Injured patients who want to help and be heard,
click here.
Thomas Jefferson said that given the choice between
government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he would choose
to have newspapers.
In medicine we have government without newspapers. Patients
cannot find out what they need to know to make informed choices. No one in
medicine records or reports the information patients need to know the most. So
patients will have to.
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 my doctor is friends with the surgeon who,
in a moment of anger, chose to injure me.
So my doctor did what all doctors do. He protected 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. They are supposed to treat
the patient in front of them no matter how much they might not want to, but that
ethic, and the well-being of patients, is not as important to them as the
well-being of other people 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 for a
lack of evidence, which is their usual routine (see OSMB), 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. Defending such suits is ruinously expensive. I'm just telling the truth,
but that's what they don't want patients to do.
We must establish the truth and proceed to justice so that
patients may be safe.
Physicians can warn other physicians about patients
and blacklist them to the point of causing injury,
while patients cannot warn other patients about physicians
without getting sued - a major inequity crippling patient safety. And at the
root of why quality does not improve and costs do not come down in medicine.