Re: the real issue in the Jones case

Let me explain why this "strategy" is so ill conceived.

>>From the standpoint of the CT medical board (and pretty much every
medical board in the country without exception), it is NOT correct to
say that Lyme patients do NOT have access to care.

And, in fact, it is demonstrably wrong.

What you REALLY mean is that they do not have access to the care that
YOU think is appropriate.

However, 99.9999% of the medical community believes that the IDSA IS
appropriate--it IS the "standard of care."

Even you can't argue that--you can take the position that you think it
sucks (and I do too). But it IS the standard of care. You even argue
that is a problem (and I don't disagree).

So rather than taking on the effort of trying to prove that the
standard of care is wrong globally, in the context of this case, what
is a much better strategy would be to say that IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE
IN THIS CASE!

Argue that this is the exceptional case. Because then you're not taking
on the unecessary burden of proving that the IDSA is globally
incorrect--in fact, the IDSA and all that it is based on recognizes the
unusual case that does require more treatment. Rather than arguing that
congenital Lyme is common, just argue that it happened here. Why take
on more of a burden than you would have to?

NOT FOR YOUR AGENDA--but for THIS case.

So rather than arguing that Dr Jones does this frequently and he is
right to do it, which only opens up other cases he's handled to
scrutiny and presents the board with a pattern of activity, just focus
on the facts of THIS case. Let him argue that his diagnosis HERE was
correct, his treatment HERE was correct, that in THIS CASE no one else
would treat the kid.

Do you see the difference in approach between "inserting patient
interests" and advancing YOUR AGENDA and defending Dr Jones IN THIS
CASE?

Your way is sure to martyr him, and a dead martyr is NOT worth more
than a living saint except if you're starting a religion.

And rather than starting a religion the focus here is MUCH more
practical: saving Dr Jones license and his ability to treat children
with Lyme.

In fact, in reality, none of this probably flies because IF the kids
were in such dire need of diagnosis and treatment Dr Jones has no
excuse for not having simply made time to see the kids earlier--from
the standpoint of the board at least.

So rather than making it a circus or a big pr event or an opportunity
to advance your Lyme crusade, the best resolution of this case is most
likely a defense that the children were NOT harmed, that the diagnosis
was most likely correct or at least had a reasonable basis, that the
treatment was reasonable and did no harm, that treatment was properly
monitored, and while it would have been better to see the kids FIRST,
he will do so in the future.

And that no draconian penalties such as license surrender suspension or
removal should be considered--that a lesser penalty is all that would
be appropriate--that Dr Jones has a stellar reputation and an
unblemished one and an impeccable record and there are plenty of
patient testimonials, awards, accomplishments and he is a benefit to
patients and the community is much better off with a good doctor who
perhaps made a mistake or error in judgment than without him.

So slap him on the wrist, make him take some additional CME courses and
let's all move on.

Without PR, without fanfare, without trying to prove anything more than
that.

Because making it HIGH PROFILE will force the board's hand--make them
make an example of him, make it impossible to achieve such a non trial
disposition of the matter.

Do you hear what I'm saying Phyllis?

The letters from patients should NOT say "Dr Jones treated my kids for
months without seeing them" or anything like that--it will NOT help to
make it a point that this is a pattern and practice and try to justify
it.

See even if the standard of care SUCKS, the truth is that "negligence"
in medicine is defined as a deviation from the standard of care. So
deviating from the standard of care is NOT a defense, and taking on the
task of proving the standard of care is wrong is taking on more than
necessary and might lose the day anyway--you could lose while
winning--because it would still be a deviation and thus negligent.

And honestly diagnosing and starting treatment without ever seeing a
patient--for MONTHS is something that is hard to defend (we understand
why it was done but the medical board NEVER will and NEVER will condone
it--NEVER).

So all the fuss that you want to start, and your PR strategies and
interventions by muckety mucks can ONLY hurt.

IF AND WHEN the legal team decides otherwise they will let you know.
And then tell you EXACTLY what they want done. ANd then--if you REALLY
want to help, you will do EXACTLY THAT and NOTHING MORE.

No embellishment. Nothing more.

Here it is from the lawyers:

"We are currently in discussions about the case & are forming a
strategy to proceed. We will contact you as soon as we are ready to
recommend a specific course of action....Please do not take any action
until we have a recommendation as it may adversely affect the case."

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LISTEN TO THAT.

They will form a strategy NOT YOU. DO NOT TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL they
have a recommendation as IT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CASE."

If there is anything about that which you don't understand, please ask.
Perhaps we can help clarify that for you. But basically it means DO
NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNLESS AND UNTIL ASKED AND THEN DO WHAT THEY
ASK AND ONLY WHAT THEY ASK AND NOTHING MORE!

Thanks!


pmerv@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Why should we put up with the generally accepted standard of care? The
> IDSA standard of care basically constitutes, as Ken Liegner has
> eloquently said, medical neglect.
>
> * You were bitten by a tick? Here, have 200mg. of doxycycline.
> There's no proof it works but it's cheap and it will get you off my
> back.
> * You think you have Lyme? Most people who think they do, don't
> really. You have chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis,
> mental illness, etc.
> * Your child has Lyme? 2 weeks of antibiotics will cure him.
> * You think your child still has Lyme after treatment? Maybe we
> should check you for Munchausen's by proxy.
> * You have a positive test? It either doesn't meet the CDC
> criteria, it's a false positive, or a positive test doesn't prove
> active disease.
> * You need an LLMD appointment after getting nowhere with 10 other
> doctors? You either have to travel several hours, wait several months
> for an appointment, or the practice is closed to new patients because
> there aren't enough LLMDs.
>
>
> For people with Lyme disease the IDSA standard of care says, "Heads I
> win, tails you lose." And then they go after LLMDs and Lyme labs,
> trying to reduce the already pathetically limited resources. Why should
> we put up with this? When is the Lyme community going to say, "Enough!"?

.

Relevant Pages