"THE HISTORY STATES THAT HE (GAUROV'S BROTHER SAUROB)WAS PLAYING WHEN HE SUDDENLY FELL ON THE GROUND - APPARENTLY THE FATHER GAVE HIM SOMETHING, AND COMPRESSIONS AND MOUTH TO MOUTH. AND THEN THERE'S A SUGGESTION THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SIMILAR EPISODE LAST YEAR;"
LAWYER JAMES LOCKYER TO COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR HELEN WHITWELL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BUT IF WE ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT JUST DAYS BEFORE GAUROV DIED HIS ONE (1) YEAR OLD BROTHER, SAUROB HAD BEEN THROUGH, WHAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE TO GAUROV, WOULD THAT SUGGEST THAT THERE MIGHT BE ANY KIND OF -- OF HEREDITARY PROBLEM WITHIN FAMILY?
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: "I DON'T THINK I CAN REALLY ANSWER THAT. IT MAY OR MAY NOT. I MEAN, WE -- WE JUST DON'T KNOW."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWYER JAMES LOCKYER AND PROFESSOR HELEN WHITWELL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an earlier posting I referred to the shocking disclosure from the Goudge Inquiry that Dinesh Kumar's lawyer's testified that he had not been informed by prosecutors about a disturbing decision from Ontario Court Justice Patrick Dunn in the Amber case.
That decision was was highly critical of the opinions of Dr. Charles Smith and the Hospital for Sick Children SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse And Neglect) team.
Two other shocking disclosures relating to Gaurov's case also emanated from the Inquiry;
The second - the subject of this post - was that Dr. Charles Smith had informed homicide investigators that both he, and Dr. Dirk Huyer, the head of the SCAN team at the Hospital for Sick Children In Toronto were both "struggling" to find criminality in the case - a far cry from the language in their official reports;
Now the third: It has been disclosed during the Goudge Inquiry that in March 1992, just a few days before Gaurov's death his brother Saurob, was seen at a walk-in clinic at the Hospital for Children for spells.
Lawyer James Lockyer told the Inquiry that he had "just obtained" Saurob's medical records through a request.
Lockyer said the the history states that he was playing when he suddenly fell on the ground - - and we don't quite know what -- and was cyanosed. Apparently the father gave him something, andC compressions and mouth to mouth. And then there's a suggestion there may have been a similar episode last year.
Lockyer began this portion of his cross-examination of Professor Helen Whitwell - the independent reviewer of Gaurov's case - by informing Commissioner Steven Goudge that, "Another document that we just obtained through a request is the medical records, or -- the medical records of Dinash's (phonetic) brother, Saurob.
And if we go to PFP302210 -- now it's -- it's the best we have so far, and we're trying to get a better copy of this document -- but if you look at this document, it's addressed to Dr. Rana, who was Saurob's -- and indeed still is -- Saurob's physician.
Saurob is now -- I think I'm right in saying -- seventeen (17) years old and, Mr. Commissioner, he -- he is with his parents, I'm glad to say.
Any event, it's a report from the Hospital for Sick Children.
If we go to the second page, you'll see this document.
I'm afraid you -- we don't know who it's from because you can't quite read it.
But if you look at this document on page 1 -- if you could show us page 1 again? There might a Dr. Bard, if there is such a doctor at the Hospital for Sick Children.
And you'll see -- and this is a matter of days before Gaurov's death.
If you could raise the page, give us the bottom of the page.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Is there a date on it somewhere?
JAMES LOCKYER: Well, it's -- I think it's mark -- I'm right in saying we've worked it out as being March 1st, 1992. It might be March 11th or 21st.
it's -- it's -- there's a one (1) and we have reason to think it's March. And I think that becomes apparent.
CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES LOCKYER:
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: If you could give us the -- the -- to the bottom of this page, please.
Thank you. You'll see here that Saurob, in what's really just a matter of days before Gaurov's death, was seen in the walk-in clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children for these spells.
you see where I'm looking?
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Yes.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: The history states -- and -- and we can probably invent some of the lines -- some of the words that are missing -- the history states that he was playing when he suddenly fell on the ground - - and we don't quite know what -- and was cyanosed.
Apparently the father gave him something, and compressions and mouth to mouth.
And then there's a suggestion there may have been a similar episode last year.
And then if we go to the -- over the page, and there's -- you'll see in the last paragraph: "Difficult to elicit exactly what the problem is. In a consideration of the description of this spell, we feel it's worthwhile to do..." And I'm -- I'm sort of translating, Mr. Commissioner, to some extent. "...a reassessment of the patient after an EEG has been done."
We also -- I can also tell you that Gaurov's father used to be an ambulance attendant back in his home country.
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Right.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: And so had familiarity with resuscitation and mouth-to-mouth techniques.
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Yes.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: So if we -- and I appreciate this is a dreadful document, but it's all we've got at the moment, and as I say, we're trying to get a better copy of it.
But if we assume for a moment that just days before Gaurov died his one (1) year old brother, Saurob had been through, what could be described as a similar experience to Gaurov, would that suggest that there might be any kind of -- of hereditary problem within family?
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: I don't think I can really answer that. It may or may not. I mean, we -- we just don't know.
This Blogster has no doubt that there is no way - at this point of time - that Professor Whitwell, or anyone else could give a definitive answer to this question.
I am however troubled by the fact that the shocking disclosure appears to have merged for the first time almost two decades after Mr. Kumar pleaded guilty to criminal negligence in connection with Gaurov's death.
This is an important investigative fact which should have been discovered by both the corner and police investigators, relayed to the police, and then disclosed to defence counsel - if at that point of time the prosecution was determined to expose Mr. Kumar to criminal proceedings.
It is crucial to recollect that Mr. Kumar felt pressured to enter a plea to criminal negligence causing Gaurov's death shortly after it was offered by prosecutors in order to avoid the oppressive murder charge - while the family was still deeply in mourning.
His lawyers therefore never got down to the type of investigation which would have revealed this kind of information which may have offered a medical defence which indicated that Gaurov, like so many other infants in Dr. Charles Smith's cases, had died a tragic, but natural death.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Showing posts with label huyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label huyer. Show all posts
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Part Eight: Gaurov's Father: A Second Shocking Revelation From Goudge Inquiry; Both Smith And Huyer Were "Struggling" With Criminality In the Case;
"SPEAK TO PATHOLOGIST, DR. CHARLES SMITH, OF SICK KIDS HOSPITAL RE. UPDATE. STILL IS OF THE OPINION THAT DEATH WAS FROM EITHER TWO (2) SOURCES: SHAKEN BABY, BLUNT TRAUMA. HE HAS CONSULTED WITH DR. HUYER, SCAN PROGRAM. THEY BOTH HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT CRIMINAL ELEMENT. QUOTE, 'HAS STRUGGLED WITH THIS BEING CRIMINAL. AGREES TO MEET WITH MARY HALL ANY TIME.'"
NOTE WRITTEN BY TORONTO HOMICIDE OFFICER DETECTIVE JOHN LINE IN RELATION TO KUMAR INVESTIGATION. DETECTIVE LINE WAS REFERRING TO MARY HALL WHO WAS DESCRIBED BY LAWYER JAMES LOCKYER AS HEAD CROWN ATTORNEY IN THE SCARBOROUGH OFFICE OUT OF WHICH KUMAR WAS PROSECUTED;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an earlier posting I referred to the shocking disclosure from the Goudge Inquiry that Dinesh Kumar's lawyer's testified that he had not been informed by prosecutors about a disturbing decision from Ontario Court Justice Patrick Dunn in the Amber case.
That decision was was highly critical of the opinions of Dr. Charles Smith and the Hospital for Sick Children SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse And Neglect) team.
Two other shocking disclosures relating to Gaurov's case also emanated from the Inquiry;
The second - the subject of this post - was that Dr. Charles Smith had informed homicide investigators that both he, and Dr. Dirk Huyer, the head of the SCAN team at the Hospital for Sick Children In Toronto were both "struggling" to find criminality in the case - a far cry from the language in their official reports;
The section of transcript relating to this disclosure is found in lawyer James Lockyer's cross-examination of Dr. Helen Whitwell, the independent examiner who reviewed Gaurov's case at the request of former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan;
It reads as follows:
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: And so in Gaurov's case, whilst we have -- the preexisting condition may have been responsible for what ultimately caused Gaurov's death, beyond that, potentially, as Dr. Pollanen has pointed out, we don't even seem to have the triad in the first place.
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: No, you don't.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: I don't know quite why Dr. Smith said this, but he seems to have had a lot of trouble with the case himself, and we got some notes just a -- a few days ago in this regard. If we could go to PFP302155; And what we're looking at here is the notes of one (1) of the officers in charge of the case, Detective Lines (sic). And if you go -- could you -- I'm sorry, I don't have a page number here. Could you just keep -- keep moving and I'll tell you when to stop through these notes. We're looking for March 23rd, which you'll see at the top of one (1) of the pages. And if you look at the entry for 2:55 on March 23rd -- and if you could raise the page a little so we can go to the bottom of it -- what it says there, and this is Detective Lines, one (1) of the officers in charge, and what he's noted March 23rd of 1992, which is post-autopsy, he's noted: "Speak to pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, of Sick Kids Hospital re.
update. Still is of the opinion that death was from either two (2) sources: shaken baby, blunt trauma. He has consulted with Dr. Huyer, SCAN program. They both have misgivings about criminal element. Quote, 'Has struggled with this being criminal. Agrees to meet with Mary Hall any time.' And I can just tell you, Dr. Whitwell, that Mary Hall was then a -- the head Crown attorney in the Scarborough office where --
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Right.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: -- out of which Mr. Kumar was prosecuted.
So it would seem, at least in the early days -- and this is before Gaurov's father is charged with the second degree murder of his son Gaurov -- that even after the autopsy, Dr. Smith, and indeed Dr. Huyer of the SCAN unit, to use the -- to use the quote, "struggling" with the question of whether any crime had
been committed in Gaurov's death in the first place. I don't think you would have known that. We only got this document about a week ago --
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Right.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: -- through -- through the officer himself providing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are told that this note was written before Dinesh Kumar was encouraged by prosecutors to plead guilty to criminal negligence causing his son Gaurov's death in order to avoid being prosecuted for murder.
The existence of such a note - in which both Dr. Smith and the Head of the SCAN team are struggling to find any scientific evidence of criminality in the case - clearly raises the prospect that there was no reasonable possibility of obtaining a conviction.
The last time I looked at a Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death was just what it sounded like: a very serious criminal offence.
So we have to wonder why the prosecutors who, as crown attorneys, also hold the function of being officers of the Court, proceeded to take Mr. Kumar to Court on any criminal charge at all - whether they were bound by the law to withdraw all charges against him or not.
A very shocking revelation indeed, which, it seems, only raised its ugly head publicly more than 16-years after Mr. Kumar pleaded guilty to an offence he did not commit, to avoid life in prison for murder on the evidence of the celebrated Dr. Smith's evidence supported by the world famous Hospital for Sick Children, to regain custody of his son, and to avoid deportation from Canada;
How could our Canadian Justice system fall so low?
Next Posting: Part Nine; Gaurov's Father; A Third Shocking Revelation From The Goudge Inquiry;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
NOTE WRITTEN BY TORONTO HOMICIDE OFFICER DETECTIVE JOHN LINE IN RELATION TO KUMAR INVESTIGATION. DETECTIVE LINE WAS REFERRING TO MARY HALL WHO WAS DESCRIBED BY LAWYER JAMES LOCKYER AS HEAD CROWN ATTORNEY IN THE SCARBOROUGH OFFICE OUT OF WHICH KUMAR WAS PROSECUTED;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an earlier posting I referred to the shocking disclosure from the Goudge Inquiry that Dinesh Kumar's lawyer's testified that he had not been informed by prosecutors about a disturbing decision from Ontario Court Justice Patrick Dunn in the Amber case.
That decision was was highly critical of the opinions of Dr. Charles Smith and the Hospital for Sick Children SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse And Neglect) team.
Two other shocking disclosures relating to Gaurov's case also emanated from the Inquiry;
The second - the subject of this post - was that Dr. Charles Smith had informed homicide investigators that both he, and Dr. Dirk Huyer, the head of the SCAN team at the Hospital for Sick Children In Toronto were both "struggling" to find criminality in the case - a far cry from the language in their official reports;
The section of transcript relating to this disclosure is found in lawyer James Lockyer's cross-examination of Dr. Helen Whitwell, the independent examiner who reviewed Gaurov's case at the request of former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan;
It reads as follows:
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: And so in Gaurov's case, whilst we have -- the preexisting condition may have been responsible for what ultimately caused Gaurov's death, beyond that, potentially, as Dr. Pollanen has pointed out, we don't even seem to have the triad in the first place.
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: No, you don't.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: I don't know quite why Dr. Smith said this, but he seems to have had a lot of trouble with the case himself, and we got some notes just a -- a few days ago in this regard. If we could go to PFP302155; And what we're looking at here is the notes of one (1) of the officers in charge of the case, Detective Lines (sic). And if you go -- could you -- I'm sorry, I don't have a page number here. Could you just keep -- keep moving and I'll tell you when to stop through these notes. We're looking for March 23rd, which you'll see at the top of one (1) of the pages. And if you look at the entry for 2:55 on March 23rd -- and if you could raise the page a little so we can go to the bottom of it -- what it says there, and this is Detective Lines, one (1) of the officers in charge, and what he's noted March 23rd of 1992, which is post-autopsy, he's noted: "Speak to pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, of Sick Kids Hospital re.
update. Still is of the opinion that death was from either two (2) sources: shaken baby, blunt trauma. He has consulted with Dr. Huyer, SCAN program. They both have misgivings about criminal element. Quote, 'Has struggled with this being criminal. Agrees to meet with Mary Hall any time.' And I can just tell you, Dr. Whitwell, that Mary Hall was then a -- the head Crown attorney in the Scarborough office where --
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Right.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: -- out of which Mr. Kumar was prosecuted.
So it would seem, at least in the early days -- and this is before Gaurov's father is charged with the second degree murder of his son Gaurov -- that even after the autopsy, Dr. Smith, and indeed Dr. Huyer of the SCAN unit, to use the -- to use the quote, "struggling" with the question of whether any crime had
been committed in Gaurov's death in the first place. I don't think you would have known that. We only got this document about a week ago --
DR. HELEN WHITWELL: Right.
MR. JAMES LOCKYER: -- through -- through the officer himself providing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are told that this note was written before Dinesh Kumar was encouraged by prosecutors to plead guilty to criminal negligence causing his son Gaurov's death in order to avoid being prosecuted for murder.
The existence of such a note - in which both Dr. Smith and the Head of the SCAN team are struggling to find any scientific evidence of criminality in the case - clearly raises the prospect that there was no reasonable possibility of obtaining a conviction.
The last time I looked at a Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death was just what it sounded like: a very serious criminal offence.
So we have to wonder why the prosecutors who, as crown attorneys, also hold the function of being officers of the Court, proceeded to take Mr. Kumar to Court on any criminal charge at all - whether they were bound by the law to withdraw all charges against him or not.
A very shocking revelation indeed, which, it seems, only raised its ugly head publicly more than 16-years after Mr. Kumar pleaded guilty to an offence he did not commit, to avoid life in prison for murder on the evidence of the celebrated Dr. Smith's evidence supported by the world famous Hospital for Sick Children, to regain custody of his son, and to avoid deportation from Canada;
How could our Canadian Justice system fall so low?
Next Posting: Part Nine; Gaurov's Father; A Third Shocking Revelation From The Goudge Inquiry;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Drs. Charles Smith And Rajgopal Menon: Their Colleagues Saw Nothing To Be Concerned About; A Sense Of Deja Vu;
The New Brunswick Inquiry into the flawed work of Dr. Rajgopal Menon has been informed that his colleagues had no idea that there were serious problems with the pathologist's work.
The commission of inquiry into pathology services in New Brunswick was struck after an audit of the laboratory work of Dr. Rajgopal Menon, 73, found a significant number of errors and missed diagnoses, especially in relation to prostate and breast cancers.
(Menon, who will testify at the inquiry later this month, has defended his work, calling the review "unjustified and unfair." He has also filed a civil suit against the regional health authority.)
As reported by the Canadian Press yesterday, in a story headed, "NB inquiry into pathology errors told lack of professionals," this evidence came from Nora Kelly, a former deputy minister of health in New Brunswick.
"Kelly said she had no inkling of serious problems with Menon's work", the story, datelined Moncton, N.B. says.
"She said there were general comments from his colleagues about his slow work habits, his tardiness and missing slides, but no one suggested his work might be sub-standard.
"They didn't like the way he operated, but they never said that he was incompetent," Kelly told commissioner Paul Creaghan, a retired judge."
Slow work...tardiness...missing slides!
Hmmm...Sounded familiar;
Where had I heard that before.
Or, as I had a chance to use my best French in a recent posting, was there not an epic sense of "deja vu?"
As I read these words, I thought back to testimony given to the Goudge Inquiry by Drs. Dirk Huyer, once head of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Unit at the hospital for several years, under cross-examination by Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein;
Try this for size...
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Dr. Huyer, do you remember what year it was that you last saw Dr. Smith?
DR. DIRK HUYER: I suspect it was 2001.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And you would have first met him then 1989?
DR. DIRK HUYER: In January, 1990.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 1990. During that period, at any stage, did you develop any concerns about Dr. Smith, as a professional, of course?
DR. DIRK HUYER: There were a number of times where I was notified about issues relating to Dr. Smith.
Primarily, those were issues about timeliness of reports.
And that was a recurrent pattern for me, and timeliness of -- of findings.
So, for example, I've done some talks out West, where police and Children's Aid have been there and made -- and I developed some acquaintances.
And I had been contacted by a RCP -- RCMP officer -- and I can't remember from which province -- who said to me, you know, I sent something to Dr. Smith for an opinion.
It's been a year and a half, and I can't get him.
He won't answer my call.
I -- and I need that material, because court's coming up.
And can you help me, because otherwise I'm going to have to call the
College to -- to get that stuff back.
And so I would go to Charles -- or I went to Charles and I said, Charles, you know, this officer has called me.
What -- what's up?
And then I didn't hear anything more of it following that time, so I made a presumption that he returned the material.
I had heard various things, as I say, about delay and -- and opinions being provided.
And I had heard, although I have no -- no ability to sort through this, that at times his opinion might be different at the time of the autopsy and then his final report."
So what was Dr. Huyer's opinion of his colleague?
DR. DIRK HUYER: Yes. Now, my direct observations of Dr. Smith in the autopsy suite, to me, seemed very thorough, very patient, very methodical in
his approach in doing the autopsies and watching the autopsies.
I never developed a concern about that.
And -- and as -- as you know, I have a very broad experience in watching autopsies with a variety of different pathologists.
So I did not develop any concerns during that time.
Reading his reports, which I had done on a frequent basis, again, concerns didn't jump out to me in -- in the spectrum of other pathology reports that I read.
Obviously, I can't analyse or understand the histopathology, so I couldn't evaluate that in any -- to any -- any degree.
But I -- things were not jumping out to me as being a concern.
His office was pretty cluttered and pretty much on the extreme end of what I would describe as cluttered.
But I'll tell you, I've been in a lot of cluttered offices and that, to me, isn't a definite marker of a problem."
Deja vu?
(At a general level, the comments of Menon's and Smith's colleagues raise crucial questions about hospital culture; Are there pressures on doctors and hospital staff to keep silent about other physicians - even when they have knowledge that the public could be harmed? Is this culture reflected in hospital administrations ad the various self-regulating colleges? Why don't Doctors get more actively involved in cleaning up their professions? Is there a "thin white line?")
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
The commission of inquiry into pathology services in New Brunswick was struck after an audit of the laboratory work of Dr. Rajgopal Menon, 73, found a significant number of errors and missed diagnoses, especially in relation to prostate and breast cancers.
(Menon, who will testify at the inquiry later this month, has defended his work, calling the review "unjustified and unfair." He has also filed a civil suit against the regional health authority.)
As reported by the Canadian Press yesterday, in a story headed, "NB inquiry into pathology errors told lack of professionals," this evidence came from Nora Kelly, a former deputy minister of health in New Brunswick.
"Kelly said she had no inkling of serious problems with Menon's work", the story, datelined Moncton, N.B. says.
"She said there were general comments from his colleagues about his slow work habits, his tardiness and missing slides, but no one suggested his work might be sub-standard.
"They didn't like the way he operated, but they never said that he was incompetent," Kelly told commissioner Paul Creaghan, a retired judge."
Slow work...tardiness...missing slides!
Hmmm...Sounded familiar;
Where had I heard that before.
Or, as I had a chance to use my best French in a recent posting, was there not an epic sense of "deja vu?"
As I read these words, I thought back to testimony given to the Goudge Inquiry by Drs. Dirk Huyer, once head of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Unit at the hospital for several years, under cross-examination by Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein;
Try this for size...
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Dr. Huyer, do you remember what year it was that you last saw Dr. Smith?
DR. DIRK HUYER: I suspect it was 2001.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And you would have first met him then 1989?
DR. DIRK HUYER: In January, 1990.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 1990. During that period, at any stage, did you develop any concerns about Dr. Smith, as a professional, of course?
DR. DIRK HUYER: There were a number of times where I was notified about issues relating to Dr. Smith.
Primarily, those were issues about timeliness of reports.
And that was a recurrent pattern for me, and timeliness of -- of findings.
So, for example, I've done some talks out West, where police and Children's Aid have been there and made -- and I developed some acquaintances.
And I had been contacted by a RCP -- RCMP officer -- and I can't remember from which province -- who said to me, you know, I sent something to Dr. Smith for an opinion.
It's been a year and a half, and I can't get him.
He won't answer my call.
I -- and I need that material, because court's coming up.
And can you help me, because otherwise I'm going to have to call the
College to -- to get that stuff back.
And so I would go to Charles -- or I went to Charles and I said, Charles, you know, this officer has called me.
What -- what's up?
And then I didn't hear anything more of it following that time, so I made a presumption that he returned the material.
I had heard various things, as I say, about delay and -- and opinions being provided.
And I had heard, although I have no -- no ability to sort through this, that at times his opinion might be different at the time of the autopsy and then his final report."
So what was Dr. Huyer's opinion of his colleague?
DR. DIRK HUYER: Yes. Now, my direct observations of Dr. Smith in the autopsy suite, to me, seemed very thorough, very patient, very methodical in
his approach in doing the autopsies and watching the autopsies.
I never developed a concern about that.
And -- and as -- as you know, I have a very broad experience in watching autopsies with a variety of different pathologists.
So I did not develop any concerns during that time.
Reading his reports, which I had done on a frequent basis, again, concerns didn't jump out to me in -- in the spectrum of other pathology reports that I read.
Obviously, I can't analyse or understand the histopathology, so I couldn't evaluate that in any -- to any -- any degree.
But I -- things were not jumping out to me as being a concern.
His office was pretty cluttered and pretty much on the extreme end of what I would describe as cluttered.
But I'll tell you, I've been in a lot of cluttered offices and that, to me, isn't a definite marker of a problem."
Deja vu?
(At a general level, the comments of Menon's and Smith's colleagues raise crucial questions about hospital culture; Are there pressures on doctors and hospital staff to keep silent about other physicians - even when they have knowledge that the public could be harmed? Is this culture reflected in hospital administrations ad the various self-regulating colleges? Why don't Doctors get more actively involved in cleaning up their professions? Is there a "thin white line?")
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
