|
|
| what's new |
|
CEOa | CEOb |
|
|
|
|
If a government funds
and permits an organization to
ignore a law
that specifically pertains to
them, effectively giving
them immunity from the law,
doesn't it, unnecessarily, subject
any and all laws to possible contempt?
April 18, 2002The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 18 states: "It is the duty of the Minister to ensure that the health professions are regulated and co-ordinated in the public interest, that appropriate standards of practice are developed and maintained and that individuals have access to services provided by the health professions of their choice and that they are treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professionals, the Colleges and the Board. 1991, c. 18, s. 3." I wrote letters to the Minister of Health requesting his intervention to persuade the hospital to provide a positive response to my November 9, 2001 letter
to the hospital's CEO,
Here are some examples;
Links to dated letters April 18, 2002 July 3, 2002 September 9, 2002 April 14, 2003
Attention: The Honourable Tony Clement
Reference: My unanswered letter to you dated December 6, 2001 and,
My letter to the C.E.O. dated November 9, 2001 (attached)Minister:
After reading an editorial in yesterday's Toronto Star on the twentieth anniversary of the promulgation of "The Charter of Rights" I wondered if the non response to my letters is confirmation that the publicly funded medical community may selectively elect to chose when they may disregard laws pertaining to them even to the detriment of the public. Essentially, is this confirmation that they are only bound by laws when it suits them and that they are a law unto themselves?
If the hospital has documentation that verifies that my wife's remains were respectfully handled, is it not sadistic to withhold this documentation in apparent contravention of a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada? If her remains were respectfully handled what legitimate, humane purpose could be served by repeatedly telling me they were treated as garbage?
I cannot see how, even if it might be a misunderstanding, a responsible medical unit can effectively delay life saving medical treatment to a citizen by causing that person to believe that his well being would be put at risk if he accepted "treatment". Shouldn't reasonable, responsible reassurance be the norm considering the ever present inherent risks associated with medical interventions? This certainly can't be an example of providing "security of the person" as envisioned by the Charter of Rights.
Does the term "informed consent" have any practical meaning? I, as most others, when hearing cancer in a diagnosis, would want fast, effective treatment. When treatment is offered, with what is perceived as a threat of intentional unnecessary harm, then essentially there is no offer of effective treatment in my mind. Do Boards, police, government and others in the health professions fail to take corrective action for reasons that I can only speculate?
Is there any chance that I may pay a symbolic visit to the area that my wife's remains were disposed of?
Is there any chance that the medical professions will become visibly, ethically and believably accountable in the foreseeable future?
Attention: The Honourable Tony Clement
Reference: My unanswered letter to you dated April 18, 2001 and,
My unanswered letter to you dated December 6, 2001 and,
My letter to the C.E.O. dated November 9, 2001 (copies of all attached)Minister:
Am I to assume that the non response to my correspondence is subtle confirmation that;
A. Yes, it was and is the intent of the CPSO and the ..Hospital to have me believe that my life would be in greater jeopardy if I utilized any facility that they had some influence over. Considering the number of times that this has been reiterated over the years and they have made no effort to indicate that I have misinterpreted them, then do you consider me to be simple minded for not being able to accept this reality?B. If a patient is insultingly noncompliant (in the eyes of the medical hierarchy) and attempts to leave the ICU after being pronounced dead it is quite acceptable that after that patient is confidently pronounced dead again, that it is only fitting that the insulted medical professionals be availed of some satisfaction for the insult. Is it really acceptable for the victim to be gutted and have all her internal organs incinerated with the garbage to atone for the perceived insult? Why are the next of kin not permitted to make a symbolic visit to the area that her remains were dumped?
C. The CPSO and hospitals are law unto themselves and may use laws effectively to insulate themselves from the public but still are able to disregard laws that apply to them, at their pleasure.
Since my life is precious to me and I used to believe that "informed consent" meant something significant can, or may I, take appropriate action if and when "treatment" appears to be forced on me against my consent, and if I do, may I expect the support of police and other authorities or may I expect prosecution?Considering my age and terror tactics, such as falsely being given less than a week to live without treatment, having been used in the past I would request a prompt, positive and helpful response.
cc: Premier of Ontario;
Out of frustration from the lack of response I constructed this web page on August 26, 2002 after reading the, August 23 newspaper, article that is the heading of the "can you have trust?" page.On August 30, 2002 I received a most unhelpful letter from a MOH bureaucrat. This letter purported to be a response to the above July 3 letter, but it did not address any of my concerns. On September 9, I sent the following letters, the body of the letter to the Minister of Health should give a pretty good idea of the contents of the bureaucrat's letter. Points 1, 2 and 3 are excerpts from the letter.
Attention: The Honourable Tony Clement
Reference: My letters to you dated December 6, 2001, April 18, 2002, July 3, 2002 and,
MoH letter dated November 17, 2001 and,
My letter to the C.E.O., dated November 9, 2001 (copies of all attached)Minister:
If I am to accept Mr. .....'s letter, dated August 20, 2002 (copy attached) as your final response, then I am very concerned as I see extremely disturbing parallels with events I believe occurred in the early 1930's in NAZI Germany. This especially with the highly unethical and illegal medical experimentations condoned by the government in preparation for the coming holocaust.
A study, unashamedly reported world wide, in such papers as Toronto Star, British Medical Journal, The Medical Post, ......, etc, goes a long way to substantiate my concerns. The article in "The Medical Post, VOLUME 37, NO. 13, April 3, 2001" Med students encouraged to act unethically: study; U of T research brings concerns out into the open; is a readily available reference either in hard copy or on their web page.
I have not been a party to any discussions with these matters, during the last decade, as stated in Mr.......'s letter! None of these matters have been reviewed with me by the CPSO, the Hospital or their agents or persons claiming to be acting as their agents. Indeed, during the past decade there has never been a suggestion that my interpretation of the intention of their earlier response was in essence, incorrect. Basically the hospital only communicated to me, repeatedly, that my interpretation, a threat, was the one they intended.
Yes I am aware that legally I have the prerogative to withhold consent for treatment and that if I give consent then it should be informed consent. Considering my present situation; I have a bleeding sore on the side of my head that is growing in size. I have been told that it is cancerous. I know that a simple, normally uncomplicated, treatment is available that would arrest this condition. I would be very anxious to have this procedure carried out and very willing to also accept that unforeseen serious complications might arise as the result of treatment. When this treatment is offered with the Hospital's ever present, and repeated, implied threat then I cannot see how I can essentially present myself for what I believe would be my execution. Informed consent in this context would be an oxymoron. History has shown that groups of few to extremely large groups of people meekly went to their sadistically administered execution. This was not a sign of cowardice but as dignified an expression of their acceptance of the inevitable. A relatively small number, no braver than the others, refused to cooperate and some were subjected to immediate and relatively quick deaths but most were subjected to brutally slow deaths by beating. It was the only way to demonstrate their anger. I also have been convinced by the Hospital and the CPSO that I can expect harm if I willingly place myself in their control. I also believe that they are just as satisfied for me to suffer needlessly for the lack of medical treatment. I am essentially in this second group and I refuse to cooperatively accept, what I perceive would be, my unethical, undeserved, execution or torture by them.
Remember, I am dealing with powerful authorities that have and are currently demonstrating that they are laws unto themselves, essentially above and free of any restraints that the law places on them. My past, attached, correspondence thoroughly explains some of my concerns.
As to Power of Attorney; it would be highly immoral for me to saddle anyone with the impossible responsibility to make effective, morally ethical decisions for my well being, based on the realities as I currently know them.
While its only a belief of mine, I believe that a very great majority of those in the medical profession are competent, caring and ethically responsible in their personal dealings with their client patients but there are very small but powerful groups of individuals who, are in the ruling faction and exert control completely out of proportion of their relative numbers in that faction or, exert influence on that faction. I believe that while there are very few that would carry out or assist in the carrying out of evil deeds the number that would protest against the evil doers is also extremely small. One speaks out against a fellow "honourable" doctor apparently only at their peril.
There is also another mistaken belief that consent can be withdrawn by a patient. While this is theoretically correct it is for practical purposes a fiction. Minutes prior to my wife being subjected to a series of procedures (procedures that the CPSO indirectly pointed out to me that would cause harm) she wrote in a letter, "So tired, scared. Well it's 5 in the morning, had one more about 4:30, God if somebody doesn't come soon tell me what going on or why". A very good example of what the medical community considers as an excellent description of a patient who is well informed about the care she is receiving? About 20 minutes after I had been told that she had died I was brought in to see her. She was fully conscious, alert and she reached out and firmly grasped my hand which she held until they pronounced her dead the second time. The hospital chaplain was behind me and her eyes were on mine until she turned her head and glowered at the doctors on the other side of the gurney. Without letting go of my hand she attempted to push them away with her free hand then tried to remove the tape and tube in her mouth. With the assistance of a nurse the two doctors were able to restrain her and following the administration of more "medication" were within minutes able to pronounce her dead again, this time with more confidence. I was not able to get an explanation from anyone for these events or the obvious liquid that appeared in the tube taped in her mouth. In order to withdraw consent, especially when the treatment appears to be of dubious value, how many persons must the patient overcome so that the withdrawal of consent is convincing?
Rev. Martin Niemoller had been a U-boat captain in WW I prior to becoming a pastor. And he supported Hitler prior to his taking power. Indeed, initially the Nazi press held him up as a model for his service in WW I. In the early 1930's he began to see the evil of the Nazi's and ended up in concentration camps for about seven years until the end of the war for speaking out against the evil. He is credited for the now famous poem whose main theme is descriptive of my current problems.
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.Closing and or consolidating hospital administrations, moving the cardiac segment from CHEO to the Sick Kids in Toronto and effectively making the President of the CPSO resign his secondary position of Registrar of the College (The Medical Post, September 11, 2001) may not qualify as involvement in administrative and clinical decisions but it really gives that impression to simple minded individuals such as me.
While I feel that I should confidently be able to access treatment for my cancer, I know that this is not possible and probably will not be possible in my lifetime. I beg you to take some action that will enable me to pay a symbolic visit to the location that the hospital unethically deposited my wife's remains. If there was any truth to Mr. ....'s October 17, 2001 letter and his statement that a record existed and, in conjunction with the Supreme Court ruling this request should be a simple one to fulfill.
I also beg you to take action so that it will be improbable that this travesty will occur to another. May God forgive you if you don't honestly and effectively insist and require that the medical profession, in Ontario, comply with existing and future laws.
cc: Honourable Ernie Eaves
Mr. Dalton McGuinty
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?
September 9, 2002Attention: The Honourable Ernie Eves
Premier of OntarioSir
Am I to take Mr. ......'s letter as confirmation that there is no longer anyone left who can speak for victims of medical care abuse?
Is his response confirmation that the Ontario medical communities are really a law unto themselves and do not even have to respect Federal laws because these laws are Provincially administered and enforced? ie;
A. If an organization repeatedly reiterates what they know will be interpreted as a threat, then is it not logical to assume that they have knowingly given the threat? Isn't a threat to cause harm or death a criminal offence in most of Canada?B. Last year, in Nova Scotia, Dr. van Velzen pleaded guilty to the criminal offence of causing an indignity to human remains by storing human remains in a storage facility. Is it not grossly inconsistent to consider that hospitals, in Ontario, storing human organs in the garbage for future incineration is a proper legal and morally ethical action?
Believable reassurance that I have incorrectly assessed these events would be most welcomed.
Enclosure
September 9, 2002
Attention: Mr. Dalton McGuinty
Leader of the Liberal PartySir
I request your assistance in obtaining a response, to the attached letters, that respects normal human values.
I will not belabour the points that I think I have already clearly made, in the attached letters, but here is a bit more amplification:
A. If an organization repeatedly reiterates what they know will be interpreted as a threat, then is it not logical to assume that they have knowingly given the threat? Isn't a threat to cause harm or death a criminal offence in most of Canada?B. Last year, in Nova Scotia, Dr. van Velzen pleaded guilty to the criminal offence of causing an indignity to human remains by storing of a human remains in a storage facility. Is it not grossly inconsistent to consider that hospitals, in Ontario, disposing/storing human organs in the garbage for future incineration is a proper legal and morally ethical action?
Thank you in advance for what, I anticipate, will be your positive, constructive assistance and support. I understand that in effect the most you can do is add your voice, and that of the Liberal party, in support of natural human justice.Hopefully there are still some voices left that are able to speak up for victims of medical care abuse.
Enclosure
Attention: The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
80 Grosvenor Street, Hepburn Block, 10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2C4Minister:
The last “Review of the Regulated Health Professions Act and Allied Legislation” and the January 2000 KPMG Survey of complainants to the CPSO tends to confirm, to me, that I am probably not the sole victim who has been made to believe that they could experience intentional harm from a section of the medical community, my fellow victims probably number in the thousands. The most disconcerting aspect of this is that it is funded and condoned by government agencies who should prevent this. A threat to cause harm must be a “criminal act” and not just a civil indiscretion or legitimate “clinical decision making”.
My life may be further complicated by the current severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) crisis. The safety of those who come in contact with me may depend on the very dubious reliability of self diagnosis on my part. It would be necessary that I make the best risk assessment choice of dismissing a remotely possible case of SARS and it’s potential community harm against the extremely probable harm to me if I placed myself in the control of doctors associated with the hospital, with no benefit to the community. This is a truly unnecessary, odious, choice.
No one should ever be subjected to this type of cruel and unusual treatment.
Corrective action should be taken to ensure this unethically sadistic procedure stops immediately.
I wonder if the comparable results, following the introduction of SARS into Canada, in the province of British Columbia and Ontario is an indication of the relative value that Ontario and it’s health authorities place on it’s citizens (including doctors, nurses and other health workers not members of the inner clique) security and well being?
If Mr. ........ statement that; “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.” was true, then there should be little difficulty directing the hospital to produce the records as required by the directive of the Supreme Court of Canada. Or is this another clear example that they are not subject to the laws of Canada?. The accuracy of his above statement might be just as inaccurate as his other statement, “This matter has been reviewed and discussed with you over the last decade .........”
Hopefully I will receive a positive response and not confirmation that the honesty and ethics of the Ministry of Health, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Hospital are mutually comparable (compatible?).
attachment
cc: Premier of Ontario
Minister Anne McLellan
Dr. James G. Young
Mr. Dalton McGuinty
Mr. Howard Hampton
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 YetA top Canadian health official has warned people that they might have to be "chained to a bed" if they violate the strict Sars quarantine rules in Toronto. Have we really given them this much power with no obvious practical restraints to prevent the abuse of this power?
click hereHow many “Dr. Shipman” types do we have here?
May 12, 2003Thank you for your letter about your personal situation.
I note that you have sent a copy of your letter to my colleague, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I trust that the minister will also find your views to be of interest.
I appreciate having this matter brought to my personal attention.
Yours sincerely,
Ernie Eves, MPP
Premierc: The Honourable Tony Clement
The fact that he was able to kill with impunity for so many years is an indictment of the systems that are supposed to protect patients - if confidence and trust in the medical profession is to remain, further safeguards will be essential.
..
Hospital Trust? Home Visitors guest book
1. "As I indicated in my previous correspondence to you, the Ministry does not get involved in administration or clinical decision making."
click Back button to return to the letter
2. "This matter has been reviewed and discussed with you over the past decade and there is nothing more to add."
click Back button to return to the letter
3. "Regarding your question concerning informed consent, past correspondence and discussions with you indicate that you have a good understanding of your legal rights. You can document your wishes about treatment in a power of attorney if you have concerns about your future care and you may wish to seek legal advice regarding this matter."
click Back button to return to the letter
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.
click Back button to return to the letter
"...........Good Medical Practice which states, 'successful relationships between doctors and patients depend on trust ... to establish that trust you must listen to patients and respect their views and treat patients politely and considerately'."
Tuesday 22nd October 2002click Back button to return to the letter