"No hay nada ver aquí, para andar por."
Posted on 07/31/2007 7:20:17 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
"No hay nada ver aquí, para andar por."
King Vanity absolutely refuses to be an organ donor for fear of some Dr. doing this to him.
Fact it isn’t just Muslim docs who suggest the severly disabled lives are worthless.
Have had a few euro American docs get ticked at me for advocating KV’s right to life and he has paper work that is notorized to state such.
Only God can take him home.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he is, I just want to make sure before we jump on the bandwagon.. none of the articles I’ve seen mention his religion.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22147256-5013404,00.html
Meanwhile, in Australia:
Adam Cresswell, Health editor | July 28, 2007
THE inquest into the death of a 16-year-old girl who died in a Sydney hospital after being hit by a golf ball may have to be reopened following allegations about the competence and assessment of two overseas-trained doctors involved in her care.
The allegations — aired on ABC TV’s Stateline program in NSW last night — claimed neither of the overseas doctors treating Vanessa Anderson had been “subject to any appointments or selection process”.
Anderson died in 2005 while being treated for a fractured skull caused by the golf ball.
The inquest at Westmead Coroners Court, which held its final hearing two weeks ago, heard there were “a number of deficiencies” in her care, including one doctor’s failure to give anti-convulsive drugs as ordered by a consultant.
Another doctor, anaesthetics registrar Sanaa Ismail, increased the dosage of painkilling drugs to a level the consultant in charge told the inquest was “too high”.
It has now emerged that the inquest may be reopened after a senior hospital anaesthetist, Stephen Barratt, wrote to Deputy State Coroner Carl Milovanich about the allegations.
In a statement to Stateline, NSW Health director-general Debora Picone said the “accuracy and relevance of a number of the assertions” made by Dr Barratt were “disputed”.
“The tragic death of Vanessa deserves proper investigation by the state Coroner and I do not think it appropriate to pre-empt the coronial process,” Professor Picone said.
In his letter, Dr Barratt said Dr Ismail — whom he was supervising — had previously been judged by him to be “not safe” to treat patients after two previous incidents just months earlier. Dr Barratt also revealed he was “unhappy” with how the inquest had unfolded and added “you need the truth”.
Azizi Bakar, the doctor who had failed to provide the anti-convulsive drugs ordered by a consultant, was the other doctor whom Dr Barratt suggested had not been properly screened prior to employment.
Dr Ismail faced questions during the inquest over her decision to double the dose of a painkilling opiate drug, oxycodone, to treat Anderson’s headache, despite the fact that she only spoke to the patient for a pre-operative check.
Dr Ismail said she did not realise Anderson was already receiving Panadeine Forte, a painkiller with a high level of codeine, another opiate drug.
Dr Barratt’s letter alleged that Dr Ismail’s salary was being paid by the Saudi Government, an arrangement that he said was “not unusual in the public hospital system — that is, there are many others like her”.
“In fact, a few months before the Vanessa Anderson incident a bureaucrat from the Department of Health came pleading with us to take more of these ‘trainees’,” Dr Barratt wrote.
Professor Picone said “learning exchange” arrangements was a “feature of any modern health system”. Out of a total 11,000 doctors in NSW public hospitals, about 100 at any one time would be paid for by an overseas government or other agency, she said.
Alison Reid, medical director of the NSW Medical Board, refused to discuss the case specifically but said that generally applications to register doctors first had to come from a prospective employer, supported by letters from the relevant medical college. Qualifications were independently verified and certificates of good standing sought from previous regulatory bodies.
Bingo.
We can't sell our own organs, but the hospital can.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com
At one time I was receptive to organ donation.
NO MORE!
This happens more often than they say in the news.
It shows you the hypocrisy of a society that, even as it skids faster onto the track of euthanasia, implores its citizens to consent to have their organs removed from them.
If they allowed people to sell their organs legally-while they're of sound mind-that would be fine, but to believe that there aren't people in the medical profession who will gut you like a butcher-or more commonly, discretely kill you for their own benefit-is putting too much faith in humanity.
To me this seems more like a case of a greedy, self-promoting, jerk who probably rationalized to himself that the patient was going to die anyway. I’m not sure how the renumeration is calculated for a transplant surgeon at a managed care facility like Kaiser-Permanente, but his motivation may have been more focused on getting his (and the programs) transplant numbers up.
What does it matter what religion he is? He wouldn’t be the first overanxious doc to want to speed the organ harvesting procedure.
[A Muslim doctor, Dr. Hootan Roozrokh, murdered his patient to harvest his organs. And—surprise!—the Muslim doctor was raised here in America. ]
Perfect article to give my friend, huh??
http://www.nowpublic.com/beleaguered_kaiser_permanente_besieged_by_bad_news
Managed care giant Kaiser Permanente continued to suffer scathing reports this week about the safety of its patients and the quality of its hospitals.
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times reported that five of the organization’s 28 California hospitals scored among the deadliest in the state for patients with pneumonia on a new report. The five Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, along with 23 other facilities, had an average death rate of 17.2%, more than double the mortality rate of 8.1% for the top 25 hospitals on the report. Across the state, 12.29% of pneumonia patients died within 30 days of admission.
Then, on Wednesday, the Times reported on an investigation by authorities into the death of Ruben Navarro, a 26-year-old San Luis Obispo man. The San Luis Obispo Police and the Medical Board of California are investigating whether Kaiser Permanente transplant surgeon Dr. Hootan Roozrokh may have euthanized Navarro in order to harvest his organs. The Medical Board is also investigating the conduct of Dr. Arturo Martinez, who was, at the time, surgical director of Kaiser Permanente’s transplant program.
The two reports come as the organization grapples with significant fallout from a series of recent reports. In May, the organization, under pressure from federal and state regulators, was forced to shutter its San Francisco kidney transplant unit after the Times uncovered evidence that the unit had among the worst death rates of any kidney transplant program in California. In a bizarre twist, Roozrokh and Martinez, the surgeons being investigated in Navarro’s death, had both previously been involved with the San Francisco unit before it was shut down...
LOL! No doubt.
I don’t know what his religion has to do with the story. You hear about docs doing this every once in a while. It happens.
Debbie’s gone off the deep end a number of times in the past year or 2.
“The Medical Board is also investigating the conduct of Dr. Arturo Martinez, who was, at the time, surgical director of Kaiser Permanente’s transplant program.”
Martinez. hmmm. Is he muslim too?
I posted articles related to muslim doctors and the ‘doctors plot’ connected to recent terrorist acts in the UK.
I also posted a link to a threat; ‘Those Who Cure You will Kill You’
Nothing personal. I report. You decide.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8E63118D-D435-4459-8657-854E61FE1F73.htm
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/01/1993869.htm?section=justin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.