Graph
Patient safety requires scrutiny, but
lawsuits brought against patients prohibit it.
This might be the first time a patient has documented blacklisting in medicine. Once people see how this works they will have a better chance of surviving having it happen to them. If I had understood it, I might not be disabled now.
This is a graph (click to enlarge) of my appointments with doctors over a period of years showing that every time my primary care physician was involved, the appointments never resulted in testing or diagnosis. I had to leave town without a referral to escape his influence. It took years to figure out that I was being blacklisted and then learn how to escape it. The moment I sought treatment without his knowing about it, I got diagnosed, and continued to every time he didn't know about about the appointment.
What's the opposite of patient safety?
It turns out that the surgeon who chose to do this to me (because of the nature of jurisprudence in this country, I cannot describe the how and why as it should be described) is his friend. If my doctor had allowed me to get diagnosed, it not only would have enabled me to get treatment before it was too late, but it also could have indicted his friend. He opted to maintain doctor safety at the expense of patient safety. That is the routine in medicine. The ethic is supposed to be to that they treat the patient in front of them no matter how much they might not want to, but that ethic is not followed when doing so could indict someone else in medicine.
Treatable injuries became inoperable scar tissue during the years that I pleaded for help while getting only the runaround until I finally put two and two together and learned how to escape their influence and get diagnosed elsewhere. To read how this is done, click blacklisting.
Eventually I happened to stumble on witnesses, people who working in healthcare who did not hide the fact that he telephoned them and told them not to treat me. I directed the state medical board to them. With all that I provided to them the state medical board could not dismiss this case, so they decided that they were not charged with enforcing the laws applicable to this case. Which leaves patients able to do what to protect themselves?
Hit your back button to return to where you were.
The paper trail is strong. The first amendment is supposed to enable us to publish things that are true. The paper trail merely is a record of appointments with doctors and what resulted from them. They might not like what it shows, but it is merely publishing their own written record. So it is the truth as recorded by them. But they don't like it, so they threaten to sue me, apparently in an attempt to bankrupt me so that I will stop publishing the truth. It is ruinously expensive. But I'm just telling the truth.
We must establish the truth and proceed to justice so that patients may be safe.
Physicians can warn each other about patients and blacklist patients to the point of causing injury, while patients cannot warn each other about physicians without getting sued - a major inequity crippling patient safety.