A useful new booklet, called Understanding Your Rights, has recently been released by the Cancer Council NSW. It sets out what patients can reasonably expect, both from health services and themselves as they undertake the cancer journey.
Many of the issues raised by the booklet could be more generally applied, and may also be useful for anyone undergoing diagnosis or treatment for other conditions as well.
The booklet focuses very much on the individual patient’s rights, whether in the health care system or at work or when negotiating superannuation or insurance.
It would be interesting to consider similar issues from another tack – do all Australians have the same rights of access to treatment, for example? Or the same rights to healthy environments?
Clearly not, if you look at the evidence about the differential health status and treatment outcomes for different groups in the population. Some of us, it seems, have more rights than others.
Meanwhile, Sally Crossing, Chair of Cancer Voices NSW, has kindly provided this enthusiastic review of the booklet, from the perspective of a patient and consumer advocate.
She writes:
“A booklet has arrived, courtesy of the Cancer Council NSW and its supporters, which gives people affected by cancer some most essential keys for coping with their strange new world.
The title “Understanding your rights” doesn’t really do its contents justice. Knowing your rights and responsibilities underpin successful navigation of the rocky cancer “journey”, but this booklet offers a great deal more practical stuff.
I was delighted to be asked to contribute to its development, but am even happier now I see the end result. It’s an absolutely essential part of anyone’s” cancer kit” and is a main component of the Cancer Council’s new Support and Information Kit, as it should be.
A cancer diagnosis is not just medical business, although handling that will be the first challenge we meet in this strange and scary new world. This booklet gives information about what to expect from the treatment team, how to decide on a specialist, making treatment decisions, accessing medical records, making complaints or giving feedback, coping with financial problems, insurance and superannuation, work issues; end of life preparations and help for carers. Finding a consumer advocacy group like Cancer Voices NSW is in there too.
A cancer diagnosis and its treatment could change your life without any warning at all, and in so many unexpected ways. And this remains the case if the journey continues – I’m still learning how to handle it after 14 years living with the disease.
My only regret is that there is no mention of a subject that many of us with metastatic cancer seriously consider – supported by 87% of people in NSW, according to latest Newspolls – how to reassure yourself of being able to die with dignity and control.
This booklet was no doubt hamstrung by our current bizarre legislation which almost prohibits discussion, let alone information and assistance. However, the Dying with Dignity website – which has the best Advance Care Directive – is included. Thankyou!”
For those with terminal disease with a great deal of suffering to ensue…
Well there is no secret now how people can leave this world simply, quickly and extremely peacefully without realising it and with the minimum of preparation and also undetectable. I wont mention it but the answer is easy to find on the net. It doesn’t even require a magic pill created by Dr N. who also knows of a promotes this other method.
[could change your life without any warning ]
Indeed it always does.
Middle age people should consider and prepare for such things unless they be overtaken by events.
It has been found I believe that when people have the means within their owns hands they are less likely to seek it, rather having control of things seems to give comfort and security. And it really is used as the very last resort.
How to get second opinion for ovarian cancer sufferer, cornered to endure chemotorture!?
Dear reader!
Friend of mine Sue, began a six cycle course of the intravenous Carboplatin + Taxol infusion on 04-03-10, following a radical hysterectomy on 01-02-10. Performed via long vertical cut laparotomy with debulking for stage IIIC (grade 3) ovarian/peritoneal cancer. According to the surgical gyn-onc registrar, post-op met on 16-02-10, remained only a couple minor spots under 1cm on the left and right circumference of the bowel. However med gyn-onc met on 23-02-10 within the chemo-consultation, expressed her concern regarding a dark spot on the liver. Purportedly, radiologist’s report caught her attention, because CT scan results of 17-12-09 revealed something, hopefully benign.
Yet how on earth pertinent biopsy wasn’t taken of the suspect liver tissue during the surgery? What was the motive for such a bizarre speculation after the fact? Why didn’t med gyn-onc peruse the applicable patient’s file records or sought due info from the surgeons involved? Before distressing moreover cancer sufferer! Sadly, med gyn-onc wasn’t concerned with a stress caused to Sue, compelled to wait subsequently (besides one another patient) until 5:00pm for the scheduled chemo-consultation at 2:30pm on 03-03-10. Only to be told of the aggressive treatment she to receive like everyone else (although an oncology nurse administering chemo on 04-03-10, was troubled by the drugs dosage while alerting Sue that she must not loose any weight below her 41.1 kg), to tackle the tumour.
Nonetheless when asked to elaborate as to the affected area, clearly pretentious med gyn-onc proceeded to browse through the pathology reports. Contrary to the rational reasoning, according to which the conclusive diagnosis should have been definitely stipulated by now explicitly in the prescribed manner and made available on demand. How else cancer manifestations profiling could have been accomplished otherwise? Necessary to match the med gyn-onc endorsed regime for the “optimal chemotherapy”!
So much for the wishful thinking, when in reality Sue had to cope with the ambiguous trickled speculations, over and over again. Not mentioning, that 01-03-10 ultrasound screening wasn’t capable to detect a tiny suspect speck on the liver. So what was the point in using such a diagnostic tool in that instance? Needless to add, that the radiologist’s report copy wasn’t made available. Neither 01-03-10 blood test results copy, but merely were conveyed white cells count at 5.2 /L and the okayed iron level. Still unforeseen CA 125 creepy 14 points rise to 37 kU/L, following a radical hysterectomy on 01-02-10, warranted clarification. Yet as a solace, med gyn-onc pointed out only that Sue will have regular blood tests, beside the periodical CT scans. Which to gauge cancer’s regress (if any) under the chemotherapy.
But utmost appallingly for a patient endeavouring to participate proactively in one’s treatment, to be deprived of the test results. Therefore once more will be reminded med gyn-onc apropos at the next consultation. However I don’t hold my breath, because when I asked initially a senior surgical gyn-onc on 22-12-09 about the CT scan results, astonishingly he snapped at me: “What do you expect to find on the CT scan”? Somewhat gaining composure while being confronted by the lofty professor, I pointed out that Sue had a previous abdominal CT scan on 11-09-09 (besides the transvaginal ultrasound screening). While three months later she was ordered by the senior gynaecologist (who performed the exploratory laparoscopy on 11-12-09) to have a full body CT scan on 17-12-09. So one to infer only that a search was conducted to find out if the cancer spread beyond the abdomen.
According to the commonsense logic, yet a senior surgical gyn-onc rebuffed me off-hand for “jumping to the conclusion”! Thus he avoided to comment as to the CT scans outcome. Side-stepping also the issue of the possible cancer cells shading into abdomen, during exploratory laparoscopy on 11-12-09. Further on, in response to my query: if the pertinent biopsies were sent by the gynaecological surgeon (during Sue’s surgery) to the pathology for the immediate feedback, he speculated: “probably not”! Then when asked further, what sort of cancer and its stage we’re talking about? He reacted that such info will be available only after the next surgery. What didn’t make any sense, as how on earth was established cancer’s diagnosis in the first place? Without these crucial facts!
Was it unreasonable to ask? In the circumstances of a death sentence faced by Sue, all of a sudden. When some days earlier she was assured that no malignancy was found during four-hour operation. Warranting explanation, to say the least! Yet at that stage of the obstructed consultation, clearly enraged professor turned to Sue and asked her to accompany him to the adjacent room for the physical examination. Where unceremoniously he carried out pelvic and rectal palpation (without any comment whatsoever) and just as abruptly he returned back to the consultation room. While taking a seat with his back to me. Then he swivelled brusquely on the chair to face me point-plank in a tiny office. As within his bully-boy tactics he yelled at me: “You know what’s a problem with you? You’re reading too much”! To which I replied spontaneously while gasping for air: “The problem is your hostile attitude”!
Fortunately at that moment, Sue returned back to the consultation room (since being abandoned in the examination room), thus defusing a climax. As a red faced bully turned away from me, for a change to engage with the filling some forms. Overwhelming silence descended briefly. Then Sue was forwarded formularies to sign, along with the consent form for the surgery on 01-02-10. Containing hand-written, totally indecipherable for the lay person abbreviations. Yet can anyone imagine for a desperate cancer patient (for obvious reasons) depended on a doctor, especially in a public hospital (notorious for the indefinite queues) to query anything dished out to sign? No wonder such a setting cultivated doctors who have been thriving on a master/slave rule. In reflection on the infamous concentration camps, where similarly Yid physiognomy endowed doctors practised their sadism reflexes.
Now in turn victimised Sue, faced nasty professor (as he walked into the office for the first time). Noted for the callous greeting a cancer patient in cavalier fashion: “Okay, what are you here for”? In reflection on the pre-emptive strike tactics! Utilising attack as a treacherous form of defence by the devious doctor, who steered clear from answering legitimate questions. While expecting solely the unquestionable obedience from the panic stricken patients. So when Sue dared to question while concerning herself with the ovarian cancer’s evidence — to change the subject cruel professor suggested that Sue ought to actually be alert to the breast cancer likelihood, as purportedly she faced a ticking bomb scenario!
Finally, rendering her totally speechless, he proceeded in a patronising tone: “Well, you’ll need to have a further surgery in six weeks”! What contradicted entirely the senior gynaecologist’s opinion, adamant for Sue to undergo surgery right-away. As on 15-12-09, convalescing already at home Sue received urging phone call from a senior gynaecologist, apologetic as a result of discovered cancer. Therefore having arranged urgent appointment on 22-12-09, with a senior surgical gyn-oncologist. An aloof professor, delegated to take-over Sue’s treatment.
Solely four days since the successfully carried-out four-hour exploratory surgery on 11-12-09 (involving endometrial adhesions elimination). Regarded very successful by the senior gynaecologist, who warmly greeted Sue (placed already in a ward) and likewise shacked my hand. Manifestly, very approachable and caring doctor, driven to share his acumen with others, even eager to exhibit Sue’s photos of the immaculate interior within the shiny pink abdomen (apart from a few brown endometrial spots). As a jubilant specialist assured that no malignancy was found whatsoever. Solely he had some concern about the possibly unnoticed bowel perforation or any such other nick.
Patently cancer was never suspected, right from the start. As initially on 11-09-09, early in the morning Sue was admitted to the emergency department, due to her GP’s urgent referral. Concerning suspected appendicitis, what was dismissed a short while later. While the medical staff focused instead on the female reproductive organs. Therefore Sue was rigorously asked to describe her persistent symptoms. Consisting of the lower abdomen and lower back pain. Bloating with heaviness in the stomach. Unusually frequent urination, diarrhoea and weight loss. Feeling of fullness after a meagre food intake. Not mentioning lost appetite and being lethargic. As a result, Sue had abdominal CT scan and afterwards transvaginal ultrasound screening (sadly, radiologist reports were never made available). Ultimately medical staff concluded that the recurrent ovarian cyst (since 2002) was a culprit. Whilst the discovered also a large uterine fibroid (purportedly benign) required further exploration.
In the end utterly exhausted Sue from the successive exploratory procedures (what took entirely a whole day, until the late afternoon) was allowed to go home. Strangely enough, in spite of the blood tests carried-out on the day, no cancer antigen CA 125 analysis as a very useful marker in patients monitored for ovarian malignancy, would be included. As a result ovarian cancer being noticed mostly in the advanced stage. Sue started experiencing these unusually persistent symptoms sometimes in the mid 2009 (yet failed to add the dots). At last in Aug to warrant mentioning it to her local GP (utilised for the annual pap smears). Yet complaint was dismissed after a brief palpation of the abdomen, causing a pain. Subsequently, a week later Sue went to another local GP who regularly referred Sue to the recurrent blood tests (due to her rheumatoid arthritis condition), just to be referred to the ultrasound screening.
Consequently, abdominal ultrasound test performed on 24-08-09 revealed: “multiple small normal appearing nodes measuring less than 1cm in short axis diameter, within the right groin”. “No other significant findings”! No wonder referring GP wouldn’t care less. So a pain stricken Sue proceeded to yet an another GP, practising also an acupuncture (at two zone travelled distance away). Who took his time to palpate the abdomen on 10-09-09, and right-away referred Sue to hospital, due to the suspected appendicitis. Bear in mind that after the laparoscopic surgery (executed by the senior gynaecologist on 11-12-09), Sue recovered satisfactory! Free of the earlier woes, apart from a nagging back and a failure to arrest her gradual weight loss.
Which drifted from 42.5 kg several months ago, to 40.5 kg under stress, since having been told about the cancer. Yet even in a best of time Sue’s weight averaged between 45 and 47 kg (for a 1.65m height). Sadly, none of the met doctors over the years, suggested solution. So luckily at least was to meet a tall and slim gynaecological registrar, who was sympathetic to Sue during pre-op 09-12-09 consultation. While pointing out that he also endeavoured to put on weight, to no avail (due to the inherited, particular metabolism). Hence, according to him, he would be concerned only if Sue’s weight dropped down to 30 kg within a short period of time (due to the body-wasting illness).
Nonetheless, still concerned Sue pointed out at the broadcasted info on TV about the ovarian cancer! Warning signs of which, matched Sue’s symptoms at the time. In response, courteous gynaecological registrar utilised further rational reasoning while making compelling observation that the overwhelming diagnostic tools utilised in hospital to detect the nature of Sue’s illness, didn’t reveal cancer characteristics. Glancing back to Feb 2002, into Sue’s medical file records, he pointed out that CA 125 blood marker’s level risen at the time to 890 kU/L, due to the persistent ovarian cyst’s activity. Subsequently easing as a result of the intravenous infusion given to Sue. When analysed on 27-03-02, the succeeding blood marker’s level of CA 125 indicated substantial drop to 315 kU/L and later on 05-06-02 analysis of CA 125 indicated further decline to 133 kU/L
In comparison, recent 12-10-09 analysis of CA 125 indicated 43 kU/L level. While a three weeks later 02-11-09 analysis of CA 125 indicated 13 points rise to 56 kU/L, that’s five weeks before the 11-12-09 surgery. So in conclusion, gynaecological registrar elaborated that these figures were a way too low to account for cancer’s activity. Indeed, seven weeks later, following 11-12-09 operation, moreover promising 29-01-10 analysis of CA 125 indicated 23 kU/L level, within the (0-35) normal range! Prior to the radical hysterectomy on 01-02-10. Following which, Sue endured lingered bladder retention and a numb leg (surgery / epidural fallout), yet have recovered and felt pretty “normal” (if not for the chemo)!
No wonder med gyn-onc, met on 23-02-10 within the chemo-consultation, sought a viable reference point to focus upon (during expected five months of the chemotherapy). As all of a sudden she discovered a dark spot on the liver. Handy to monitor such a conjured tumour shrinkage via successive CT scans (in a preference to the ignored a couple of minor spots under 1cm on the left and right circumference of the bowel). Intriguing in deed, especially when a patient faced abrogated access to the blood test results and the radiologists issued vital reports. Go figure it out! What has been going on? Was Sue a casualty of a diabolical set-up? Where targeted victim to undergo such a horrendous chemotorture! Although in the end she to achieve a complete remission (since she never had a cancer).
Whist the triumphant professor to gain a record research funding, besides the extra donations, sought to further “scientific studies” into elusive “cure” for the lethal ovarian cancer! Or was she another casualty of the zionist murderer campaign? Just because of my political stance taken for the better Australia! Sadly for Sue, instead of gaining a friend in need as an asset, my presence turned apparently into liability. Similarly copped already by my dear father, tortured by the zionist henchmen in Poland, before his demise into oblivion. As in the meantime I sought to establish contact with him (since Apr-94) via “benevolent” zionist organisations, to no avail. Eventually having to face a shorten version of the death certificate, dated 21-12-98. Issued on 27-11-00, courtesy of the Israeli Embassy in Poland.
Coincidentally, 21-12-98 dated reply from the Executive Secretary Fridolin Bargetzi of the Swiss Federal Chancellery, assured me that my father’s matter to receive careful attention from the appropriate authorities! Yet no further communication was forthcoming, since having dispatched 27-01-97 petition to the Swiss Foreign Ministry Special Task Force for the afflicted WWII victims. Eventually scoring 02-05-97 reply from the Ambassador Thomas Borer, who passed a buck to another Task Force Official Roland Rietmann. Culminating ultimately with the above 21-12-98 reply. Amazingly, in a similar fashion I scored 03-09-99 reply from the UN Advocacy & External Relations Unit, Information Assistant Jackie Aidenbaum. Confirming a notice taken of my father’s plight, registered on UN files, with a copy forwarded to Room S-2914 for attention of the High Commissioner for the Human Rights. Although when I followed the resultant six month silence with a wake-up call on 07-03-00, apparently zionist ruse reared its head within 19-04-00 rebuff.
Back on the local scene, less one forget that Feb has been ovarian cancer awareness month. So was it just a coincidence that a senior surgical gyn-onc insisted back on 22-12-09, for a radical hysterectomy to be carried out in six weeks time on 01-02-10: “In order for inflammation of the recent surgery to settle-down”! What about the fast-dividing cancer cells and their spread to the vital organs? Bear in mind that the devious professor stipulated on his website: “current guidelines suggest that for optimal cancer treatment it should not take more than a month from a patient’s initial presentation to the initiation of definitive treatment”! Well, Sue admitted herself to the emergency department on 11-09-09. Only to be misdiagnosed, or perhaps she didn’t have a cancer? Subsequently, 11-12-09 date was set for the exploratory surgery. Once a senior gynaecologist faced the pathology report, he alerted Sue immediately on 15-12-09 apropos discovered cancer. While informing her also about the arranged urgent appointment on 22-12-09, with the senior surgical gyn-oncologist.
Who was expected to take on board sadly misdiagnosed patient, finding herself in dire straits all of a sudden. Yet instead of a due care delivery, surprisingly the enraged senior surgical gyn-onc went ballistic while raving that no senior gynaecologist would ever expect for the surgery to proceed right-away. What supposedly clashed with the best medical practice. So he grabbed a phone and commandeered admin to page the defiant senior gynaecologist. Yet as a phone rang some time later, professor yelled in turn that he expected sought by him gynaecologist to call him back immediately! While adding that he didn’t care if that gynaecologist was busy in the operating theatre, he wanted him to drop everything. Then, as no response was forthcoming, he jumped on his feet and bolted out. To reappear some quarter an hour later with a senior gynaecologist on the tow (still in a surgical gown). Who actually managed to smile as he confirmed nonetheless that he might have assured Sue, that she to undergo an immediate (radical hysterectomy) surgery.
So what was the point in dragging such a senior gynaecologist within the absurdly unravelled melodrama at the hefty cost to the abandoned patients and particularly for Sue valuable time lost, instead of gaining imperative consultation. Very embarrassing indeed, was to observe such a commandeered senior surgeon of the middle-eastern appearance to be treated subserviently by the fuming professor. Who succeeded to my dismay to elicit from domineered by him doctor an utterly fabricated corroboration apropos “white crop like powder”! Which supposedly covered Sue’s abdominal cavity lining. Notwithstanding with such a fictitious claim, he failed to define the type of a cancer. Speculating solely, about some sort of rare form of cancer.
While adding that their doctors team, still debated apropos on 22-12-09, without coming to the definite conclusion. However when ultimately I got hold of the histopathology report which classified malignancy as a papillary serous carcinoma, amazingly it was dated 15-12-09. So why on earth these learned medical specialists were coy about it? Unless the mysterious, surreptitious cancer’s concoction wasn’t devised as yet (prior to issued the backdated report). Just as anomalous was to face: “Do Not File”, imprint. Patently made a caveat on the histopathology report, next to the Anatomical Pathology Director’s name!
Undoubtedly, truth isn’t easy to ascertain by the lay person, yet surely things got very messy as a result of the panicky professor and his commandeered doctor’s knee jerk reaction. Hell-bent to allege the papillary serous carcinoma affliction, which manifestly exhibited the finger-like projections, particularly in stage IIIC cancer sufferers. When in fact the post-op exhibited photos by the jubilant senior gynaecologist on 11-12-09, illustrated Sue’s immaculate interior within the shiny pink abdomen (apart from a few brown endometrial spots).
Complemented by the senior specialist’s assurance that no malignancy was found whatsoever. Without any ifs or buts! Not even securing a leeway by stating that “the surgeon’s opinion based on the visual exploration still got to be endorsed, subject to the bona-fide pathology report”. Unlike the anomalous 15-12-09 dated histopathology report which exploited as a cancer-free confirmation its first analysed biopsy specimen, found to be “negative for malignancy”. Bearing a very peculiar corroborative alibi-ruse under earmarked paragraph: “Diagnosis given to ‘the senior gynaecologist'”!
What about the outstanding results of the remaining eight biopsy specimens? Canvassed across the three pages of the report. As apparently subsequent malignancies were found in half of the remaining eight biopsy specimens. However no reference was made, when such a crucial pathology analyses outcome has been conveyed to the gynaecological surgeon in the operating theatre? Who relied otherwise on a sole first biopsy specimen’s analysis outcome for four hours, found to be “negative for malignancy”.
What a devious copout? Astonishingly, exploited as a cancer-free confirmation! According to which, medical protocol? What an outrageous act of insult to the human intelligence which dictates that the gynaecological surgeon should have regarded Sue as a potential cancer risk patient, requiring cancer-free clearance from the pathology specialist. Adhering meticulously to the analysis and screening of all the biopsy specimens in the prescribed manner, before the okayed gynaecological surgeon to proceed beyond the initial exploratory laparoscopy, otherwise surgical gyn-oncologist to take over.
Particularly, due to the inherited familial risk (breast cancer) by Sue and her medical history with a recurrent ovarian cyst persistence since 2002; cervical abnormalities since 2002; suppressed auto-immune system due to the rheumatoid arthritis condition since 2001; hyperthyroid and parathyroid maladies; hypertension and paradoxically high cholesterol level. What didn’t mean to provide ammunition for the monstrous evildoers, adamant to reach the forgone conclusion. When in fact sturdy Sue felt well before the chemo (unlike the advanced stage cancer sufferers), with a lot of life left in her! On the mission to turn this heinous saga into an eye opener for many. Still failing to realise how vulnerable we are, beset by the untouchables on the zionist payroll.
Just imagine that the ill-treated Sue never received a discharge letter, following 11-12-09 to 13-12-09 hospitalisation. Even sought medical certificate, required to exempt her from the jury duty, took a whole month to attain. In the meantime she received an unidentifiable statement on a plain piece of paper. So one wonders, what they have to hide? When even medical tests outcome being kept at arm’s length from the treated patient. Whilst the numerous excuses were used in a routine succession: Christmas period hiatus, festivity season of the New Year, medical staff on the extended holidays, etc.
At the same time any release of the routine paperwork by the hospital staff, seemed to be as painful as pulling the teeth. Even blood test result copies which used to be forwarded to the patient’s GP, were currently discontinued. While the hospital staff claims in turn that GPs could access Oz Lab hospital’s network directly, if not for the interface software necessity, besides the consumed time on log-ins and the subsequent search for specifics. When most GPs utilised time-limited tightly schedule, and didn’t have spare resources to chase so incessantly promised in vain paperwork. Just to reflect on the vicious circle within the revolving doors extravaganza. Particularly daunting for the shunned cancer suffers, kept at the arm’s length as lepers.
Still, at last lucky for Sue was to score an appointment with the locum gyn-oncologist on 19-01-10. Remarkably awesome communicator, who conveyed without hesitation the sought-after results from the previous blood tests, concerning CA 125 blood marker levels (recorded since the 2002). At the time when a senior gynaecologist remained elusive, otherwise sought to recount the chain of events during 11-12-09 surgery, leading to the “discovery” of a cancer. Sadly, pursuit lingered until 27-01-10, when finally owed by him post-op consultation proceeded. Only to be duped to watch a silent video, supposedly Sue’s abdomen during surgery. If not for the noticed clusters of fat, proving that most deplorably we were made to watch someone else’s guts.
What a terrible waste of time on a wild goose chaise (acutely painful for the betrayed in the era of universal deceit), followed by the pre-op consultation on 29-01-10, with the surgical gyn-onc registrar. Who assured Sue that following a radical hysterectomy on 01-02-10, her expected remission due to the subsequent chemotherapy, “will be monitored for the next 10 years”! Evidently, as an increasingly conniving culture of deceit, brutal coercion and zionist intimidation tactics signified downfall of democracy in the lucky country.
Where in reality our basic human rights were trampled upon and obliterated by the fascist evildoers, due to the absence of the essential Charter of Rights & Obligations in the usurped nation. Enduring mafia style coercion, where closed-shop medical affiliates were precluded from advertising any competitive services or even to display pleased clientele testimonials apropos medical cure. Under taboo information flow doctrine, because competition found to be detrimental to the mafia livelihood, hell-bent to retain a closed-shop status-quo!
Naturally, human body is international in design as are a great many of our fears and afflictions. Yet the medical profession (Australian Nursing Council) has been most reluctant to let in the immigrant medical practitioners from countries other than USA, Canada, UK and perhaps New Zealand. Because, they argue, that Australian standards are of the highest gene-pool, and hence must be maintained. What denies all the non-kosher candidates to attain an essential medical-practice experience in Oz, apart from the “chosen” doctors.
Some foreign universities or medical schools may not be up to scratch; others are as good as, or exceed those in Australia. Definitely medical profession could easily separate the good from the bad foreign medical schooling graduates. So the hostile attitude of the medical profession is long overdue in need of an overhaul. Equally, inordinately high salaries are a drain on the public purse and one would argue that many GPs and “specialists” are greatly overpaid. Even empowered to decide who to live and who to die!
Surely at the onset to enter a medical school one got to be “chosen” from one’s secondary school incubated gene-pool in accordance with the university intake requirements for medical students. Set at an extremely high level, simply to ensure that a limited number of the “chosen” doctors to “serve” a large population (in short, to create a closed-shop). Undoubtedly, it takes no more intelligence to be a doctor than it does to be scientist, hence the extremely high marks required for entrance to medical school, cannot be justified, whatsoever!
Thanks a lot to everyone of you for each opinion and many suggestions along with the words of encouragement expressed for Sue as times getting tough not since she endured the chemo alike the majority under orthodox medicine protocol but because doubtedly she had any cancer in the first place. Bear in mind that the senior gynaecological surgeon who performed the exploratory laparoscopy on 11-12-09, was ecstatic and eagerly exhibited Sue’s photos of the immaculate interior within the shiny pink abdomen, apart from a few brown endometrial spots (eliminated during four hour laparoscopic surgery, along with the encountered adhesions).
Nothing remotely similar to the cauliflower like resemblance of the papillary serous carcinoma. Which supposedly afflicted Sue’s ovaries, uterus, bowel (in couple locations) and the peritoneum. A rather typical scenario in stage IIIC ovarian cancer spread, metastasized within the abdomen. Far beyond the microscopic manifestations, peculiarly though, to be invisible on documented photos (derived from the surgery video) and most incredibly not mentioned post-op on 11-12-09, by the senior gynaecological surgeon. Who succumbed subsequently to the devious senior surgical gyn-onc’s ploy, likely to stage a “breakthrough” in the ovarian cancer eradication techniques.
Unless far more diabolical intrigue intended to culminate in fatality. Undoubtedly, truth isn’t easy to ascertain by the lay person, yet surely things got very messy as a result of the panicky professor and his commandeered doctor’s knee jerk reaction, to concoct out of the blue a lie that a “white crop like powder” covered Sue’s peritoneum (abdominal cavity lining). Nevermind that 11 days earlier, precisely same gynaecological surgeon insisted contrary to, as he exhibited photographic evidence. Then, regardless of the conjured malignancy on 22-12-09, learned medical specialists failed to define the type of a cancer. Which according to the 15-12-09 dated histopathology report, should have been known to them at that stage.
Intriguing in deed, especially when a patient faced abrogated access to the blood test results and most importantly radiologists issued reports, elaborating in detail on CT scans and ultrasound probes. Surely, in reflection on a such state of affairs, expert advice based on the factual testimony, would be helpful. Go figure it out! What has been going on? Was Sue a casualty of a diabolical set-up? Where targeted victim to endure such a horrendous torture. Although in the end she to achieve a complete remission (since she never had a cancer). Whist the triumphant professor to gain a record research funding, besides the extra donations, sought to further “scientific studies” into elusive “cure” for the lethal ovarian cancer!
Unless far more diabolical intrigue intended to culminate in fatality. No wonder, Sue was grilled repeatedly by the utterly overbearing social welfare staff, apropos family members, if any around. While being offered a “helping hand” with the banking errands, during perceived immobility on the horizon. Although precisely same “good-doers” lacked any suggestion to remedy tangible transportation needs, in spite of the minibuses shuttle at hand for the outpatients arrived from a far (temp housed in local motels). Certainly, doctor-less communities patient-transfers incurred a huge expense, especially when some missed their flight. In turn to be re-booked and fully paid again by the taxpayers. Who maintained likewise parasitic lifestyles of the jellyback spiteful pollies.
Sadly, there is no one to turn to, for the disenfranchised citizens in the Ghetto Australis. Dumped in succession on the unemployable’s heap, just for making a stance for the better Australia. Even some staff in hospitals tore their hair in frustration, due to the notorious funding shortage. Whilst the outrageous percentage of the health budget was siphoned off by the “chosen” career bureaucrats. Towards the insane super payouts, privileged staff development (of no use to patients) and just as costly architect stilled, so insanely fanciful, rent-free MacMansions accommodation. A large percentage of which has been exploited for holidays to visiting friends and relatives.
Thus incredibly funding is made available for the personal whims of the “chosen” career bureaucrats, who when put under journos scrutiny can’t even offer an explanation. While simply opting for the tactical silence without a fear of reprisal. Yet should an official of the exclusive gene-pool to be found guilty of misconduct, he or she just get promoted away from the defrauded hospital. Where solely private patients have a privilege of consultation with the fully fledged doctors (in a publicly funded setting), whilst the disenfranchised citizens who survived for years in the infinitive queues, ultimately being relegated to the trainee doctors experimental practices.
Conducting regularly unsupervised sessions to the detriment duped Aussies, who are unlikely to be treated by the fully fledged doctors. Nonetheless “the specialist”, such a highly pampered kind of the expert’s title has been misused willy-nilly (with an utter contempt of the professional etiquette), just to excuse for the long queues. When any such particular of the medical occupational roles, instead of being routinely branded as a “specialist”, actually ought to be classified according to the particular field of medical specialisation. Such as: Ophthalmologist, Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Dermatologist, Rheumatologist, Gastroenterologist, Urologist, Gynaecologist, Neurologist, Orthopaedist, etc.
Clearly, all doctors started always as novice trainees, whose interim occupational designations in particular field, mustn’t be misleadingly misconstrued as that of the senior specialist (the expert medical role), naturally rendering specialist consultations. Applicable solely for the private patients, affluent of whom have a chance to undergo surgeries performed by the experts senior doctors and even professors of medicine. According to the logical reasoning, manifestly absent within the insatiable powerbrokers sphere. Who termed apparently their predatory occupations as a profession, whilst the indispensable to the modern society function — technical cadres of fitters, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc, being oddly labelled as “tradesmen”!
Maybe it’s only me who cares to pay attention due to the fact that “trade” signified primarily merchant skills. So, what that has to do with the manual/technical skill occupations, some achievers of which evolved into highly accomplished specialists. To distinguish from the general practitioners among them, performing handymen’s multitasking chores. Analogous to the medical fraternity, general practitioners role, if not for their peculiar gatekeeper’s function. So, just imagine to yourself the anomaly to arise due to the enforced compulsion to acquire the obligatory referral from your local handyman (a member of the exclusive brethren), evidently conditional to obtain the service from a plumber.
Where such a handyman (GP) nominated (specialist) Joe the plumber is bound to abide by the taboo for discussion, draconian rules. Mandatory in the usurped nation, courtesy of the exclusive brethrens doctrine. Denoting mafia style coercion, where closed-shop affiliates are precluded from advertising any competitive services or even to display pleased clientele testimonials apropos received professional diligence services. Under taboo information flow doctrine, because competition found to be detrimental to the mafia livelihood, hell-bent to retain a closed-shop status-quo!
So why on earth those gifted in academic skills acquisition among the “chosen” to prosper, to put up with a such state of affairs? It’s just mind boggling, besides the point that it takes 5-6 years to become a GP, versus 7-9 years to become a scientist with a PhD. Where majority govt scientists with the necessary PhD start on the extremely low salaries, in comparison to the GPs. Obviously GPs and “specialists” have to continually update their skills; so do all the scientists (if they are to remain competitive and productive). GPs and “specialists” have to absorb a lot of information; so do scientists, and most branches of science are as broad in scope as is the medicine.
GPs and “specialists” have to make decisions that could involve the life and death situations. So does every professional driver, every living minute of his/her working day. Bus or truck driver for example, is more likely to cause the numerous fatalities in couple of seconds than it could possibly be caused by doctors (if not for sars, avian-n-swine flu). Surely, driving a heavy vehicle is very stressful, yet lots of bus drivers getting paid a meagre $25 per hour in the “lucky country”! Obviously, I didn’t mean to imply that the medical fraternity to accept the wages of the average driver or scientist, still inordinately high salaries are a drain on the public purse and one would argue that many GPs and “specialists” are greatly overpaid.
Regardless of their uncorroborated remedies outcome! At the time when the above correlated Joe the plumber is bound to provide written quotation. Which in turn can be compared by the prudent consumer against some other submitted quotes. Naturally, in due course the accomplished assignments are substantiated by the conclusive summary of the performed work in detail, accompanied by the applicable warranty. Yet surprisingly when our precious lives depended on the medical profession of the not-displayed IDs, astonishingly contemporary etiquette didn’t even compelled a business-card hand-over to the treated patient.
Perpetuating thus shocking malpractice where dominated patients being treated with the utter contempt. Bear in mind, when I asked the name of the “surgical gyn-onc registrar” following his pre-op consultation on 29-01-10, in response he solely scribbled his surname on the casually torn a piece of paper. Lately, when finally I goggled his full name, surprisingly came out only a single result of the graduate National Institute of Theoretical Physics. Likewise when I googled a full name of the sympathetic “gynaecological registrar”, met on 09-12-09, during his pre-op consultation, evidently a young doctor happened to be a recent graduate from the School of Medicine. Furthermore my exertion to google for details apropos “gynaecological registrar”, met on 02-11-09, during his earlier pre-op consultation, proved to be fruitless.
So much for the evidence based medicine in the commandeered nation, currently hosting Dr Jayant Patel’s trial. Due to the principled Toni Hoffman stance taken to expose public hospital’s head surgeon who pleaded not guilty to charges of the grievous body harm and a triple manslaughter. Demonstrating by no-means some sort of unique set of circumstances, yet offering momentous eye opener into taboo for discussion medical fraud, whatever human lives cost. Perpetrated by the “specialists”, these inordinately highly paid affiliates of the exclusive gene-pool, regardless of their uncorroborated remedies outcome … http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1814634.htm
What could not ever happened if not the jellyback spiteful pollies modus-operandi, surrounded by the scrounging bureaucrats, toothless watchdogs and the mass media sayanim. Who outperformed each other to pound on their zionist chest within the vocal gestures of assurance that people’s interest was in their heart. Yet in reality our basic human rights were trampled upon and obliterated by the treacherous evildoers, due to the lack of the vital Charter of Rights & Obligations in Australia. Otherwise sought second opinion for Sue in dire circumstances, would be forthcoming by now. Absence of which, reflected on the diabolical stonewalling … http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2009/09/24/for-another-view-on-prostate-cancer-screening/#comment-1623
Well, for starters let’s see how scientific are orthodox cancer treatments?
Manifestly, Western medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins orthodox approach to cancer treatment. Consequently, newly diagnosed with cancer sufferer faces enormous pressure from the established system practitioners to start unconditionally a very costly orthodox treatment procedures that involves surgery, chemotherapy/radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in a terrible shock, most individuals in this situation are no match to challenge the overwhelming might of the orthodox medical authority.
How would the cynical Elan react in such situation?
Should all of a sudden his loved one to become cancer afflicted. No words to describe such a dreadful blow repercussions endured even by friends. Perplexed without any guidance or a contact with the meaningful support group. Imagine one drowning while frantically trying to grasp the lifeline! Synonymous with being utterly helpless in the 21st century, while striving to get hold of the crucial information in time. Valuable essentially, would be cancer survivors feedback, if not for the close-knit orthodox medicine practitioners taboo. Thus none to break their ranks to intervene for the ill-fated via enabled communication exchange between the willing participants (rendered to endure otherwise isolation while searching for answers on their own).
“People have the right to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care”! Avowed Greens, surely cunning to seduce naive voters whatever it takes to get elected on the false pretences, then ignore constituents elementary needs. Synonymous with the jellyback spiteful pollies modus-operandi. No wonder to no avail was my exertion to gain Greens attention. Neither obtaining any reply from parasitic bureaucrats, toothless watchdogs and the silver-tongued sayanim occupied mass media. Who outperformed each other to pound on their chest within the grandiose gestures of assurance that people’s interest was in their heart.
Qui bono?
Well, according to the rational reasoning, targeted Jewish dissent casualties due to their stance taken for the better Australia, endured sadistic war of attrition in the zionist era of universal deceit. Driven by the untouchables tyranny rule as successive regime change executions were accomplished to the detriment of any good and creative on the planet earth!
Apparently, insatiable sociopaths who never gave-up drive for the greater eretz Israel while striving to restore slavery along the way, appear to be normal, and therefore not easily recognisable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis, the clinical indicators associated with this personality type include: glibness or superficial charm; a grandiose sense of self; a lack of any remorse, shame or guilt; callousness or a lack of empathy; and a failure to perceive that anything is wrong with them. Sociopaths are described as authoritarian, secretive, manipulative, paranoid, and pathological liars.
Luckily, there is one final line of defence in our medical system (indeed, most systems) against the likes of a sociopath. When all else fails, there still remain loyal, hard-working, competent and conscientious clinical staff (of this world) to blow the whistle. They are the white blood cells in the medical system’s body politic. The final, natural, defensive barrier against dangerous pathogens. Western medical profession has a good track record in trauma intervention, unlike tackling the mutated or reincarnated infectious diseases, menacing eruption in pandemic outbreaks. Elimination of which became challenging, akin to the degenerative diseases, such as cancer. Sadly, lacked crucial evidence as to the orthodox therapies efficacy. Only some 6% of the treated cancer interventions are supported by solid evidence (partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound).
Nonetheless, inordinately high takings by the insatiable medical fraternity drains public purse and one would argue that many GPs and “Specialists” are greatly overpaid. Regardless of their entirely uncorroborated remedies outcome! At the time when Joe the plumber is bound to provide written quotation. Compared in turn by prudent customers against the other submitted quotes. Naturally, in due course accomplished undertakings are substantiated by the conclusive report of the performed work in detail, accompanied by the applicable warranty. Yet surprisingly when our precious lives depended on medical profession of the non-displayed IDs in public hospitals, astonishingly contemporary etiquette didn’t even compelled a business-card hand-over to the treated patients. Perpetuating thus shocking malpractice as duped patients being treated with the utter contempt.
Bear in mind, when I asked the name of the “surgical gyn-onc registrar” following Sue’s pre-op consultation on 29-01-10, in response the aspired specialist solely scribbled his surname on the casually torn a piece of paper. No wonder, when I googled his full name, a single outcome of the graduate National Institute of Theoretical Physics resulted. Likewise when I googled full name of a rather sympathetic “gynaecological registrar”, following Sue’s pre-op consultation on 09-12-09, actually young doctor happened to be recent graduate from the School of Medicine. Just to reflect on the corrupt healthcare delivery system that urgently needs systemic reform. Changes which will ensure that the proverbial iron-curtain is torn down and light reaches into every dark corner in the labyrinthine corridors. So that the pathogens can no longer fester in the impenetrable gloom, their natural habitat.
Clearly, loyal citizens need added protection for whistleblowing within the public healthcare, including provisions enabling people to report their concerns to Members of Parliament, unions, professional associations, and ironically media (we had to have). Steps must be taken to address the unbearable conflict of interest which exist within the healthcare system. Nothing short of creation genuine independence by stripping away the cuckoo-nests in the ivory towers. Notorious reputation for staff bullying and overwhelmingly practised shoot-the-messenger tactics indicated that reform must start at the top!