Re: Dr Jones the mistakes so far


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?

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?

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

.

Relevant Pages
Loading