In response to the CDHP report The family who were never consulted about there eye witness observations, who were never interviewed, and myself as an officer of the court, are deeply offended and and, once again, feel betrayed by the medical profession. People need to be clear what a CDHP report is. It simply states that CHO was in compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation. Its akin to an investigation, after a motor vehicle death, where they inspect the vehicle, its maintenance records and tread depth of its tires, and whether the driver was licensed. It does not examine the defendant drivers conduct before the fatal collision. It does not evaluate whether, in a specific case, there was medical negligence. It examines whether certain institutional criteria are met. It is members of the medical profession reviewing conduct of the medical profession. A classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse. In determining statistics regarding the number of reportable events the CDHP and other agencies rely upon the hospitals self-serving reporting and classification of the nature of what caused death and serious injury. In comparing the number of incidents to Stanford the evaluation does not take into account how many were the result of malpractice nor does it have meaning without adjusting for the complexity of the cases that Stanford undertakes or the relative size of the institution. The report should not be misconstrued as it is, once again by Childrens Hospital and Dr. Durand. Once the evidence is presented about this case, twelve ordinary citizens, instructed by a judge and the law, after a full and fair opportunity for the family to be heard, will render ITS verdict. Thats why we have courts, lawyers and juries. To examine the conduct of doctors in specific cases, in the light of day, in an open and public courtroom, not behind the doors of an Ivory medical tower.
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:44:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015