Blind Eye: An excellent Book On Cover-Ups Within America's Medical Establishment; Deja Vu, Anyone?

This is the very first book review this Blog has ever run.

It is about an alleged cover-up in the medical profession in the State of Ohio in the 1980's - and in several other American medical jurisdictions.

As the blurb on the back cover says: "Blind Eye describes a professional hierarchy where doctors repeatedly accepted the word of fellow physicians over that of nurses, hospital employees and patients - even as horrible truths emerge."

But this review is certainly timely as in just a few hours, Dr. Rocco Gerace, Head of the College of Physicians And Surgeons of Ontario - the governing body of the self-regulated medical profession in Ontario - will take the witness stand at the Goudge Inquiry.

The author of "Blind Eye"is James Stewart, a former Page-One editor at the Wall Street Journal who won a Pullitzer Prize in 1988 for reporting on a stock market crash and insider training.

"Blind Eye" was published by Simon and Schuster Paperbacks in 1999 and is available in many public libraries.

The subject of the book is Doctor Michael Swango who received his license to practice medicine in the State of Ohio, USA, in September, 1984.

A word of caution: I have chosen not to say a single word about the allegations directed against Swango in this Blog because I do not want in any way to create the impression that I am comparing Dr. Smith to him.

My focus is rather on what one critic Ellen Clegg of the Boston Globe referred to as "the hermetically sealed world of medicine" which is characterized by "the arrogance and the fraudulent professional courtesies that allowed Swango to move ahead unchallenged."

Other critics made similar observations;

In this Bloggist's view, the comments of reviewer Dale Singer, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are, in some ways, relevant to the Smith context.

Singer wrote that, "If Swango is guilty - and author James B. Stewart builds a persuasive case against him - Stewart also makes a strong argument that he must share responsibility with a medical establishment that let him move freely from state to state, from hospital to hospital, without warning or punishment."

(We learn from "Blind Eye" that as the U.S, authorities began moving in on him in 1984 Swango was hired to become the new doctor at a hospital in Zimbabwe that was run by the Evangelical Lutheran Church);

A Kirkus Review is also relevant to the events in Ontario with the suggestion that Swango, "thrived in a medical establishment where doctors typically cover up for other doctors, where hospital administrators live in constant fear of litigation, and where regulatory agencies don't share crucial information."

It is clear to me that the College has a great deal to answer for when Dr. Gerace takes the stand tomorrow, including:

0: The slap on the wrist - a "caution" which wasn't considered serious enough to be placed on the College's Web-site for the world to notice - after an independent panel reported that it was disturbed by his sub-standard work in three cases - all of which are now before the Goudge Inquiry.

0: The apparent failure to bring Smith to account for his apparent misconduct in the Waudby case where he has admitted to having a piece of forensic evidence relating to the case in his pocket - an envelope containing a dark curly hair - while suggesting in his evidence under oath that he was not aware of it.

(Documents filed at the Goudge Inquiry indicate that a Peterborough police officer says he asked the College to take action against Smith in relation to his conduct in this case);

0: The College's initial protection of Dr. Smith - no matter what conduct was alleged against him - by taking the position that it did not have the authority to discipline pathologists for their misconduct.

Above all, I want to hear from the College whether it feels that the Hospital for Sick Children should have reported several significant medical errors made by Smith in his diagnosis of tissues relating to living patients at the hospital.

(In one of these cases, a three-month young baby had to undergo an unnecessary colostomy as a result of Smith's diagnostic error - (See previous posting: "The Hospital For Sick Children's breach of an important public trust.")

It's too bad the "Blind Eye" title is already in use.

The evidence called thus far at the Inquiry indicates that it could be equally applied to the Hospital for Sick Children, The Chief Coroner's Office, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons- all of the institutions in the medical establishment that were supposed to protect the public in Ontario.

They all looked the other way;

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;