Re: Dr Jones the mistakes so far


Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
> Mockingbird wrote:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "Due to my very busy 10 hour per day,
> > 6-7 day per week Lyme practice, there is a 5-6 month delay between
> > office contact and an actual office visit. In order to do no harm by
> > delaying evaluation and treatment, a history and lab test are obtained.
> >
> > Treatment is initiated prior to an office visit if a probable diagnosis
> >
> > can be made. Most of these children have already suffered from a delay
> > in diagnosis and/or inadequate treatment of their tick-bourne disease.
> >
> >
> > This is the background that led me to evaluate and treat two children
> > from Nevada prior to my seeing them. My diagnosis of probable
> > gestational Lyme disease and tick acquired Lyme disease was made on the
> >
> > basis of the history presented by their mother and my over 30 years of
> > treating children with tick-bourne diseases. I have been reported to
> > the Connecticut licensing board and have been charged with making the
> > diagnosis of Lyme disease and initiating antibiotic treatment prior to
> > examining them in my office and therefore am in violation of the
> > "usual and customary standard of medical care". "
>
>
> I think THIS is VERY interesting!
>
> In other words...the delay in seeing a patient will do them harm...
>
> ...my obligation is to rduce the risk of injury caused by this delay!
> Duty to the patient's welfare is supreme, isn't it?
>
> In fact, in my case...when I first started to exhibit tremors, I was
> instructed to make an appointment with a particular neurologist...whose
> office gave me the first available opening...THREE MONTHS later.
>
> Think about what that delay means in practical terms in the ability to
> effectively deal with a Lyme infection.
>
> Very interesting...it appears that he is doing the right thing by his
> patient's health...but the wrong thing according to a technical
> interpretation of the rules.
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > It is also clear that Dr Shapiro is NOT the complaining witness but a
> > member of the hearing board (if he was the complaining witness he
> > wouldn't be a member of the hearing board):
> >
>
>
> Yes, but is Shapiro still practicing...seeing patients at Yale? If so,
> isn't he in a competitive conflict, of sorts?

Well I don't think that "competitive conflicts" of such a general
nature are used to prevent doctors with an expertise in a certain area
from sitting on such boards. On this theory ALL DOCTORS, particularly
within a speciality or within a geographic region (not necessarily
limited by State borders) would have such conflicts.

I think that in such prosecutions doctors with expertise in a given
area are sought to review the actions of the accused (pediatricians for
pediatricians; a Lyme "specialist" to review a Lyme case--in this case
both are selected).

Now Dr Jones could always raise issues specific to Shapiro who has
views that are VERY WELL KNOWN and ENTRENCHED and to some
extent--extreme--about Lyme disease--though he comes with impressive
credentials.

To some extent, recalling the Burrascano case, the Board found the
views of one "expert" so extreme as to be INcredible--and this worked
to Burrascano's favor.

So Jones might do well (on appeal if needed) as Burrascano did, because
of how extreme Shapiro's views are.

I think that there is a general assumption that any such "competitive
conflicts" are theoretical and that a Doctor sitting on a hearing panel
swears to decide a case on the facts and free from any such bias.

I've never heard of such a generalized conflict being cited--and since
Shapiro is at Yale, I don't think the "competitive conflict" is as
specific as if it were a pediatrician in a competing practice. He's a
Professor at the medical school and his clinical practice is probably
very limited (thank goodness for patients!). And he is both a
pediatrician AND an infectious disease "specialist" with a long resume
regarding Lyme, so I don't think he's going to be removed for a
"competitive conflict"

But perhaps he has made comments specifically about Dr Jones or Lyme in
general that might be used to conflict him out?

Though remember the Burrascano guy--sometimes you might be better off
with the extremists against you.


> It would seem that he might be considered to have an interest in
> removing a practioner whose practice is in direct competition? Or, even
> if not...to remove a competitor whose practice could then be exploited?

See above. I get your point. Don't think that dog will hunt.

> That doesn't look very good... appearance of impropriety, I think.

See above.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading