialty center equipped to handle

> such complicated tragedies. Biliary repair is not for

> the novice: longevity, morbidity and mortality, is

> determined by early proper repair by experienced

> hands. I did not know that most injury victims would

> not be offered that biliary specialist referral at a

> specialty center either: we'd be " patched " , lied to,

> and sent home to die wondering what happened to make

> us so sick. There is a one-month window of opportunity

> to correctly repair a bile duct injury and its

> resultant stricture before progressive and permanent

> liver damage sets in. After that, cirrhosis and

> fibrosis comes and an infectious process that is

> almost untreatable. This infectious process erodes

> heart, liver, joints, spleen and kidneys. The symptoms

> are all over the body. In 1991 I did not know the

> things I know now and had no way of knowing that the

> testing my surgeon ordered, just ultrasound and chest

> x-ray, is not the definitive testing for gallstones:

> ERCP and cholecystography are. I did not know about

> infection possibilities and helicobacter pylori

> either. I had stomach symptoms. Later I learned almost

> nobody really needs their gallbladders out at all,

> that even if a person has gallstones there is nothing

> wrong about choosing to repeat the non-invasive

> therapies as many times as necessary. I had the

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy August 9th, 1991. A

> resident physician performed it without my knowledge

> or consent and the consent form I was given makes no

> mention of a resident substitution for the licensed,

> credentialed, already-practicing doctor I had chosen

> to do it. With this new procedure, outcome is directly

> related to experience; I believed I was getting the

> man I picked never suspecting that once on the table

> I'd be getting a trainee. The doctor trainee severed

> the bile duct, patched it with a piece of small bowel,

> and I was sent home to die, deliberately kept ignorant

> of what had happened and left wondering why I was so

> sick, getting sicker. The horror of those days is

> beyond words and when I remember all that I suffered

> in 1991 to 1993 at the hands of my surgeon and his

> consultants. I have to wonder how they are able to

> sleep at night: I went back to my surgeon for help

> when I developed a septic complication and he ran me

> around to consultants who verbally abused me, called

> me a " hypochondriac " even in the face of testing that

> showed abnormal liver functions, heart problems,

> kidney problems---and none would help me. I got lots

> of testing but no actual intervention. The doctors I'd

> see on my own wouldn't take me as a patient, would see

> me once or twice, maybe order some further testing,

> then say I had to return to my surgeon for care, kept

> tossing me back to him. They'd say: " I don't want to

> get involved " . Involved in what? Nobody would tell me.

> The medical bills stacked up and up for all that

> " care " I never actually got. For the first time in my

> life collection agencies started to call me demanding

> payment. I owed Grant Medical Center hundreds of

> dollars. With no job where was the money to come from?

> My credit rating was ruined. In June of 1992 my

> surgeon performed another surgery on me, said he was

> going in to have a look around---and removed a portion

> of my small bowel without my permission. Later I learn

> he needed this piece of small bowel to reconstruct

> that patch made when my bile duct was severed at the

> first surgery; that " quicky repair " failed and

> necessitated another " quicky repair " . This is the

> cheap repair that can be sneaked in through a one-inch

> cut at the uppermost trocar site, saving money for the

> insurer and limiting potential for the victim's

> discovery of the malpractice event. I was cheated

> forever of a good repair by a specialist at a

> specialty center. The damage done by a bad failed

> repair is irreversible and opportunity for best

> outcome is gone. The opportunity for free choice was

> removed also; I got what someone else wanted me to

> have based on needs that were not mine. The medical

> community, governmental bodies, and legal community

> tell me over and over: " accidents happen; you should

> forgive and forget. " I have no trouble forgiving an

> accident—accidents do happen. But what happened to me

> and many others like me was no accident: we were not

> given full information about this new surgery, were

> misled about the true injury and death rate, were

> cheated of the opportunity to give an actual informed

> consent, and were lied to about the actual

> reparability of a bile duct injury and how often it

> really occurs in inexperienced hands. We were promised

> prompt response if injury were to occur and were

> misled to believe we'd be getting the surgeons we'd

> chosen from our healthplan booklets when most everyone

> but the patients knew full well resident physician

> substitution was the common practice once we were

> unconscious on the operating table without out

> knowledge or consent, adding additional risks onto an

> already risky procedure. Tired of the run-around and

> getting no help, I decided to go to Canada to see if I

> could get help there. I was told to research " bile

> duct injury " and " bacterial endocarditis, " given a

> referral to a Canadian surgeon and a liver specialist

> in Ontario. In February of 1993 I confronted my

> surgeon with some disturbing discrepancies between my

> written records and what he had told me, confronted

> him with some questions he didn't want to answer on my

> x-ray films, and he dropped me as a patient. In June

> of 1993 I was very ill and asked a surgeon who'd

> successfully treated a family member for a difficult

> cancer for a referral and this man told me: " If I were

> in your situation this is the man I would get care

> from: he is the best liver specialist I know " and gave

> me a referral to a gastroenterologist in New York

> City. This gastroenterologist turned out to be all the

> other surgeon said he was and had his partner perform

> a balloon dilatation of a biliary stricture. I was

> told it would last for six months and I got two years

> off it. I was grateful for the help; it bought me a

> little more time. Later, I sought care in Ohio from a

> friend of the New York doctor who has a practice at

> Ohio State University: this man was a top-drawer liver

> specialist and did something few doctors are willing

> to do: he wrote me a letter and put the truth down on

> paper. That letter was the best thing that happened to

> me since 1991: I'd been mired in a fight for my life

> against people determined to hide the truth at any

> cost to me. Finally here were two gastroenterologists

> in a row standing up for me and doing the right thing.

> But I had found them on my own. In March of 1993 I

> placed an ad in our local newspaper hoping to find

> other injury victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

> Other victims responded in large numbers, even people

> from other states responded to the ad. All of us had

> been mistreated the same standardized ways, coast to

> coast. All of us were cheated on informed consent. All

> of us were called " hypochondriacs " when we presented

> afterwards with serious problems even in the face of

> abnormal test results. All of us were told " you are

> the only one having problems like this after that new

> surgery! " When we got the chance to talk and trade

> information, we found that several of us had been

> referred to the same gastroenterologist's group in

> town and these doctors had told each of us they'd

> never seen anything like this before. Each of us were

> told we were the only ones having problems! It was

> like they had one script to read from and read it to

> each of these injury victims word for word. I have had

> quite an education about the medical, legal,

> governmental bodies, and the media since I started a

> national support network for injury victims of

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy. I have listed below some

> of the most revealing articles written by the medical

> community itself. They explains everything and should

> be available from medical libraries. · JAMA May 24/31,

> 1995 Vol. 273, no. 20 pages 1581-1585 " Falling

> Cholecystectomy Thresholds Since The Introduction Of

> Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy " · *ARCHIVES OF SURGERY

> October 1990 Vol. 125, page 1245 " Laparoscopic

> Cholecystectomy: Threat or Opportunity? " · *THE

> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY March 1991 Vol. 161, page

> 408 " Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Gateway To The

> Future " . · *PRIMETIME LIVE December 16, 1993

> Burrelle's Transcript #328 " Too Good To Be True? " .

> Before this happened I never imagined such misery and

> suffering was possible. I never imagined the

> irresponsible and callous behavior of people we have

> placed in positions of trust either. I was used as a

> guinea pig without our knowledge or consent and left

> to suffer the consequences and bear the enormous

> financial burden of the misbehavior and misadventure

> of doctors. I am now 43 and have irreversible liver

> damage; the domino effect to all organ systems from

> this injury will kill me eventually. I have cirrhosis

> and the consequences of chronic untreatable infection

> that a bile duct injury brings. I and others like me

> were sacrificed to build a very lucrative laparoscopic

> surgery industry. Because I have spoken out about what

> happened to me, I cannot get medical care no matter

> where I go or what happens to me. I had to learn as

> much as I can and treat myself. Would I do things

> differently knowing silence and compliance is the

> " price of admission " to medical care in a system that

> is built on secrecy? No. Sometimes we have to stand up

> and do what is right no matter the consequences. I

> made my choice when I decided to become a patient's

> rights activist and leader and will accept whatever

> comes: I made my decision and will have to live, then

> die, with it. Some things are just worth it.

> http://www.a-r-m.org/

 

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

Hi, " AS " . After reading the article by Elizabeth, I think it an

excellent idea not to visit a doctor's office alone. Thank you for

that horror story. What a terrible mess, and what courage and stamina

for her to devote the energy she has left to working as an advocate

for others!

 

Elliot

 

 

, " A. S. "

<glkbreeze> wrote:

> Re the blacklisting article, it was written by

> Elizabeth La Bozetta of victims of laparoscopic

> cholecystectomy.

> A lawyer would never let you visit a doctor alone

> because he knows how easy it is for the to

> misrepresent your words, especially if there is some

> kind of percieved problem with you. As you know, the

> system is rigged to let doctors get away with literal

> murder.

> Doctors have been known to lie, twist, embroider

> facts, delete key details, create entire discussions

> that never took place, all in a permanent electronic

> medical record which other doctors will see each time

> you are seen in the future. Doctors in trouble are

> especially fond of trying to make the patient look

> emotionally unstable or irrational. A firm statement

> on your part could be exaggerated as, " Patient became

> angry and agitated and threatened a malpractice

> lawsuit. " You might say, " Who cares. " but with the new

> HIPAA laws and Homeland Security, you might find

> yourself in unexpected problems crossing the border or

> taking a plane, for example. Other doctors in the HMO

> might all shun you or the patient you were defending.

> Doctors are often very antagonized by an educated

> assertive patient, so it's hard for someone such as

> yourself to get along in their subculture.

> I'm talking about a reality the average patient is

> unaware of, so I understand if you find it hard to

> believe.

>

>

> What Doctors Didn't Want Me to Know about Gall Bladder

> Surgery http://www.a-r-m.org/gallblad.htm by Elizabeth

> E. LaBozetta, editor, Mongoose News, Central Ohio

> Patient's-rights Service. Originator of The Support

> Network (for injury victims of laparoscopic

> cholecystectomy) 1562 Picard Road, Columbus, Ohio

> 43227-3296 (614) 235-0421 In the winter of 1990-91

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in Ohio.

> The newspapers ran articles extolling the virtues of

> this new technology saying: " Patients recover faster

> and return to work sooner, have smaller scars! The

> one-day stay in the hospital saves money for health

> insurance companies! " Prospective patients were given

> packages of information telling only good things about

> this new procedure, both hand-made by the medical

> community itself and also color brochures created by

> the laparoscopic equipment manufacturers. The color

> brochures begin with a drawing of a woman bent over in

> agony and finish with a picture of her after the new

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy smiling and enjoying time

> with her family. There were other articles being

> written by the medical community at this time but

> these articles were not given out to prospective

> surgery patients: these were articles written by

> doctors for doctors and appeared in all the major

> medical trade journals; these articles, written by the

> top biliary specialists in America, told a very

> different story of injury and death than the upbeat

> and encouraging material created for and handed out to

> the prospective patients. For example, the printed

> material I was given says " bile duct injury is a

> SLIGHT risk " and if it occurs will be handled properly

> and promptly. I came to learn the hardest way possible

> that neither statement was true. And much too late I

> learned that at the same time my surgeon was handing

> out this misleading printed material to prospective

> surgery patients he had co-authored two articles about

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy that appeared in two top

> medical journals and expressed concern about the true

> injury and death rates. This expression of concern

> about the very high injury and death rates associated

> with this new procedure in its introduction phase was

> expressed by many surgeons and is heavily reflected in

> the literature written by doctors for doctors from the

> years 1991-1995. Unfortunately the prospective surgery

> candidates were not given this " other " information and

> allowed the opportunity for a true informed consent

> because if they had been told the truth and allowed

> access to the same information available to doctors

> nobody in their right mind would have exposed

> themselves to such a dangerous thing. A thing is

> either dangerous or it isn't, people are being injured

> and killed or they are not: both statements cannot be

> true. Yet my surgeon was handing out material saying

> one thing to patients and writing the exact opposite

> to other doctors. The lying started before I ever

> entered his office for the first time. In June of 1991

> I woke up to a boring pain at the pit of my stomach.

> I'd been having problems with indigestion at night. My

> husband had been ill several months, had been

> hospitalized for a few weeks in the winter, and

> because I had three children and a home to care for

> figured that the extra work and stress was getting

> hold of me. So when I woke up to that continuous pain

> I knew I'd better seek relief from my family doctor

> pronto because with my husband so debilitated and

> struggling to recover we could not afford two health

> problems going on at once. My family doctor prescribed

> Tagamet, Librax, and Tylenol 3. The symptoms subsided.

> I was fine for a while then things flared up again.

> One night in July I started vomiting. I went to the

> emergency room at Grant Medical Center. I was told I

> needed my gallbladder out and to " stop fooling around

> and just have it done—the hospital has this easy new

> way of doing it, so what am I waiting for? " I was

> given a referral to a surgeon before leaving. Months

> later when I was more experienced I wondered at how

> the E.R. doctor arrived at his conclusion because no

> definitive testing was performed: all I had was blood

> work and a short examination. I made an appointment to

> see the surgeon I was referred to and got shifted to

> the newest member of that group since the surgeon

> whose name I was given was leaving the state. The

> nurse took a history and the surgeon came in and did a

> short examination, set up a couple of tests, told me

> he was excited because Grant Medical Center had just

> purchased new laser equipment---laser dissection was

> superior to electrocautery, he told me, because it

> cuts and cauterizes at the same time and reduces

> bleeding. He actively discouraged the alternate

> treatments for gallstones: lithotripsy and ursodiol

> dissolution, said " once a person makes gallstones they

> will always make gallstones—surgery is better because

> it is permanent! " He'd done plenty of these

> procedures, he assured me, and told me there were no

> deaths and just one injury---a bile duct was nicked,

> no big deal, and it was closed with one stitch. He

> said that if a bile duct is severed it'd be patched

> with a piece of small bowel, and if nicked closed with

> a stitch. I was left with the impression that

> everything would be taken care of and any potential

> problems were easily fixable. It was not true. What I

> wasn't told is that a bile duct injury is a major

> disaster and is almost irreparable in even the best of

> hands, requires prompt repair from a biliary

> specialist at a specialty center equipped to handle

> such complicated tragedies. Biliary repair is not for

> the novice: longevity, morbidity and mortality, is

> determined by early proper repair by experienced

> hands. I did not know that most injury victims would

> not be offered that biliary specialist referral at a

> specialty center either: we'd be " patched " , lied to,

> and sent home to die wondering what happened to make

> us so sick. There is a one-month window of opportunity

> to correctly repair a bile duct injury and its

> resultant stricture before progressive and permanent

> liver damage sets in. After that, cirrhosis and

> fibrosis comes and an infectious process that is

> almost untreatable. This infectious process erodes

> heart, liver, joints, spleen and kidneys. The symptoms

> are all over the body. In 1991 I did not know the

> things I know now and had no way of knowing that the

> testing my surgeon ordered, just ultrasound and chest

> x-ray, is not the definitive testing for gallstones:

> ERCP and cholecystography are. I did not know about

> infection possibilities and helicobacter pylori

> either. I had stomach symptoms. Later I learned almost

> nobody really needs their gallbladders out at all,

> that even if a person has gallstones there is nothing

> wrong about choosing to repeat the non-invasive

> therapies as many times as necessary. I had the

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy August 9th, 1991. A

> resident physician performed it without my knowledge

> or consent and the consent form I was given makes no

> mention of a resident substitution for the licensed,

> credentialed, already-practicing doctor I had chosen

> to do it. With this new procedure, outcome is directly

> related to experience; I believed I was getting the

> man I picked never suspecting that once on the table

> I'd be getting a trainee. The doctor trainee severed

> the bile duct, patched it with a piece of small bowel,

> and I was sent home to die, deliberately kept ignorant

> of what had happened and left wondering why I was so

> sick, getting sicker. The horror of those days is

> beyond words and when I remember all that I suffered

> in 1991 to 1993 at the hands of my surgeon and his

> consultants. I have to wonder how they are able to

> sleep at night: I went back to my surgeon for help

> when I developed a septic complication and he ran me

> around to consultants who verbally abused me, called

> me a " hypochondriac " even in the face of testing that

> showed abnormal liver functions, heart problems,

> kidney problems---and none would help me. I got lots

> of testing but no actual intervention. The doctors I'd

> see on my own wouldn't take me as a patient, would see

> me once or twice, maybe order some further testing,

> then say I had to return to my surgeon for care, kept

> tossing me back to him. They'd say: " I don't want to

> get involved " . Involved in what? Nobody would tell me.

> The medical bills stacked up and up for all that

> " care " I never actually got. For the first time in my

> life collection agencies started to call me demanding

> payment. I owed Grant Medical Center hundreds of

> dollars. With no job where was the money to come from?

> My credit rating was ruined. In June of 1992 my

> surgeon performed another surgery on me, said he was

> going in to have a look around---and removed a portion

> of my small bowel without my permission. Later I learn

> he needed this piece of small bowel to reconstruct

> that patch made when my bile duct was severed at the

> first surgery; that " quicky repair " failed and

> necessitated another " quicky repair " . This is the

> cheap repair that can be sneaked in through a one-inch

> cut at the uppermost trocar site, saving money for the

> insurer and limiting potential for the victim's

> discovery of the malpractice event. I was cheated

> forever of a good repair by a specialist at a

> specialty center. The damage done by a bad failed

> repair is irreversible and opportunity for best

> outcome is gone. The opportunity for free choice was

> removed also; I got what someone else wanted me to

> have based on needs that were not mine. The medical

> community, governmental bodies, and legal community

> tell me over and over: " accidents happen; you should

> forgive and forget. " I have no trouble forgiving an

> accident—accidents do happen. But what happened to me

> and many others like me was no accident: we were not

> given full information about this new surgery, were

> misled about the true injury and death rate, were

> cheated of the opportunity to give an actual informed

> consent, and were lied to about the actual

> reparability of a bile duct injury and how often it

> really occurs in inexperienced hands. We were promised

> prompt response if injury were to occur and were

> misled to believe we'd be getting the surgeons we'd

> chosen from our healthplan booklets when most everyone

> but the patients knew full well resident physician

> substitution was the common practice once we were

> unconscious on the operating table without out

> knowledge or consent, adding additional risks onto an

> already risky procedure. Tired of the run-around and

> getting no help, I decided to go to Canada to see if I

> could get help there. I was told to research " bile

> duct injury " and " bacterial endocarditis, " given a

> referral to a Canadian surgeon and a liver specialist

> in Ontario. In February of 1993 I confronted my

> surgeon with some disturbing discrepancies between my

> written records and what he had told me, confronted

> him with some questions he didn't want to answer on my

> x-ray films, and he dropped me as a patient. In June

> of 1993 I was very ill and asked a surgeon who'd

> successfully treated a family member for a difficult

> cancer for a referral and this man told me: " If I were

> in your situation this is the man I would get care

> from: he is the best liver specialist I know " and gave

> me a referral to a gastroenterologist in New York

> City. This gastroenterologist turned out to be all the

> other surgeon said he was and had his partner perform

> a balloon dilatation of a biliary stricture. I was

> told it would last for six months and I got two years

> off it. I was grateful for the help; it bought me a

> little more time. Later, I sought care in Ohio from a

> friend of the New York doctor who has a practice at

> Ohio State University: this man was a top-drawer liver

> specialist and did something few doctors are willing

> to do: he wrote me a letter and put the truth down on

> paper. That letter was the best thing that happened to

> me since 1991: I'd been mired in a fight for my life

> against people determined to hide the truth at any

> cost to me. Finally here were two gastroenterologists

> in a row standing up for me and doing the right thing.

> But I had found them on my own. In March of 1993 I

> placed an ad in our local newspaper hoping to find

> other injury victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

> Other victims responded in large numbers, even people

> from other states responded to the ad. All of us had

> been mistreated the same standardized ways, coast to

> coast. All of us were cheated on informed consent. All

> of us were called " hypochondriacs " when we presented

> afterwards with serious problems even in the face of

> abnormal test results. All of us were told " you are

> the only one having problems like this after that new

> surgery! " When we got the chance to talk and trade

> information, we found that several of us had been

> referred to the same gastroenterologist's group in

> town and these doctors had told each of us they'd

> never seen anything like this before. Each of us were

> told we were the only ones having problems! It was

> like they had one script to read from and read it to

> each of these injury victims word for word. I have had

> quite an education about the medical, legal,

> governmental bodies, and the media since I started a

> national support network for injury victims of

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy. I have listed below some

> of the most revealing articles written by the medical

> community itself. They explains everything and should

> be available from medical libraries. · JAMA May 24/31,

> 1995 Vol. 273, no. 20 pages 1581-1585 " Falling

> Cholecystectomy Thresholds Since The Introduction Of

> Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy " · *ARCHIVES OF SURGERY

> October 1990 Vol. 125, page 1245 " Laparoscopic

> Cholecystectomy: Threat or Opportunity? " · *THE

> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY March 1991 Vol. 161, page

> 408 " Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Gateway To The

> Future " . · *PRIMETIME LIVE December 16, 1993

> Burrelle's Transcript #328 " Too Good To Be True? " .

> Before this happened I never imagined such misery and

> suffering was possible. I never imagined the

> irresponsible and callous behavior of people we have

> placed in positions of trust either. I was used as a

> guinea pig without our knowledge or consent and left

> to suffer the consequences and bear the enormous

> financial burden of the misbehavior and misadventure

> of doctors. I am now 43 and have irreversible liver

> damage; the domino effect to all organ systems from

> this injury will kill me eventually. I have cirrhosis

> and the consequences of chronic untreatable infection

> that a bile duct injury brings. I and others like me

> were sacrificed to build a very lucrative laparoscopic

> surgery industry. Because I have spoken out about what

> happened to me, I cannot get medical care no matter

> where I go or what happens to me. I had to learn as

> much as I can and treat myself. Would I do things

> differently knowing silence and compliance is the

> " price of admission " to medical care in a system that

> is built on secrecy? No. Sometimes we have to stand up

> and do what is right no matter the consequences. I

> made my choice when I decided to become a patient's

> rights activist and leader and will accept whatever

> comes: I made my decision and will have to live, then

> die, with it. Some things are just worth it.

> http://www.a-r-m.org/

 

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I acknowledge

that my concerns about medical record abuse are not

reflective of the concerns of most Americans. Please

see below for some of the articles that have me

worried.

 

I don't claim to understand fully how a hypothetical

false comment such as " Patient became angry and

agitated. Thinks chemotherapy is malpractice. " Would

affect you in the future if some vindictive doctor

decided to sting you in your medical records. Would

that become a code in some " Homeland Security " data

bank in your city or nationally, or would it only be

seen by other doctors, prejudicing them against you? I

don't know.

What is concerning is that anything written in a

medical record, no matter how outrageously dishonest

or even fabricated cannot be removed. You can add a

250-word-or-less correction of your own. It is

unclear how long the new electronic records will be

held but there is a trend towards making them

available nationally to any hospital with only your

name and location. They could eventually be accessed

from your driver's license or even a microchip in your

finger.

The potential for destroying a person's reputation in

a medical record is concerning given the rivalry

between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine.

Often you will be discussing science that is

completely over the doctor's head. To the doctor, it

sounds as queer as if you are insane. (For example,

" Patient thinks bacteria are seeping out of his root

canalled tooth and making him sick. " )

There has been a growing trend towards treating " the

whole person " which is interpreted by some doctors as

writing down " odd comments " the patient makes.

( " Patient self medicates with garlic. " )

There is a reason Homeland Security wants to peek in

your medical record. It's because the medical record

tells a lot about you beyond pure science, especially

if you are bucking the system in any way.

 

Whether these comments get translated into diagnosis

codes and entered into other computer data banks

either in your city or at the borders in unclear and

hard to know, especially since governmental staff are

not allowed to disclose any knowledge of such access.

HHS is moving towards wanting to compile data banks of

diagnostic codes for citizens. (See below)

Also, once data gets into a police computer, for

example, it is not protected by the HIPAA Privacy Law

and could potentially be shared with other computer

systems.

What is concerning to me is the attitude found in

HMO's which seem to reflect the view that the system

owns us and can do with us as it wills. There is

little or no privacy of records internally. The whole

notion of privacy with the new law is a complete joke.

 

I don’t claim to have the answers, but the misuse of

medical records should be of concern to anyone who

values freedom of speech.

 

John Hammell of IAHF.com, who needs to cross the

Canadian border regularly was stopped at the border

and treated badly. Whether this had anything to do

with his work opposing CODEX and the restriction on

vitamins in unclear. The potential to limit the free

travel of people for political reasons is totally in

place. I'm concerned that medical records could be

use to retaliate or blacklist certain people. Whether

this is taking place at the borders is unclear.

 

 

 

 

Excerpt from " New " FBI, Same Old Problem

 

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive

2002-06-13 08:31:04 PST

 

Even medical privacy is no longer sacrosanct--under

new regulations

to be promulgated in October by Bush's Department of

Health and Human

Services, doctors and hospitals will be required to

open medical

records to HHS and other government agencies

(including the FBI) any

time they ask, without so much as a court order. It

will also be

illegal to enter into a contract with your doctor to

protect your

health information from the feds, and HHS will create

a database for

every possible ailment, coded down to your individual

visits.

 

This awesome aggregation of new surveillance powers,

rivaling those

of the Soviet KGB at its height, is all the more

disturbing because

the FBI has long been the federal government's version

of the

Keystone Kops … "

 

" The new FBI guidelines take us straight back to the

days of domestic

spying under COINTELPRO, the bureaus

" counterintelligence " program in

the '50s, '60s and '70s. According to the Senates

Select Committee to

Study Government Operations, COINTELPRO was " a

sophisticated

vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the

exercise of

First Amendment rights of speech and association. "

 

COINTELPRO infiltrated radical and dissident groups

engaged in lawful

dissent; used agents provocateurs to push dissenters

into extremist

and unlawful actions; engaged in disinformation

campaigns and

harassment of protest organizations, including those

of the civil

rights movement; and in the process drove thousands of

radical

activists toward burnout and despair, as they blamed

themselves for

problems and errors that were the result of the FBI's

disruptions.

Given this history, the notion that the bureau will

limit itself to

passive domestic spying under the new guidelines

stretches credulity

to the breaking point. "

 

ACLU Comments on HIPAA Privacy Law re Access by

Police:

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/medical.html

 

G. Disclosure to Law Enforcement Agencies

The exceptions to the Act's general informed consent

provisions which allow for access to " protected health

information " by law enforcement agencies is of great

concern. On the heels of much controversy regarding

police abuse, we can think of nothing more chilling

than the prospect of law enforcement agencies being

given access to personal medical records. Any law

enforcement access to personally identifiable medical

records must be viewed with utmost caution. While we

acknowledge that the current provision of S.1360

relating to the requirement of probable cause for law

enforcement access to medical records12 is an effort

to address concerns about unauthorized disclosures to

law enforcement, the approach taken is not adequately

protective of personal medical information. For

example, among other problems, the standard for

obtaining a warrant is a dilution of the traditional

probable cause standard. In many ways, the issues

raised here are analogous to those regarding

electronic surveillance and the super' protection

afforded tax information. Moreover, we are concerned

that the " exceptions " to the need for a warrant or

subpoena can lead to abuse. Apparently, under section

210(b) of the Act, an opposing attorney in a civil

case, a prosecutor in a criminal case, or an

administrative agency might falsely certify to a

health information trustee that notice was given to an

individual and allege (in good or bad faith) that the

individual's mental or physical condition is an issue

in a litigation or administrative proceeding and

thereby obtain whatever information is sought. We will

forward our recommendations for such amendments to the

Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/24/privacy.htm

 

Here is what the new Clinton rules would mean for you:

· Dozens of government agencies and tens of thousands

of bureaucrats will have access to your medical files

- even if you paid for the services.

· The government will have full access to all

electronic stored medical records - including the

private notes of psychiatrists.

· Without your consent, government can release your

medical records to others, including insurance

companies, drug manufacturers, and other " third

parties " - all without your consent!

· Your personal, genetic DNA code will be registered

with the government and could eventually be

incorporated into a national ID card.

· Whether you like it or not, you will be assigned a

" unique health identifier, " which will be used to

track your medical history from birth until death.

· If you try to block government access to your

medical files, your doctor can be fined or even

ordered by government agents to refuse to provide you

with medical care. If you demand that your doctor not

share your files without your permission, he can

refuse you medical treatment.

These new Clinton " medical privacy " regulations are

not new. Remember Hillary's failed Health Care Plan?

That plan tried to gain government access to your

medical records as well.

But the Clintons didn't give up. At the last minute,

they underhandedly tried to make law what Congress and

the people said " NO " to.

If they are not stopped soon, at the push of a button,

IRS agents, the DEA, local police, insurance

companies, and others will have access to every detail

of your medical history and the medical history of

every member of your family.

Government bureaucrats and police will know if anyone

in your family has ever had a drinking problem, used

illegal drugs, had an abortion, been treated by a

psychiatrist, suffered from impotence, or a

sexually-transmitted disease, or some other

embarrassing medical condition.

Imagine if a nosy neighbor who was a government

official wanted to do some snooping on you. We also

know how easily government officials and others " leak "

confidential information... you could be a target.

The new " no privacy " laws will also destroy trust

between you and your doctor.

The new " no privacy " regulations sound like something

you would expect in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

But unless we act IMMEDIATELY, in less than 30 days,

they will be the law of the land in America.

In just a few weeks, the comment period expires, and

Sec. Thompson - Pres. Bush's new secretary of Health

and Human Services - says he will then make his final

decision. There is enormous pressure on Thompson by

big insurance companies and HMOs to keep the Clinton

rules and sadly the Bush administration has said

nothing to indicate that it will block Clinton's

rules.

 

 

Tony Collins. Computer Weekly. Sutton: Jul 15, 2003.

pg. 8

(Related moves in Great Britain)

 

The Department of Health has produced secret plans to

put sensitive health data about up to 50 million

people into a national " data spine " system, whether or

not patients give their consent.

Doctors and IT specialists at the health IT conference

run by the British Computer Society Health Informatics

Committee and Assist, the Association for ICT

Professionals in Health and Social Care, expressed

concerns about the plans, which would allow sensitive

personal information to be shared electronically among

authorised individuals.

They said patients might be unaware that health

records on a national system could be seen by

authorised government agencies such as the police, or

may be at risk of being revealed illicitly to private

detectives.

The concerns were raised as health service officials

admitted that sensitive data, which could include

references to sexual histories, genetic dispositions

to certain diseases, or psychiatric care, could be

vulnerable to hacking attempts (see story below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

So what are you doing about all this, " A.S. " ?

[Guest guest]

Regarding Medical Record Abuse

What I recommend is that a person keep notes regarding

his health condition and his visits to the doctor as

well as any phone conversations. These records should

include names and be dated, for later reference. Keep

a file folder to save them in. Index cards are good

for tracking your symptoms and any visits to the

doctor. Date them and throw them into your file.

 

Request your medical records including the summary of

your visits and the list of your medical conditons.

Check over what is written and to make sure you

received everything. (You can be charged the cost of

copying but some hospitals will try to charge the

maximum, which could be almost a dollar/page.

Obviously this is unfair and designed to discourage

your efforts to obtain a copy. Protest the fee. Ask

to come in and view the record for free. Or limit the

pages you request to specific dates.)

 

If you see evidence that the doctor has lied or

misused the medical record, file a complaint against

the doctor with your state Dept of Health.

 

If you see criminal behavior, report it to your state

Attorney General's Office.

 

If you see a violation of the HIPAA Law, file a

complaint to the Dept of HHS.

 

File any complaint as soon as possible. This will

document the problem. These files are available to the

public and are studied by various concerned entities.

File the report so it will become public record even

if you feel no action will be taken.

 

Laws need to be passed addressing medical record fraud

(for example, claiming to have discussed risks with

the patient when no such discussion took place.)

 

I propose that the patient be mailed a copy of his/her

medical record and any lab results for a visit within

10 days. Better yet, the notes should be taken while

the patient is in the office and signed off by the

patient.

 

Further,electronic records need to be accessible by an

identification number and not by patient's name, as is

currently the case, and there needs to be tracking of

who accesses a report internally and for what reason.

(there are computer programs to do this but it is not

currently required and the patient has no right to

know who has accessed a record internally within the

organization-accessible to potentially thousands of

employees including desk clerks, doctors, nurses,

billing clerks, volunteers)

 

Clear standards need to be written limiting what is

written in a medical record and how long it is saved.

(I suggest they be destroyed every 7 years, for

example)

 

It's amazing how much one or two people can accomplish

when they put their information on the Internet, such

as Elizabeth La Bozetta did. Who would guess a doctor

would lie?

 

I've found public interest in this subject to be

minimal or I would probably say more and do more, but

I do what I can to move towards a more honest,

accountable, and transparent health care system.

 

Medical records are the foundation of the health care

a patient receives. If they can be falsified to cover

up for bad care or to retaliate against a patient, for

example, this leaves the door wide open for all kinds

of abuse including illegal experimentation,

substandard care, even murder. Many seniors are locked

up in psychiatric hospitals until their insurance

money runs out due to false statements made by health

care workers. (see cchr.com)

In the current state of affairs, doctors can literally

write whatever they want. It is unlikely a patient

will ever find out, and if the patient does find out,

so what?

 

Perhaps if doctors know they can't fudge in their

reports, they will be more careful and more

professional about the care they give.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

-

" A. S. " <glkbreeze

Using the " M " word When It Comes To Protecting One's Parent(s) or Family

 

 

> Re the blacklisting article, it was written by

> Elizabeth La Bozetta of victims of laparoscopic

> cholecystectomy.

> A lawyer would never let you visit a doctor alone

> because he knows how easy it is for the to

> misrepresent your words, especially if there is some

> kind of percieved problem with you. As you know, the

> system is rigged to let doctors get away with literal

> murder.

> Doctors have been known to lie, twist, embroider

> facts, delete key details, create entire discussions

> that never took place, all in a permanent electronic

> medical record which other doctors will see each time

> you are seen in the future. Doctors in trouble are

> especially fond of trying to make the patient look

> emotionally unstable or irrational. A firm statement

> on your part could be exaggerated as, " Patient became

> angry and agitated and threatened a malpractice

> lawsuit. " You might say, " Who cares. " but with the new

> HIPAA laws and Homeland Security, you might find

> yourself in unexpected problems crossing the border or

> taking a plane, for example. Other doctors in the HMO

> might all shun you or the patient you were defending.

> Doctors are often very antagonized by an educated

> assertive patient, so it's hard for someone such as

> yourself to get along in their subculture.

> I'm talking about a reality the average patient is

> unaware of, so I understand if you find it hard to

> believe.

>

>

> What Doctors Didn't Want Me to Know about Gall Bladder

> Surgery http://www.a-r-m.org/gallblad.htm by Elizabeth

> E. LaBozetta, editor, Mongoose News, Central Ohio

> Patient's-rights Service. Originator of The Support

> Network (for injury victims of laparoscopic

> cholecystectomy) 1562 Picard Road, Columbus, Ohio

> 43227-3296 (614) 235-0421 In the winter of 1990-91

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in Ohio.

> The newspapers ran articles extolling the virtues of

> this new technology saying: " Patients recover faster

> and return to work sooner, have smaller scars! The

> one-day stay in the hospital saves money for health

> insurance companies! " Prospective patients were given

> packages of information telling only good things about

> this new procedure, both hand-made by the medical

> community itself and also color brochures created by

> the laparoscopic equipment manufacturers. The color

> brochures begin with a drawing of a woman bent over in

> agony and finish with a picture of her after the new

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy smiling and enjoying time

> with her family. There were other articles being

> written by the medical community at this time but

> these articles were not given out to prospective

> surgery patients: these were articles written by

> doctors for doctors and appeared in all the major

> medical trade journals; these articles, written by the

> top biliary specialists in America, told a very

> different story of injury and death than the upbeat

> and encouraging material created for and handed out to

> the prospective patients. For example, the printed

> material I was given says " bile duct injury is a

> SLIGHT risk " and if it occurs will be handled properly

> and promptly. I came to learn the hardest way possible

> that neither statement was true. And much too late I

> learned that at the same time my surgeon was handing

> out this misleading printed material to prospective

> surgery patients he had co-authored two articles about

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy that appeared in two top

> medical journals and expressed concern about the true

> injury and death rates. This expression of concern

> about the very high injury and death rates associated

> with this new procedure in its introduction phase was

> expressed by many surgeons and is heavily reflected in

> the literature written by doctors for doctors from the

> years 1991-1995. Unfortunately the prospective surgery

> candidates were not given this " other " information and

> allowed the opportunity for a true informed consent

> because if they had been told the truth and allowed

> access to the same information available to doctors

> nobody in their right mind would have exposed

> themselves to such a dangerous thing. A thing is

> either dangerous or it isn't, people are being injured

> and killed or they are not: both statements cannot be

> true. Yet my surgeon was handing out material saying

> one thing to patients and writing the exact opposite

> to other doctors. The lying started before I ever

> entered his office for the first time. In June of 1991

> I woke up to a boring pain at the pit of my stomach.

> I'd been having problems with indigestion at night. My

> husband had been ill several months, had been

> hospitalized for a few weeks in the winter, and

> because I had three children and a home to care for

> figured that the extra work and stress was getting

> hold of me. So when I woke up to that continuous pain

> I knew I'd better seek relief from my family doctor

> pronto because with my husband so debilitated and

> struggling to recover we could not afford two health

> problems going on at once. My family doctor prescribed

> Tagamet, Librax, and Tylenol 3. The symptoms subsided.

> I was fine for a while then things flared up again.

> One night in July I started vomiting. I went to the

> emergency room at Grant Medical Center. I was told I

> needed my gallbladder out and to " stop fooling around

> and just have it done-the hospital has this easy new

> way of doing it, so what am I waiting for? " I was

> given a referral to a surgeon before leaving. Months

> later when I was more experienced I wondered at how

> the E.R. doctor arrived at his conclusion because no

> definitive testing was performed: all I had was blood

> work and a short examination. I made an appointment to

> see the surgeon I was referred to and got shifted to

> the newest member of that group since the surgeon

> whose name I was given was leaving the state. The

> nurse took a history and the surgeon came in and did a

> short examination, set up a couple of tests, told me

> he was excited because Grant Medical Center had just

> purchased new laser equipment---laser dissection was

> superior to electrocautery, he told me, because it

> cuts and cauterizes at the same time and reduces

> bleeding. He actively discouraged the alternate

> treatments for gallstones: lithotripsy and ursodiol

> dissolution, said " once a person makes gallstones they

> will always make gallstones-surgery is better because

> it is permanent! " He'd done plenty of these

> procedures, he assured me, and told me there were no

> deaths and just one injury---a bile duct was nicked,

> no big deal, and it was closed with one stitch. He

> said that if a bile duct is severed it'd be patched

> with a piece of small bowel, and if nicked closed with

> a stitch. I was left with the impression that

> everything would be taken care of and any potential

> problems were easily fixable. It was not true. What I

> wasn't told is that a bile duct injury is a major

> disaster and is almost irreparable in even the best of

> hands, requires prompt repair from a biliary

> specialist at a specialty center equipped to handle

> such complicated tragedies. Biliary repair is not for

> the novice: longevity, morbidity and mortality, is

> determined by early proper repair by experienced

> hands. I did not know that most injury victims would

> not be offered that biliary specialist referral at a

> specialty center either: we'd be " patched " , lied to,

> and sent home to die wondering what happened to make

> us so sick. There is a one-month window of opportunity

> to correctly repair a bile duct injury and its

> resultant stricture before progressive and permanent

> liver damage sets in. After that, cirrhosis and

> fibrosis comes and an infectious process that is

> almost untreatable. This infectious process erodes

> heart, liver, joints, spleen and kidneys. The symptoms

> are all over the body. In 1991 I did not know the

> things I know now and had no way of knowing that the

> testing my surgeon ordered, just ultrasound and chest

> x-ray, is not the definitive testing for gallstones:

> ERCP and cholecystography are. I did not know about

> infection possibilities and helicobacter pylori

> either. I had stomach symptoms. Later I learned almost

> nobody really needs their gallbladders out at all,

> that even if a person has gallstones there is nothing

> wrong about choosing to repeat the non-invasive

> therapies as many times as necessary. I had the

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy August 9th, 1991. A

> resident physician performed it without my knowledge

> or consent and the consent form I was given makes no

> mention of a resident substitution for the licensed,

> credentialed, already-practicing doctor I had chosen

> to do it. With this new procedure, outcome is directly

> related to experience; I believed I was getting the

> man I picked never suspecting that once on the table

> I'd be getting a trainee. The doctor trainee severed

> the bile duct, patched it with a piece of small bowel,

> and I was sent home to die, deliberately kept ignorant

> of what had happened and left wondering why I was so

> sick, getting sicker. The horror of those days is

> beyond words and when I remember all that I suffered

> in 1991 to 1993 at the hands of my surgeon and his

> consultants. I have to wonder how they are able to

> sleep at night: I went back to my surgeon for help

> when I developed a septic complication and he ran me

> around to consultants who verbally abused me, called

> me a " hypochondriac " even in the face of testing that

> showed abnormal liver functions, heart problems,

> kidney problems---and none would help me. I got lots

> of testing but no actual intervention. The doctors I'd

> see on my own wouldn't take me as a patient, would see

> me once or twice, maybe order some further testing,

> then say I had to return to my surgeon for care, kept

> tossing me back to him. They'd say: " I don't want to

> get involved " . Involved in what? Nobody would tell me.

> The medical bills stacked up and up for all that

> " care " I never actually got. For the first time in my

> life collection agencies started to call me demanding

> payment. I owed Grant Medical Center hundreds of

> dollars. With no job where was the money to come from?

> My credit rating was ruined. In June of 1992 my

> surgeon performed another surgery on me, said he was

> going in to have a look around---and removed a portion

> of my small bowel without my permission. Later I learn

> he needed this piece of small bowel to reconstruct

> that patch made when my bile duct was severed at the

> first surgery; that " quicky repair " failed and

> necessitated another " quicky repair " . This is the

> cheap repair that can be sneaked in through a one-inch

> cut at the uppermost trocar site, saving money for the

> insurer and limiting potential for the victim's

> discovery of the malpractice event. I was cheated

> forever of a good repair by a specialist at a

> specialty center. The damage done by a bad failed

> repair is irreversible and opportunity for best

> outcome is gone. The opportunity for free choice was

> removed also; I got what someone else wanted me to

> have based on needs that were not mine. The medical

> community, governmental bodies, and legal community

> tell me over and over: " accidents happen; you should

> forgive and forget. " I have no trouble forgiving an

> accident-accidents do happen. But what happened to me

> and many others like me was no accident: we were not

> given full information about this new surgery, were

> misled about the true injury and death rate, were

> cheated of the opportunity to give an actual informed

> consent, and were lied to about the actual

> reparability of a bile duct injury and how often it

> really occurs in inexperienced hands. We were promised

> prompt response if injury were to occur and were

> misled to believe we'd be getting the surgeons we'd

> chosen from our healthplan booklets when most everyone

> but the patients knew full well resident physician

> substitution was the common practice once we were

> unconscious on the operating table without out

> knowledge or consent, adding additional risks onto an

> already risky procedure. Tired of the run-around and

> getting no help, I decided to go to Canada to see if I

> could get help there. I was told to research " bile

> duct injury " and " bacterial endocarditis, " given a

> referral to a Canadian surgeon and a liver specialist

> in Ontario. In February of 1993 I confronted my

> surgeon with some disturbing discrepancies between my

> written records and what he had told me, confronted

> him with some questions he didn't want to answer on my

> x-ray films, and he dropped me as a patient. In June

> of 1993 I was very ill and asked a surgeon who'd

> successfully treated a family member for a difficult

> cancer for a referral and this man told me: " If I were

> in your situation this is the man I would get care

> from: he is the best liver specialist I know " and gave

> me a referral to a gastroenterologist in New York

> City. This gastroenterologist turned out to be all the

> other surgeon said he was and had his partner perform

> a balloon dilatation of a biliary stricture. I was

> told it would last for six months and I got two years

> off it. I was grateful for the help; it bought me a

> little more time. Later, I sought care in Ohio from a

> friend of the New York doctor who has a practice at

> Ohio State University: this man was a top-drawer liver

> specialist and did something few doctors are willing

> to do: he wrote me a letter and put the truth down on

> paper. That letter was the best thing that happened to

> me since 1991: I'd been mired in a fight for my life

> against people determined to hide the truth at any

> cost to me. Finally here were two gastroenterologists

> in a row standing up for me and doing the right thing.

> But I had found them on my own. In March of 1993 I

> placed an ad in our local newspaper hoping to find

> other injury victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

> Other victims responded in large numbers, even people

> from other states responded to the ad. All of us had

> been mistreated the same standardized ways, coast to

> coast. All of us were cheated on informed consent. All

> of us were called " hypochondriacs " when we presented

> afterwards with serious problems even in the face of

> abnormal test results. All of us were told " you are

> the only one having problems like this after that new

> surgery! " When we got the chance to talk and trade

> information, we found that several of us had been

> referred to the same gastroenterologist's group in

> town and these doctors had told each of us they'd

> never seen anything like this before. Each of us were

> told we were the only ones having problems! It was

> like they had one script to read from and read it to

> each of these injury victims word for word. I have had

> quite an education about the medical, legal,

> governmental bodies, and the media since I started a

> national support network for injury victims of

> laparoscopic cholecystectomy. I have listed below some

> of the most revealing articles written by the medical

> community itself. They explains everything and should

> be available from medical libraries. · JAMA May 24/31,

> 1995 Vol. 273, no. 20 pages 1581-1585 " Falling

> Cholecystectomy Thresholds Since The Introduction Of

> Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy " · *ARCHIVES OF SURGERY

> October 1990 Vol. 125, page 1245 " Laparoscopic

> Cholecystectomy: Threat or Opportunity? " · *THE

> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY March 1991 Vol. 161, page

> 408 " Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Gateway To The

> Future " . · *PRIMETIME LIVE December 16, 1993

> Burrelle's Transcript #328 " Too Good To Be True? " .

> Before this happened I never imagined such misery and

> suffering was possible. I never imagined the

> irresponsible and callous behavior of people we have

> placed in positions of trust either. I was used as a

> guinea pig without our knowledge or consent and left

> to suffer the consequences and bear the enormous

> financial burden of the misbehavior and misadventure

> of doctors. I am now 43 and have irreversible liver

> damage; the domino effect to all organ systems from

> this injury will kill me eventually. I have cirrhosis

> and the consequences of chronic untreatable infection

> that a bile duct injury brings. I and others like me

> were sacrificed to build a very lucrative laparoscopic

> surgery industry. Because I have spoken out about what

> happened to me, I cannot get medical care no matter

> where I go or what happens to me. I had to learn as

> much as I can and treat myself. Would I do things

> differently knowing silence and compliance is the

> " price of admission " to medical care in a system that

> is built on secrecy? No. Sometimes we have to stand up

> and do what is right no matter the consequences. I

> made my choice when I decided to become a patient's

> rights activist and leader and will accept whatever

> comes: I made my decision and will have to live, then

> die, with it. Some things are just worth it.

> http://www.a-r-m.org/

>

>