|
ello:
I am finishing up a book concerning the cross-infection of women by
their medical providers ("Fatal Probe") that has received incredible
accolades from several dozen women, published writers, a few
publishers and even several MDs.
One of the chapters concerns Medical Malpractice and suggests that
there actually is not a MM crises - as is portrayed by the doctors and
their ins. firms.
The chapter will also describe how defense lawyers will do anything to
win, that a Med Mal case is not a bed of roses (unless you consider
the thorns) and could very well be even more traumatic than the
consequences of the "incident".
Rather than continue with developing the chapter, the thought crossed
my mind that a law firm would be interested in writing this section...
with proper credit, of course.
So, I am copying the INTRODUCTION to the work below for your conv. and
hope to hear from you. My email addy is: rainmaker@dizney.com. Please
insert "FATAL PROBE" in the sub. line. (I rec. lots of spam.)
FATAL PROBE
INTRODUCTION
The literature stresses structural rather than psychological causes of
helplessness in depersonalizing institutions. People appear to be
crushed by hierarchies of power, often arbitrary in application, and
rendered impotent by bureaucratic inertia that frustrates attempts to
change 'evil' norms, behaviors and values.
From the book Humanization and Dehumanization of Health Care
There is a real possibility that an otherwise healthy woman can walk
into a doctor's office for her annual pelvic exam, and walk out
infected with a deadly disease. The health provider may not be
breaking any laws or recommended procedures, but the outcome is just
as lethal.
Concern for the health of women worldwide is the motivating factor
behind this book. Only through efforts like this a call to action -
can women begin to guard their health through awareness of their
medical care. Additionally, the public should know of the medical
community's continued denial of any wrongdoing, and understand that
fundamental changes will never occur if average citizens do not take
an active role in holding doctors accountable for their actions.
Do not think this book is intended to be a `slam' against the entire
medical profession, for the value of proper medical care is
inestimable, and vast strides in medicine within the last few decades
have greatly improved the quality and longevity of life for the
average person. The author is not an M.D., and makes no attempt to
dispense medical advice.
Although the book is in no way a thorough study of gynecological
devices and procedures, it is a rank view of the threat of
cross-contamination in gynecological medicine. One of the issues
inherent in this study is the difficulty any outsider faces at the
prospect of breaching the privacy fence that surrounds the entire
medical community.
Think of this as an open-minded query into the examination room of the
obstetrician, gynecologist, GP or other medical providers who render
services to women.
There are few doctors brave enough to go against the grain, who
will confirm or corroborate these assertions. In fact, few in the
medical profession will dare to admit to reading this book. No other
book, article, brochure or TV journal has ever brought to the
public's attention these hidden issues and concerns that directly
affect every woman on the globe, and indirectly, every man.
On the other hand, there are reams of opinionated, professorial
studies, stacks of books, hundreds of URLs and innumerable web pages
that champion and defend the traditional beliefs that continue to be
asserted by the medical community. Many of these beliefs and
operating principals are baseless assumptions and unsubstantiated
claims that the entire medical community holds up as truth.
Most doctors will claim to not have time to do their own
research or read published studies in their particular field of
practice. They rely in most cases on what we will refer to as
Medical Hearsay, a major contributor to the problem of gynecological
cross-contamination.
Medical hearsay refers to the manner in which doctors trade
information back and forth. Citing each other as "credible
sources," they establish what they then refer to as "common medical
knowledge." Basically, rumors are passed from doctor to doctor so
often that they gain repute. Therefore, a portion of what is
called "common medical knowledge" is founded in inaccuracies and
assumptions, instead of scientific studies and thorough inquiries.
An example of "common medical knowledge":
"Medical instruments used in gynecological procedures are always
sterilized."
This statement is patently untrue. Yet, when asked, doctors and
nurses emphatically agree with it. However, the guidelines, as
posted on the FDA web site, are as follows:
Semi-critical devices: Those that contact mucous membranes
(i.e. Gynecological devices). These devices require high-level
disinfection (destruction of all microorganisms except some highly
resistant viruses [1] ).
What's the difference? Sterilization and disinfection are
completely different. Sterilization involves high temperature
destruction of all possible pathogens. Disinfection amounts to high-
quality dishwashing.
There is no regulation, rule or law that all medical instruments
used in invasive, gynecological procedures must be sterilized. In
his Newsweek Magazine article, Underwood states that:
"Tens of thousands of the medical instruments used in highly
invasive procedures are not intended to be sterilized." [2]
The medical community justifies the reality by saying,
"There is no need to use sterile instruments during the
examination of non-sterile areas of the body because the area is
already non-sterile and body cavities are encased in intact, mucous
membranes; therefore, high-level disinfection is adequate."
This amounts to Medical Hearsay, which appears to have been
first propagated by the American Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopists (ASGE) in their defense of the continuing publication of
numerous media reports of cross-infection from non-sterile medical
instruments manufactured by Olympus of Japan. [3]
This book was written for the purpose of telling the public that
a woman's visit to her obstetrician, gynecologist, general
practitioner or health care clinic may result in her becoming cross-
infected with something as serious as a life-threatening pathogen,
such as HIV, HCV, HBV, CJD, HPV (cervical cancer), something as
unnerving and troublesome as a yeast infection or one of a number of
other infectious/contagious diseases.
The cause of this danger can be isolated to one specific
possibility: the widespread use of non-sterile gynecological medical
devices and procedures, a practice officially permitted by the
fede
|
| |
| |
[...]>
There is a real possibility that an otherwise healthy woman can walk
into a doctor's office for her annual pelvic exam, and walk out
infected with a deadly disease.
Let me guess. Spongiform encephalopathy. Yes. That's it. Or could it
be hantavirus?
|
| |
| |
" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<6uWUb.10875$Rl4.4955@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
[...]>
Let me guess. Spongiform encephalopathy. Yes. That's it. Or could it
be hantavirus?
CJD (prions) and a few other extremely difficult to kill microbes are
certainly a part of the list, because, for ex. prions cannot be killed
(they aren't living); however, these are almost 'givens' or TOO easy
or have been placed in the area of conspiratorial trumpery or such.
But, no. We have not mentioned these microbes (and may not) thus far
and may not. On the other hand, the prion is the lead 'character' in a
fiction I am writing... It's called "The Clinic".
In the meantime, the pathogens referred to in our work are HIV, HPV
HCV, et al.
I detect your retort was meant to be a bit sardonic. However, I gave
it the benefit of the old doubt.
Best regard,
Will
|
| |
| |
Any clue as to why my original post is not shown?
Thanks
Will
" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<6uWUb.10875$Rl4.4955@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
[...]>
Let me guess. Spongiform encephalopathy. Yes. That's it. Or could it
be hantavirus?
|
| |
| |
|
