|
|
BG
what's new CEOa CEOb MOH Gold Trust? Home KPMG
If an individual misinterprets information, and this will have serious life threatening implications on that individual's health and life, wouldn't an ethical health provider at least make an attempt to ensure that the cause for the misinterpretation was effectively explained?Is it ethical to repeatedly aggravate, instead of minimizing, the concern?
Is it reasonable to assume that, without an attempt to clear up the cause for the "misinterpretation", there effectively is not any misinterpretation? Click here
As of, December 16 2004, this last letter to the hospital was still unanswered.
On subsequent page(s) I will outline some of my attempts to enlist the support of MPP's
to obtain a significant response.
Here's an example of what is an unacceptable threat!
to dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
cc dcaplan.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
date Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM
subject Respect
Neelam Vir sent Premier Dalton McGuinty's aide a "death threat".
(http://416-777-7777.com/comment/article/307142)
Isn't the threat to life outlined in this post (http://healthtc.blogspot.com/2009/04/ontario-is-prepared-for-swine-flu.html) more realistic.
Obviously unimportant, as it deals with an ordinary citizen and not a member of the Government MPP clique?
No Reply As Yet
A New Brunswick man was found guilty on Thursday of threatening the principal of Belleisle Elementary School, where the daily singing of O Canada had been stopped.
Here's an example of what is not, apparently, a threat?‽!
Attention: Hospital Chief Executive Officer
Reference: MOH letter to me, c: to you dated August 13, 2001
On Tuesday, November 6, 2001, I received a most troubling letter (I have attached a copy of the letter.) from the Ministry of Health indicating that the Hospital has documents in it's possession, relating to my wife, that the hospital has previously intimated did not exist.
After nearly a year of being frustrated in my attempts to obtain an explanation why my wife was falsely pronounced dead, by the hospital and it's associated medical staff, I succeeded with some difficulty in obtaining what was purported to be a complete copy of the hospital records pertaining to my wife in January 1987. The alleged completeness was attested to by ...... ........., Executive Assistant to the Vice President (Medical). My repeated attempts at obtaining records, that were obviously missing, were treated, as what I perceived, with contempt (ie; My letters to the CEO May 21, 1992, June1, 1992, February 5, 1994, ....... November 3, 1994, .....). This was a commonly accepted, paternalistic practice, of the medical community to provide only material that they deemed of importance regardless of the patient's or next of kin's real needs, and I accept that could be the well intentioned practice of any institution at this time. In the spirit of compassion and accountability this attitude should have changed after the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on patient records in February 1992. Note that the document(s) referred to in the attached MOH letter were not in the supposedly complete records provided to me in January 1987! Up to now I only suspected that documents, such as these, existed, and I cannot see any justifiable, ethical reason, for the hospital to have withheld the documents or their contents from me, especially if they would have gone a long way to alleviate my concerns. If it was the intent to magnify my concerns, then, I agree the withholding was "appropriate".
If one assumes that Mr. ......'s statement; "These investigations confirmed that there is no evidence that your wife's internal organs were retained by the hospital. On the contrary, the records indicated that only cells from some of your wife's organs were retained.", is truthfully correct, and I cannot think of any reason that it would not be, then can I safely, also, assume that it was the hospital's intention to cause distress by having Doctors K......, B...... and S....., after consulting with the hospital, inform me that her organs had been incinerated? Does this demonstrate a sincere effort, by the hospital, to ensure that it's apparent level of compassion and caring would not exceed the standard that one could expect from Karla Homulka, Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo and their ilk?
By mid 1986, besides becoming increasingly frustrated at being unable to obtain any reasonable response to my concerns, I became aware of a subtle attitude that I perceived as a threat to me, incidents and occurrences that even I would classify as inconsequential if considered individually. Over the 1994, Labour Day weekend, I saw my family doctor with what I thought was a minor but very troubling condition. His advice and the hospital's reply to my related letter removed my doubts. An excerpt from the letter;
"Recently my family doctor advised me that I had a life threatening problem that required immediate medical attention at a hospital. As the local hospital established to treat this condition was the ....., I perceived that a small chance of survival, by avoiding "medical attention", was preferable to a probable zero chance of survival by putting my life in the hands of your facility. My past experience with the .... has left me with the impression that that the .... has little respect for human life or values. This was made very evident when your facility incinerated my wife's brains and all other internal organs after she was forcibly given "appropriate treatment".
Obviously, since I am capable of writing this letter, I did not entrust my life to the .... My first reaction was to make funeral arrangements within two hours of receiving the prognosis from my doctor. After more than a day, when my condition did not change for the better or the worse, I travelled a considerable distance to another hospital for a perceptibly less threatening service. It is really intolerable, when essential medical treatment is effectively not available, locally, for individuals such as myself."
The hospital's reply did not suggest that I had misinterpreted their prior attempts to reassure me but stated that my concerns had been responded to appropriately. I also agree that if the hospital wished me to feel that my well being would be at risk if I placed myself in the hospitals "care" then the response was "appropriate". This letter essentially removed all my doubts on the correctness of my concerns. This was recently reaffirmed by the Hospital's Board of Governors Chairman referring to this earlier letter of mine in a similar manner.
I do insist that copies of all documents relating to my wife, not included in the packet that I appropriately requested in January 1987, be provided to me without delay. Copies of subsequent pertinent documents should also be included.
Not part of the above letter
I was not aware of this decision until the fall of 2000
An excerpt from a Supreme court of Canada Decision
[1992] 2 S.C.R. McInerney v. MacDonald 138
(Patient's rights to their medical records.
A fiction in reality?)Non-disclosure may be warranted if there is a real potential for harm either to the patient or to a third party. This is the most persuasive ground for refusing access to medical records. However, even here, the discretion to withhold information should not be exercised readily. Particularly in situations that do not involve the interests of third parties, the court should demand compelling grounds before confirming a decision to deny access. As H. Beatty observes in "The Consumer's Right of Access to Health Care Records" (1986), 3:4 Just Cause 3, at p. 3, paternalistic assumptions such as the "best interests of the patient" may have carried more weight in an era where patients had little education or information with respect to health care and relied upon the trusted family doctor. However, these assumptions "do not apply today, where consumers typically have brief contacts with many health care providers and institutions, none of which knows the person well enough to determine his or her `best interests'". Assessing the "best interests of the patient" is a complex task. Non-disclosure can itself affect the patient's well-being. If access is denied, the patient may speculate as to what is in the records and imagine difficulties greater than those that actually exist. In addition, the physical well-being of the patient must be balanced with the patient's right to self-determination. Both are worthy of protection. In short, patients should have access to their medical records in all but a small number of circumstances. In the ordinary case, these records should be disclosed upon the request of the patient unless there is a significant likelihood of a substantial adverse effect on the physical, mental or emotional health of the patient or harm to a third party.
The general rule of access should not be frustrated by the patient's fear of incurring costs in the pursuit of what is fundamentally his or her right.
Attention: Chief Executive Officer
Reference: My letter to you dated, November 9, 2001 (copy attached)
While attempting to obtain some documents/information from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, through the offices of the “Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario”, I was asked, by a mediator, if I had received a reply to my letter of November 9, 2001 to you. As I have not received a reply, it was suggested that I make another attempt to obtain an answer from you.
Today’s report in the ................ on the sad demise of Mrs. .......... on Good Friday and the hospital’s apparent refusal to return calls from the family have encouraged me to make another attempt to encourage a positive change in the hospitals compassion to the concerns of it’s patients and their next of kin.
Will you please give me a positive, compassionate, response to my letter of November 9, 2001?
Still no reply
Another try
Attention: Hospital Chief Executive Officer
Reference: The Personal Health Information Protection Act;
My unanswered letters to you dated, November 9, 2001 and April 21, 2004 (copies attached);
MOHLTC letters dated October 17, 2001 and August 20, 2002 (copies attached)I accordance with “The Personal Health Information Protection Act” which is now in effect, I repeat my request for the material requested in my letter, of November 9, 2001, to you.
I wish to reasonably assess the value of Mr. ......'s statements, in his letter of August 20, 2002, “These investigations confirmed that there is no evidence that your wife’s internal organs were retained by the hospital. On the contrary, the records indicated that only cells from some of your wife’s organs were retained.”; and in his letter of August 20, 2002, “I have been advised that there have been many investigations undertaken on your behalf since 1986 and that the evidence suggests that appropriate practices were followed. This matter has been reviewed and discussed with you over the past decade and there is nothing more to add.”. It is my understanding that both these statements were based on information provided by the Hospital.
While I still wish to obtain the material that is pertinent to my original request, I request that the information relating to my wife’s remains be provided expeditiously so that I still have the physical capability to visit the area that they were disposed. The information that I have been provided, to date, also indicates that while none of her organs were retained by the hospital, none of her organs were returned to her body as per the normal protocols of the period.
If, “This matter has been reviewed and discussed with you over the past decade and there is nothing more to add.”, is an accurate statement, then may I assume that I have been a victim of identity theft and the hospital has been providing information to someone they believed to be me, as well as to me? Background records pertaining to these “reviews and discussions” during the stated period could clear up many possibly life threatening implications for me and are, therefore, also requested.
Smoke and Mirrors?
Click here for an ongoing follow-upDéjà vu?
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation.
we must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
-Adolph Hitler
Research will be regulated by the Act
Legislation prompted by the Alder Hey organ-stripping scandal has been published by ministers.Thursday, 4 December, 2003The Institute of Medical Ethics in 1987, recommended another evaluation should take place within five years. But this has never happened.
.
CEOa CEOb MOH Gold Trust? Home KPMG