Jane Identity revealed
I have to ask this as a separate topic..I wonder if anyone else feels similar in that Jane's death has obviously been revealed and now we can connect a real person and real history to her anonymous idenity. I thought this was a major no no in forum etiquette unless someone is attacking the forum or seeking to hurt the site. I dont recall Jane giving permission to release all this info in the forum that would allow us to see her REAL identity. I dont say it has damaged her reputation in any way but ethically I still dont feel it was right as we will never know whether or not she acutally would allow it to happen..she is dead and cannot consent? Or did she actually consent to this and I missed it. Sorry but I just dont feel this is right and John if she did not consent or someone acting as her power of attorney did not consent...shame on you for not moderating and editing this information...very foolish on this forums part in terms of lack of ethics in my opinion.
NO TRANSPARENCY, NO ETHICS,
NO TRANSPARENCY, NO ETHICS, NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO PATIENT SAFETY.
Bones, i do feel similar.
Bones, i do feel similar. however, this "public forum" has become somewhat of a closed society. Jane was very much an advocate and hcm does appear to be acting in best intention and wishes of her friend.. the revelation and detail is coming from hcm. and the impact of Jane's loss is evident with the regulars. i have very mixed feeling about all that has transpired and the dialogue that has taken place and am in a quandry from an ethical and human standpoint. i am in the medical field and do understand the outrage and confusion, pain and loss by those who developed a friendship with Jane. in her passing, her true identity has been revealed by some who knew who she was thru private communications. so she did share herself with a few other posters.
maybe the discomfort this is causing will have the positive impact Jane sought. For providers to not only listen but Hear their patients, and the patient learns to communicate more effectively with the provider. To work together for the best possible outcome and be more collaborative versus. demanding/dictatorship relation medicine has become.
I don't think that Jane
I don't think that Jane would have thought it was the end of the world.
And, it certainly isn't going to hurt her career at all.
Jane loved justice, and she loved having the last word.
Everything happens for a reason, and her identity was revealed for a reason, in my opinion
For Jane to have justice; for Jane to have the last word.
Let's remember that Jane
Let's remember that Jane herself spoke with Representative McGovern the day before she died and reiterated her story in hopes that history would not be repeated. She would not have gone that route if she did not want her name to be released.
There was a newspaper story written about her as well.
Strawberry Jam wrote: Let's
Let's remember that Jane herself spoke with Representative McGovern the day before she died and reiterated her story in hopes that history would not be repeated. She would not have gone that route if she did not want her name to be released.
There was a newspaper story written about her as well.
Right, and unless we had seen that article I don't know how many of us would truly believe she was dead.
Katherine wrote: Strawberry
Let's remember that Jane herself spoke with Representative McGovern the day before she died and reiterated her story in hopes that history would not be repeated. She would not have gone that route if she did not want her name to be released.
There was a newspaper story written about her as well.
Right, and unless we had seen that article I don't know how many of us would truly believe she was dead.
That's a good point, The newspaper article outed her....in a way. Did it make any correlation with her medical records or website identity? I didn't see the article.
So what do you think that I
So what do you think that I should have done, Bones, withheld that knowledge while forum members kept posting 'Where's Jane'?........while I knew that she was dead?
She died in the very fashion that she spoke so passionately against. Who else did she have to defend her cause? Aside from Marianne, who did she have to care? Who was there to even mourn her loss?
Oh but let's put forum ethics first and just let her be dust to be swept under the rug. What she would have wanted? I think it's great that people are trying to think of ways that the system could be improved by patient representatives/advocates. I think it's great that some letters have been written to try to address the horrendous treatment that Jane received in the end. Those things could not have been, if this forum had never known of her death. I believe that Jane would have appreciated that. I think she would have wanted someone to care.
So beat me........ban me..........I'll become Heartthrob VI...Ha
The very fact that we are
The very fact that we are having this conversation vindicates the decision to identify Jane. If her identity had not been revealed, no one on this forum would know of the tragic and senseless ending to her life. As it is, her fight goes on and the story of her death serves to help change things for the better.
heartthrob wrote: Oh but
Oh but let's put forum ethics first and just let her be dust to be swept under the rug. What she would have wanted? I
To a much lesser degree, this "rule"/forum etiquitte of not posting PM's....and any other rules....who determines when a pass is given? Who determines who gets to do what? Who's opinion actually means more on an annonymous forum?
What you did by announcing her passing may have been a "breach" of forum etiquitte. There's no consequence to that other than being banned and returning 2 minutes later. The issue more at hand is the distribution her records by someone not necessarily authorized to do so.
You are assuming what she wanted. Was there written directive. Was there any verbal comment written with a notary present? Did her will say what she wanted. No? then Bone's and my assumption is just as valid as yours. More so actually, becasue Both of us have just a little more understanding of Power of Attorney/HealthCare Surrogate status regarding medical issues then you do. Medical professionals take medical ethics CME regularly.
I find it odd that as widely popular as this site has become
, with all the intriguing discussion that an attorney with med-mal experience hasn't made his way into the forum. That person's input sure would help settle a lot (of course one who pursues, and one that defends)
Harleyman-6*
(*) denotes a previously hijacked HM-5, thus the skip to 6
harleyman-6
Oh but let's put forum ethics first and just let her be dust to be swept under the rug. What she would have wanted? I
To a much lesser degree, this "rule"/forum etiquitte of not posting PM's....and any other rules....who determines when a pass is given? Who determines who gets to do what? Who's opinion actually means more on an annonymous forum?
What you did by announcing her passing may have been a "breach" of forum etiquitte. There's no consequence to that other than being banned and returning 2 minutes later. The issue more at hand is the distribution her records by someone not necessarily authorized to do so.
You are assuming what she wanted. Was there written directive. Was there any verbal comment written with a notary present? Did her will say what she wanted. No? then Bone's and my assumption is just as valid as yours. More so actually, becasue Both of us have just a little more understanding of Power of Attorney/HealthCare Surrogate status regarding medical issues then you do. Medical professionals take medical ethics CME regularly.
I find it odd that as widely popular as this site has become
, with all the intriguing discussion that an attorney with med-mal experience hasn't made his way into the forum. That person's input sure would help settle a lot (of course one who pursues, and one that defends)
Harleyman-6*
(*) denotes a previously hijacked HM-5, thus the skip to 6
What Mare has attempted to do is make sense out of something that was totally senseless. She has firsthand knowledge of the mistreatment that Jane received, but no one who is claiming responsibility.
Isn't that what Jane used to fight about? Didn't it make her irate when she saw articles that she posted where there were different standards for different people? How many times did she comment that patients who were seen to be "mentally ill" had no credibility no matter what the circumstance?
Jane participated on threads when someone on the forum expressed some sort of abuse by the medical profession. She was an advocate for better healthcare nationwide. If she fell through the cracks, I think that she would be more than pleased that so many are interested to learn why, and want to do something to participate to see change.
Harley, many of us have been in situations where we can't understand how the medical boards/colleges allow substandard care with no reprimand to a doctor when we have proof that this substandard care existed. How many times have YOU said, "Prove it"? Here Mare has given you an opportunity to see *both* sides of the issue, which you always demand, and now you are saying that it isn't right to give that proof or look to see if there is anything within her records that shows a definite sign of negligence, etc..
Is this a sign of "white coats" covering for one another? Or is it really an ethics situation for you?
abusedemotionally
What Mare has attempted to do is make sense out of something that was totally senseless. She has firsthand knowledge of the mistreatment that Jane received, but no one who is claiming responsibility.
Isn't that what Jane used to fight about? Didn't it make her irate when she saw articles that she posted where there were different standards for different people? How many times did she comment that patients who were seen to be "mentally ill" had no credibility no matter what the circumstance?
Jane participated on threads when someone on the forum expressed some sort of abuse by the medical profession. She was an advocate for better healthcare nationwide. If she fell through the cracks, I think that she would be more than pleased that so many are interested to learn why, and want to do something to participate to see change.
Harley, many of us have been in situations where we can't understand how the medical boards/colleges allow substandard care with no reprimand to a doctor when we have proof that this substandard care existed. How many times have YOU said, "Prove it"? Here Mare has given you an opportunity to see *both* sides of the issue, which you always demand, and now you are saying that it isn't right to give that proof or look to see if there is anything within her records that shows a definite sign of negligence, etc..
Is this a sign of "white coats" covering for one another? Or is it really an ethics situation for you?
So you're saying, that seeking the proper method to do things, is a sign of supporting a cover-up? really?.....a tad bit conspiratorial.
If Marie has so much first hand info, then an estate attorney should have little if any difficulty providing Marie with authorization. She can then do as she wishes.
I have reviewed those records. I have my opinions privately. I expressed what I thought about the "void d/c" slip publicly. My comments were selectively interpreted, and I was flammed. It seems the same clique find what I say "offensive"...and that's fine. It says a lot. It's your forum, enjoy it. But it's not indicative of the real world where freedom of speech abounds. And judges/juries are impartial.
Janes Death could have been
Janes Death could have been announced without linkking it to the obit column that has more explicit detail. As much as Jane was for patient rights I am sure she was also for patient privacy and unless I see a written consent from her giving permission to release not only her records but her identity I am sorry but NONE of you especially John can excuse releasing her identity this way.Otherwise you are all assuming "implied consent" and you cannot know that..unless you had a Pm from her relating to doing this or from her immediate family how can you justify this. I find it interesting that if a DOCTOR did this with a patients info you all would be screaming about it yet it is ok for Joe public to do the same just because you are not members of a governing body. Has anyone bothered to check the legalities of this..maybe you should because seriously I do NOT think this is legal.
bones wrote: Janes Death
Janes Death could have been announced without linkking it to the obit column that has more explicit detail. As much as Jane was for patient rights I am sure she was also for patient privacy and unless I see a written consent from her giving permission to release not only her records but her identity I am sorry but NONE of you especially John can excuse releasing her identity this way.Otherwise you are all assuming "implied consent" and you cannot know that..unless you had a Pm from her relating to doing this or from her immediate family how can you justify this. I find it interesting that if a DOCTOR did this with a patients info you all would be screaming about it yet it is ok for Joe public to do the same just because you are not members of a governing body. Has anyone bothered to check the legalities of this..maybe you should because seriously I do NOT think this is legal.
Yup...talk about a HIPPA violation...
hmm... is hippa applicable
hmm... is hippa applicable to non medical entity... is it illegal for a friend to speak of detail of someone's health?.. i will have to look that one up... doesnt hippa protect the patient from doc/nurse/tech/insurance carrier revealing info?.
noonespecial wrote: hmm...
hmm... is hippa applicable to non medical entity... is it illegal for a friend to speak of detail of someone's health?.. i will have to look that one up... doesnt hippa protect the patient from doc/nurse/tech/insurance carrier revealing info?.
No it's not..I was referring to Bones comment about if a doctor did it..
abusedemotionally wrote:
How many times have YOU said, "Prove it"? Here Mare has given you an opportunity to see *both* sides of the issue, which you always demand, and now you are saying that it isn't right to give that proof or look to see if there is anything within her records that shows a definite sign of negligence, etc..
That is a great observation Sherry. You're right. They say 'prove it', only until they know that you can, then they find some reason to silence you!!
abusedemotionally
Medical professionals take medical ethics CME regularly.
Harley, many of us have been in situations where we can't understand how the medical boards/colleges allow substandard care with no reprimand to a doctor when we have proof that this substandard care existed.
I have a great topic for a CME.
C ME and Bill and Lloyd, and what happened to us, and look at it from various perspectives:
Ethics, Safety, Prevention of Vision Loss, Prevention of Harm, Duty to Disclose, Human Rights.
A thoughtful response to what happened to us, as well as others should earn CME credits in all of those areas. Jane once said that my although my vision wasn't good, I could see. I can see with my heart. Some doctors and organizations are blind, and this is a safety issue.
In taking the blinders off, Jane's identity needed to be revealed. Jane could take the heat, in my opinion. She did reveal to us in one thread, that she would do what needed to be done to handle the heat, and she didn't care how it looked. What really matters? Jane's privacy or Jane's peace? If Jane can improve the system, she will rest in peace. That is clear to me.
harleyman-6
hmm... is hippa applicable to non medical entity... is it illegal for a friend to speak of detail of someone's health?.. i will have to look that one up... doesnt hippa protect the patient from doc/nurse/tech/insurance carrier revealing info?.
No it's not..I was referring to Bones comment about if a doctor did it..
and there in lies the ethical dilemma for you both.. YOU are bound.. the public is not and unless someone related to Jane complains.. well.. is it illegal?
noonespecial
hmm... is hippa applicable to non medical entity... is it illegal for a friend to speak of detail of someone's health?.. i will have to look that one up... doesnt hippa protect the patient from doc/nurse/tech/insurance carrier revealing info?.
No it's not..I was referring to Bones comment about if a doctor did it..
and there in lies the ethical dilemma for you both.. YOU are bound.. the public is not and unless someone related to Jane complains.. well.. is it illegal?
So, how do you exlain this varying degree of ethical dilemma...A little while ago, my ethic "level" was pretty low because of this....now it's suddenly, pointedly noted?
It also denotes the double standard that exists...
wishandaprayer wrote: I have
I have a great topic for a CME.
C ME and Bill and Lloyd, and what happened to us, and look at it from various perspectives:
Ethics, Safety, Prevention of Vision Loss, Prevention of Harm, Duty to Disclose, Human Rights.
Harley has shown his true identity.....at last.
How droll that he is, again, the center of attention.
were you talking to me?
harleyman-6 wrote: I have a
I have a great topic for a CME.
C ME and Bill and Lloyd, and what happened to us, and look at it from various perspectives:
Ethics, Safety, Prevention of Vision Loss, Prevention of Harm, Duty to Disclose, Human Rights.
CME's are an exercise to prove that you are competent and interested in life long learning. But, you really don't care much about compentency or learning when you discard what really needs to be learned, in my opinion.
What needs to be learned from what happened to Jane?
It shows me that CMEs are just smoke and mirrors.
harleyman-6 wrote: bones
Janes Death could have been announced without linkking it to the obit column that has more explicit detail. As much as Jane was for patient rights I am sure she was also for patient privacy and unless I see a written consent from her giving permission to release not only her records but her identity I am sorry but NONE of you especially John can excuse releasing her identity this way.Otherwise you are all assuming "implied consent" and you cannot know that..unless you had a Pm from her relating to doing this or from her immediate family how can you justify this. I find it interesting that if a DOCTOR did this with a patients info you all would be screaming about it yet it is ok for Joe public to do the same just because you are not members of a governing body. Has anyone bothered to check the legalities of this..maybe you should because seriously I do NOT think this is legal.
Yup...talk about a HIPPA violation...
Marketing personal medical records is ok by HIPPA rules so what do these rules really mean...I can do what I please as I am GOD!
harleyman-6
I have a great topic for a CME.
C ME and Bill and Lloyd, and what happened to us, and look at it from various perspectives:
Ethics, Safety, Prevention of Vision Loss, Prevention of Harm, Duty to Disclose, Human Rights.
Harley has shown his true identity.....at last.
How droll that he is, again, the center of attention.
were you talking to me?
Good Lord, no! I want an intelligent discussion. Exactly how many times have you been banned? It appears you are an extremely slow learner. I hope your career in life does not involve anything important.
Now shove off!
harleyman-6 wrote: So you're
So you're saying, that seeking the proper method to do things, is a sign of supporting a cover-up? really?.....a tad bit conspiratorial.
Huh??
I am saying that if one has proof that wrongdoing *was* done, then it is the responsibility of the medical board/college to look at the proof at "face value." But when they sweep evidence under the rug and don't make the doctor accountable, it is not right for the patient that was injured or for future patients that he is treating. It also lowers the "standard of care" to a substandard.
If Marie has so much first hand info, then an estate attorney should have little if any difficulty providing Marie with authorization. She can then do as she wishes.
As I have no knowledge as to this situation, I defer comment.
I have reviewed those records. I have my opinions privately. I expressed what I thought about the "void d/c" slip publicly. My comments were selectively interpreted, and I was flammed. It seems the same clique find what I say "offensive"...and that's fine. It says a lot. It's your forum, enjoy it. But it's not indicative of the real world where freedom of speech abounds.
Well you do know how to make people bristle . . . Harleyman-6 . . .
And judges/juries are impartial.
I was speaking of medical boards/colleges . . . not the courts.
It has been "my" experience that these doctors who look into complaints are NOT impartial. They are anything but.
I was labelled by Dr. Keriem to have been a "difficult" patient. This so called "impartial" investigator (a surgeon) took Dr. Keriem's word for *everything* he said . . . even when I had proof otherwise. Just to give you a small smattering of what was a "fair" investigation:
- I had proof that Dr. Keriem sanitized my medical record. Any cooperation on my part was taken out and replaced with my being seen to be lying, noncompliance and refusing third party help. Dr. Keriem has listed several times, within my medical chart, that I was refusing to take antidepressants or lying about having taken them. I have pharmacy records to show that in a 3 1/2 year period, I faithfully bought these antidepressants, with the exception of 3 months, after I had a real serious side-effect to one. Dr. Keriem's response to this decrepancy, was that he wrote only what I told him. Why would I lie and say I wasn't taking antidepressants when I was??? And why would I buy them and not take them??? I had no reason to lie.
- I had proof that I was willing to go to see third party help. Dr. Keriem has written that he had sent my husband and me to see a social worker for counseling and that after going a few times, that I refused to go and my husband went on his own. I have proof directly from the social worker that this was false information . As well, two letters from her that showed that I was seeing her are gone from my medical record. I have copies of these letters.
- I had proof that I was seeing a psychologist and that we came to a mutual agreement that I stop seeing her. My issues of sexual abuse were beyond her scope. Dr. Keriem has me stopping these sessions too soon and refusing to go back to see her. He has taken out the letter that he was sent by the psychologist, whereby she is stating that we had come to this mutual decision.
- To the above two incidents, Dr. Keriem said that he did not know why he never got these letters or why they are not included in my medical record. The investigator asked Dr. Keriem that if my "confusion" was due to his shoddy file keeping.
- Dr. Keriem had told me that he would make me a referral to someone who had the expertise in sexual abuse issues. My e-mails (seen by the investigator as "information overload")to Dr. Keriem where I am pleading for him to make this referral are gone. He told the investigator these were irreverent to my care. During the course of the investigation, the investigator did not address why Dr. Keriem refused to make this referral, but rather asked him if these e-mails could have been a "boundary issue." Pleas for help are "boundary issues??????" Also, in response to my first complaint, Dr. Keriem has stated that I wanted "him and only him" to treat the abuse issues I had, where these e-mails pointedly show otherwise. Again, no questions were asked of this discrepancy in reporting.
- The investigator allowed that Dr. Keriem re-wrote my record because of transfer problems between one computer and another. They tried to tell me that electronic records was a "new innovation." This "new innovation" whereby software protocols are stipulated that an audit trail *must* exist was in the College's policies for 8 years. 8 years . . . and it is *new*???
- They also saw that Dr. Keriem was trying to spare my feelings, when he admitted to re-writing my file manually, so that I wouldn't be upset by a "computer print-out date." Now we have two re-written files, and NO original. He told the investigator that he had the original file wiped clean by a professional. If I was not a psychiatric patient, do you think that a doctor would get away the lame excuse of re-writing a record to "spare a patient's feelings?"
There was so much more . . .
that I could write pages about it here.
So please don't speak to me about "impartial" investigations into wrongdoing. The investigation reeked of stigma, discrimination, prejudice, unethical practices, breach of policies . . . Where is "accountability"?
As it may be related to Janes circumstance, I believe that *we* are more "impartial" in looking at the facts and "we" can see truth where a doctor *may* look for "reasons" around substandard care.
I have observed, personally,
I have observed, personally, a doctor remove paperwork from the file of a patient and wad it up and toss it into the trash.
Needless to say, I no longer am connected to this doctor as it occurred more than once. Too bad I was not proactive and, after he left the room, removed these pages from the trash.
I would now....in a heartbeat....no matter who the patient or who the doctor.
Doing the right thing is always best. It is not always easy...but it is right.
The hardest part was the concept of betraying my employer. The easy part was knowing I was doing what I must.
I reported him.
EDIT: As the edit button is
EDIT: As the edit button is no longer there.
"So please don't speak to me about "impartial" investigations into wrongdoing. The investigation reeked of stigma, discrimination, prejudice, unethical practices, breach of policies . . . Where is "accountability"?"
Should read:
"So please don't speak to me about "impartial" investigations into wrongdoing. The investigation reeked of stigma, discrimination, prejudice and the allowance of unethical practices, breach of policies . . . Where is "accountability"?
abusedemotionally wrote: As
As it may be related to Janes circumstance, I believe that *we* are more "impartial" in looking at the facts and "we" can see truth where a doctor *may* look for "reasons" around substandard care.
Impartiality is the furthest thing many here are displaying. I base that on;
-the high degree of emotionality that so obviously exists.
-the fact that you've referred to her as a friend (that nulifies it right there)
-the implied bias that exists at the hands of those that deem they've ben previously wronged at the hands of the medical community.
you are not, by any stretch of the imagination....impartial.
As a result you will look to, and infer misjustice at any turn in the road you find.
No rationally thinking entity would give further consideration to your last comment.
In order for a doctor to
In order for a doctor to understand what you are saying AE, he would have to have a heart.
A not impartial poster
A not impartial poster chastising another poster for not being impartial (in their opinion).
Do discussions around here ever stay on track?
wishandaprayer wrote: In
In order for a doctor to understand what you are saying AE, he would have to have a heart.
Be an independent thinker as well. Not always having to agree with the masses like a programmed robot.
abusedemotionally
So you're saying, that seeking the proper method to do things, is a sign of supporting a cover-up? really?.....a tad bit conspiratorial.
Huh??
I am saying that if one has proof that wrongdoing *was* done, then it is the responsibility of the medical board/college to look at the proof at "face value." But when they sweep evidence under the rug and don't make the doctor accountable, it is not right for the patient that was injured or for future patients that he is treating. It also lowers the "standard of care" to a substandard.
If Marie has so much first hand info, then an estate attorney should have little if any difficulty providing Marie with authorization. She can then do as she wishes.
As I have no knowledge as to this situation, I defer comment.
I have reviewed those records. I have my opinions privately. I expressed what I thought about the "void d/c" slip publicly. My comments were selectively interpreted, and I was flammed. It seems the same clique find what I say "offensive"...and that's fine. It says a lot. It's your forum, enjoy it. But it's not indicative of the real world where freedom of speech abounds.
Well you do know how to make people bristle . . . Harleyman-6 . . .
And judges/juries are impartial.
I was speaking of medical boards/colleges . . . not the courts.
It has been "my" experience that these doctors who look into complaints are NOT impartial. They are anything but.
I was labelled by Dr. Keriem to have been a "difficult" patient. This so called "impartial" investigator (a surgeon) took Dr. Keriem's word for *everything* he said . . . even when I had proof otherwise. Just to give you a small smattering of what was a "fair" investigation:
- I had proof that Dr. Keriem sanitized my medical record. Any cooperation on my part was taken out and replaced with my being seen to be lying, noncompliance and refusing third party help. Dr. Keriem has listed several times, within my medical chart, that I was refusing to take antidepressants or lying about having taken them. I have pharmacy records to show that in a 3 1/2 year period, I faithfully bought these antidepressants, with the exception of 3 months, after I had a real serious side-effect to one. Dr. Keriem's response to this decrepancy, was that he wrote only what I told him. Why would I lie and say I wasn't taking antidepressants when I was??? And why would I buy them and not take them??? I had no reason to lie.
- I had proof that I was willing to go to see third party help. Dr. Keriem has written that he had sent my husband and me to see a social worker for counseling and that after going a few times, that I refused to go and my husband went on his own. I have proof directly from the social worker that this was false information . As well, two letters from her that showed that I was seeing her are gone from my medical record. I have copies of these letters.
- I had proof that I was seeing a psychologist and that we came to a mutual agreement that I stop seeing her. My issues of sexual abuse were beyond her scope. Dr. Keriem has me stopping these sessions too soon and refusing to go back to see her. He has taken out the letter that he was sent by the psychologist, whereby she is stating that we had come to this mutual decision.
- To the above two incidents, Dr. Keriem said that he did not know why he never got these letters or why they are not included in my medical record. The investigator asked Dr. Keriem that if my "confusion" was due to his shoddy file keeping.
- Dr. Keriem had told me that he would make me a referral to someone who had the expertise in sexual abuse issues. My e-mails (seen by the investigator as "information overload")to Dr. Keriem where I am pleading for him to make this referral are gone. He told the investigator these were irreverent to my care. During the course of the investigation, the investigator did not address why Dr. Keriem refused to make this referral, but rather asked him if these e-mails could have been a "boundary issue." Pleas for help are "boundary issues??????" Also, in response to my first complaint, Dr. Keriem has stated that I wanted "him and only him" to treat the abuse issues I had, where these e-mails pointedly show otherwise. Again, no questions were asked of this discrepancy in reporting.
- The investigator allowed that Dr. Keriem re-wrote my record because of transfer problems between one computer and another. They tried to tell me that electronic records was a "new innovation." This "new innovation" whereby software protocols are stipulated that an audit trail *must* exist was in the College's policies for 8 years. 8 years . . . and it is *new*???
- They also saw that Dr. Keriem was trying to spare my feelings, when he admitted to re-writing my file manually, so that I wouldn't be upset by a "computer print-out date." Now we have two re-written files, and NO original. He told the investigator that he had the original file wiped clean by a professional. If I was not a psychiatric patient, do you think that a doctor would get away the lame excuse of re-writing a record to "spare a patient's feelings?"
There was so much more . . .
that I could write pages about it here.
So please don't speak to me about "impartial" investigations into wrongdoing. The investigation reeked of stigma, discrimination, prejudice, unethical practices, breach of policies . . . Where is "accountability"?
As it may be related to Janes circumstance, I believe that *we* are more "impartial" in looking at the facts and "we" can see truth where a doctor *may* look for "reasons" around substandard care.
The College did a fine job, eh Harley?
