HCCC

We’ve just, on 12/4/21, sent Premier Berejiklian a copy of this post – “for her information and comment.”

We suspect that all the emails we’ve sent her – and there have been many – seeking to raise issues that we think are significant, particularly about NSW Health and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, have gone straight into the trash. They may as well have – we’ve never heard anything from her.

Perhaps she thinks there are no votes in these issues – and perhaps she’s right? We’ve had precious few indications that we, the people, care about them either – even though our health and welfare, even our lives, can be at stake. Perhaps we think that it’s fanciful to think anything can be done about them – that it’s too much to think that anything can be changed?

info@questionsmisc.info

One of our readers has provided us with these details as to how he got on when he made a complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about a doctor in a Government Hospital, Dr XXX.

The basis of his complaint was, (1) that there had appeared to be a deficiency in some advice he’d received from Dr XXX, (which it was found out later, that there was,) and, (2) that when he’ realised this, he’d emailed Dr XXX giving him the opportunity to make good on this apparent deficiency, but the doctor hadn’t responded. The upshot of which was that the patient assumed that if the doctor had had anything important to tell him he would have got back to him, in other words, he trusted him, and it wasn’t until later that he found out that there HAD been a deficiency, and that trusting him could have had quite disastrous consequences, although, more by good luck than good management, it hadn’t.

But Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people dismissed the complaint, telling our reader he had nothing to complain about!!!

We believe that our readers could be given 100 guesses as to the basis for this dismissal and still, not one of them would come up with the one Dawson and her people came up with on this occasion.

Briefly:-

(1) that it was all the reader’s fault in that Dr XXX had specifically told him NOT to trust his advice in any way, but to seek other/proper advice as soon as he left the hospital, and,

(2) that Dr XXX couldn’t be blamed for not responding to our reader’s email, because, at no stage had he told him that he could use his email address to seek “further advice.” (When, of course, he hadn’t been seeking “further advice,” just inviting him to make good on a deficiency in advice he’d already given.)

My, Ms Dawson and her people must be SO intelligent, coming up with excuses like this! They, of course, tell 98%, if not 99% of the people who complain about NSW doctors that they have nothing to complain about – they always seem to come up with something. Perhaps they use this excuse quite often?

Of course there are two concerns about this. Firstly, that Dawson retains her position, when her track record provides SO many examples of responses like this – she must be laughing all the way to the bank. And secondly, that it’s obvious that no one in the Berejiklian Government cares – we’ve never got any indication that any of them do, even Premier Berejiklian herself?

info@questionsmisc.info

One of our readers claims that, many years ago, he made a complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about the clinical care and treatment he’d received from Dr Kerrie Meades, Ophthalmologist, after an Optometrist, Paul McCarthy, had referred him to her for help with the double vision he was experiencing and which was getting worse – his compliant was that he’d spent 3 or 4 hours in Meades’ rooms seeing her, one of her colleagues, Dr Jennifer Sandbach, and various orthoptists, at a cost of hundreds of dollars – and had learnt nothing. It had been a complete waste of his time and money.

For him, his double vision had got to the point where he was a danger to himself and others when he was driving a car, and that if he’d been forced to give up driving his car, it would have been a disaster! And that what particularly concerned him, made him SO angry, was that Meades could have told him about something which solved the practical problems of double vision in the first 5 minutes of seeing her – prisms in his glasses. But this wasn’t mentioned by either Meades or any of her people during the 3 or 4 hours he spent in her rooms. Meades was too busy telling him that the causes of double vision could  be “extremely serious,” and required “extensive investigation,” and trying to talk him into having an operation on his cataracts – this, when, it doesn’t seem that cataracts have anything to do with double vision, and that another Ophthalmologist told him ten years later that he still didn’t need an operation on his cataracts!!! Our reader says that a serious consequence of the negligence of Meades and her people was that he spent many extra months being a danger to himself and others when driving his car, unnecessarily.

An aspect to this, which is a real mystery, is why Paul McCarthy hadn’t mentioned to our reader  how prisms in glasses solved the practical problems of double vision??? You’d think that there was no possible way he wouldn’t have known about them? What could possibly have been the reason for him not mentioning them? Why wouldn’t he have offered to make our reader a pair of glasses with prisms in them? – in which case he would have arrived at Meades’ rooms not experiencing any of the practical problems of double vision. (To be fair, one thing our reader says he is grateful to McCarthy for, is that he was the first one to make him aware of the fact that developing double vision was what was wrong with his eyes – he hadn’t realised this.)

Our reader says that, when, after he’d given up on Meades and her people, he saw another Ophthalmologist, Dr Ross Fitzsimons, who solved all his problems in a brief consultation that cost less than $150 dollars – compared with the hundreds of dollars he’d spent on Meades and her people. After having our reader provide him with a brief history of his double vision, Dr Fitzsimons told him that it was incredibly unlikely that it was due to anything serious, but that if he wanted to make sure, he could have an MRI of his brain – which he did, and it was clear. And Dr Fitzsimmons was the first one to make him aware of prisms in his glasses – he’d never heard of them before, and when he got them, it was almost like a miracle – as though he was in his 40s and 50s again, with no double vision.

So readers, get the picture?

Our reader had consulted an Optometrist, Paul McCarthy, because he was having trouble with his eyes, McCarthy had told him it was because he was starting to have double vision, but hadn’t told him that prisms in his glasses would solve the practical problems he was experiencing, didn’t offer to make him a pair of glasses with prisms in them, when you would have thought he was in the business or providing such glasses, goodness knows why, although we have our suspicions. He had just referred him on to Dr Meades, goodness knows why, although again we have our suspicions. And seeing Meades and her people for 3 or 4 hours, at a cost of hundreds of dollars, had turned out to be a complete waste of time and money. She and her people were obviously just set on making as much money out of him as they possibly could. When he eventually saw Dr Fitzsimons, he solved all his problems so quickly and cheaply. How different his life would have been if Dr Fitzsimons had been the first one he’d seen.

On the basis of the above, our reader thought he’d make a complaint about the clinical care and treatment  he’d received from Dr Meades to Commissioner Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, even though, from past experiences he anticipated that it would be a complete waste of his time – that they, particularly Dawson herself, would turn out, again, to be completely and utterly useless. AND the outcome was far worse than he could have imagined!!!

We believe that the first thing Dawson and her people should do with complaints is to send the health care worker being complained about a copy of the complaint, asking for his or her comments, that this should be the starting point in dealing with them. Amongst other things it would make the health care worker less likely to tell lies. Our reader says that if this had been done with his complaint about the clinical care and treatment he’d received from Meades, he’s sure he could have picked it to pieces, because she told lie after lie after lie.

Here are just three of them.

(1) Meades claimed that our reader had been a “difficult patient to treat” in that he had refused to have an operation on his cataracts, as “was clinically indicated.” Meades could have been asked for a copy of anything that might substantiate this claim, (it’s incredibly unlikely that there was anything, as, amongst other things, our reader says another Ophthalmologist told him ten years later he said that he still didn’t need an operation on his cataracts,) But of course, this didn’t happen, and Meades would have known that this wouldn’t happen, that it never does, otherwise she wouldn’t have made this allegation. (No doubt there had been other complaints about her, and she would have learnt this from how they’d been dealt with.)

(Readers, don’t you think it’s outrageous that people like Meades can get away with lies like this? – which they obviously do, over and over again.)

(2) Meades claimed that Dr Sandbach had sent our reader for an MRI – which was another blatant lie. Again she would have known that Dawson and her people wouldn’t ask for anything that might substantiate this claim, otherwise she wouldn’t have made it – which they didn’t, they never do. Of course, Meades wouldn’t have wanted our reader to have an MRI, as it would have indicated that there was nothing wrong with him, as was what happened when another Ophthalmologist, recommended that he have one done – it would have undermined her claim that double vision could have “extremely serious causes,” which required “extensive investigation,” and she would have missed out on fees for allegedly carrying out these investigations.

(3) And it was the same with another lie, that Sandbach had sent our reader for blood tests.

Typically, the ultimate outcome of our reader’s complaint was that Dawson herself, told our reader, that he had nothing to complain about – which is what she and her people tell 98%, perhaps even 99%, of the people who lodge complaints about NSW health care workers. Typically, she and her people don’t even bother to try to explain WHY they have nothing to complain about – just flatly that they have nothing to complain about. Our reader says he had included in his complaint how different his experience had been with Dr Fitzsimons, thinking it would perhaps be seen as highlighting how poor Meades’ performance had been. But no, even after he’d asked for a review of the initial dismissal of his complaint, Dawson herself wrote:-

“The review has confirmed previous advice that there is no evidence of any significant departures that would be likely to lead to disciplinary action against Dr Meades. Two doctors having different opinions or action plans about a patient does not necessarily mean that either practitioner’s conduct is unreasonable.

So Meades’ clinical care and treatment hadn’t been unreasonable!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!, UNBELIEVABLE!, UNBELEIVABLE!

(We could provide readers with a copy of Dawson’s letter – if they were interested. Email us.)

No wonder, as we keep saying, NSW doctors aren’t concerned in the slightest that any of their patients might complain about them to the HCCC – even the Dr Meades, who provide such poor clinical care and treatment, who appear to be only interested in making money. One of our readers reports that, after he’d had horrific experiences with one doctor, and was complaining to him – that the doctor taunted him, saying to him, “You know that you have nothing to complain about, otherwise you’d be making a complaint to the HCCC” – the doctor knowing that if he did make a complaint to the HCC, it wouldn’t get him anywhere, it would just be dismissed.

Readers, we’re talking about the health and welfare, even the lives, of the people of New South Wales here.

A TOTALLY BIZARRE MISALLOCATION OF LIMITED RESOURCES!!!

Just when we think we’ve heard the worst about Commissioner Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, something like this comes along.

In a post dated 29 March 2021, i.e. five days ago, we commented on the way in which a complaint about a Ms Breanna Ford had been handled, as reported in a HCCC media release dated 10 Mar. 2021 – how we thought it was really weird!

According to the media release, Ms Ford was a 23 year old FORMER nurse, she’d already ceased to be registered, and perhaps was unlikely to ever seek to be registered again, although we don’t really know, and the complaint against her was that she had “inappropriately taken two prescription pads and used them to forge eight prescriptions” – not very significant stuff we would have thought. Yet Commissioner Dawson and her people treated it as a VIP complaint, allocating resources to dealing with it which were just extraordinary, not least of which was that a full hearing was held into the matter in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales before three Senior Members and a General Member, the proceedings of which were reported on in a report that went on for pages and pages and pages – readers can read the details for themselves in the Media Release.

We made this comment on this:-

These words turned out to be strangely prophetic because just two days later, on the 1 Apr. 2021,  one of readers got a response from the HCCC to a complaint he’d made about matters – and readers may think we’re exaggerating, but we’re not, –  which were hundred times more significant than inappropriately taking two prescription pads and using them to forge eight prescriptions – use this link to see the details. (20 times, 50 times, 100 times as significant – it doesn’t matter.)

So a complaint about an unregistered nurse gets the full VIP treatment, costing perhaps hundreds of dollars, perhaps even thousands of dollars, and a complaint about matters that are hundred times more significant get’s dismissed, apparently by a single HCCC officer, a Richard Murdoch, a senior officer or perhaps a junior officer, we don’t really know and we don’t know whether there’s any way of finding out.

Clearly the person or people in charge of the allocation of resources to various complaints are not suitable people to have this job.  But the chances of getting a comment from Commissioner Dawson on anything like this are nil. She doesn’t seem to think she’s accountable to anyone – let alone, to us, the people.

info@questionsmisc.info

Further to this post in which the extensive details that were used in a complaint lodged with Commissioner Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about Dr Brooks are set out, a response has been received headed “Our decision concerning your complaint about Dr Andrew Brooks.”

It can be summed up in this single sentence in it – “We have not identified a deficiency in the clinical care and treatment provided to you by Dr Brooks.”

So there you are readers – our reader had complained that there HAD been a deficiency in the clinical care and treatment provided to him by Dr Brooks in that, after he’d been referred to him for help with his frequency problem, he’d been having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, Brooks had submitted him an operation under a full anaesthetic, which always has it’s risks, he’d spent 2 uncomfortable days in hospital, all at a cost of more than $6,000, including Brooks’ $3,200 fee for less than an hours work, even after Medicare rebates, and, he STILL had the frequency problem exactly the same, even years later, as Brooks had admitted himself in writing. AND his sex life had been detrimentally affected, it was for the rest of his life, it couldn’t be reversed, in that his semen was no longer ejected through his penis, with all the pleasure that brings, it just went up into his bladder.

And the response from Commissioner Dawson and her people?

As simple flat rejection! There HADN’T been a deficiency in his clinical care and treatment!!!.

This is such typical Sue Dawson stuff! It happens time and time again. To us, the HCCC, under Dawson is a blight on the state of New South Wales. And the fact nothing is done about it is a blight on the Berejiklian Government – the people in it who have the power to do something have had plenty of time to do something about it – but they obviously don’t care.

Come on readers – let’s try and make Premier Berejiklian and her people feel that there are votes in it for them to do something

The greatest concern is that it creates a reward system under which the “crooks” are doing better, making more money and so on, than the “good guys.” Under which, the “crooks” feel they can almost get away with murder, because they can. Something which we think should be a matter of concern to all of us.

info@questionsmisc.info

The A/Prof. Andrew J. Brooks, Urologist, and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission story.

Fact 1: After Dr Chris Grant, GP, had referred one of our readers to Dr Brooks for help with his frequency problem, (he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, which made it difficult to get a good night’s sleep, a problem common amongst seniors,) and after he’d had his first consultation with him on 5 Aug.2014, Brooks put in writing, amongst other things,”He has had no response to oral agents over several years.” This was to be the first of what were to be many of Brook’s fairy tales – seeing his GP and then Brooks was the first thing our reader had ever done about his frequency problem.

Fact 2: Brooks explanation to our reader was that the cause of his frequency problem was that his bladder had become muscular and therefore small, having a capacity of only about 200 mls, from years of having to force urine past partial blockages in his urinary tract, and that if he had the operation he recommended, called a TURP, in which the partial blockages would be removed, his bladder would be back to normal comparatively quickly, and he would no longer have the frequency problem. On 9 Sep.2014, he confirmed in writing what he’d previously told him – “it can take up to 6 months to resolve. The majority of the resolution occurs occurs within the first 3 months.”

Fact 3: Trusting his GP, Dr Chris Grant, and Brooks, our reader underwent the TURP, on 13 August, 2014.

Fact 4: Our reader was therefor subject to an operation under a full anaesthetic, which always has his risks.

Fact 5: Following the operation, our reader spent 2 uncomfortable days in hospital with tubes and so on sticking in an out of him everywhere.

Fact 6: Our reader was out of pocket for more than $6,000, even after rebates from Medicare, for Brooks’ fee of $3,200 for less than an hours work and for hospital charges. He was eligible to have his operation in a Government hospital at no cost, but Brooks told him that this would involve a delay of more than 12 months, which may or may not have been true – on Brooks record, as our reader says he subsequently found out, he was not to be trusted in anything he said.

Fact 7: Even after the above, our reader still had the frequency problem exactly the same, he’d not been helped in any way, as Brooks, himself, admitted in writing! On 9 Sep.2014, he put in writing, “He still has significant frequency,” and on 18 Nov.2014, “Unfortunately the frequency ….is not resolved.” He still had the frequency problem  exactly the same even years later.

Fact 8: And, as a consequence of having undergone the TURP, he was DAMAGED FOR LIFE in a highly personal way, it didn’t happen sometimes, it always happened, and couldn’t be reversed – he was and is, deprived of the considerable pleasure, (as every male would understand,) that comes from his semen being ejected through his penis, – his semen just goes up into his bladder.

Fact 9: As a possible, almost certain, explanation of why Brooks’ treatment had failed completely, other urologists have indicated that when our reader first saw Brooks, it was likely that his bladder wasn’t small at all, that it was of a relatively normal size, but it was weak, too weak to empty properly, so it was taking shorter and shorter amounts of time before it was full again, and that this was the cause of his frequency problem. And that nothing could be done about weak bladders. In other words, Brooks’ treatment was NEVER going to work! On this explanation, it was likely that Brooks claim that it was small was simply made to justify the treatment he recommended, which involved him in getting $3,200 for less than an hours work! Brooks’ explanation for the complete failure was that, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved. This is due to the altered bladder wall compliance and loss of functional volume that occurs and occasionally does not remit following relief of the outflow obstruction,” which he put in writing on 18 Nov. 2o14, and which appears to be pure gobbledegook.

Fact 10: Brooks has ignored at least 20 requests from our reader for copies of anything that might substantiate his claim that his bladder was small – perhaps none exists.

Fact 11: Brooks is breaking the law by not providing our reader with anything that might substantiate his claim that his bladder was small.

Fact 12: The help of the NSW Privacy Commissioner we even enlisted to get Brooks to provide copies of anything that might substantiate his claim that our reader’s bladder was small, but Brooks even took no notice of her – not that she seemed to particularly care.

Fact 13: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks put in writing, “He has had a significant improvement in flow rate since undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate.” More Brooks fairy tales? How could he know this without physical inspections – and there had been no physical inspections. And what if there HAD been a significant improvement in flow rate, if our reader hadn’t been helped in any way with what he’d been referred to Brooks for. And our reader hadn’t told him that this signifiant improvement had occurred  – mainly because he didn’t know himself whether it had or not. It’s as though, even though he hadn’t helped our reader in any way, Brooks still expected to get some brownie points for this achievement.

Fact 14: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks put in writing, “He still has significant frequency AND URGENCY” –  this was the first time Brooks had talked about our reader having an urgency problem, which our reader says he never had, and has never had, at any stage. What is to be thought about doctors who start talking about problems they allege their patients have, which their patients has never mentioned and have never had???

Fact 15: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks also put in writing that our reader had “a functional volume of approximately 250 mls.” Another Brooks fairly tale? How could he say that when there’d been no physical examination. And do bladders ever increase in capacity by 500 mls in 27 days? But the whole basis of his treatment on 13 August 2013, only 27 days before, was that his bladder then only had a capacity of 200 mls.

Fact 16: On 18 Nov. 2014, Brooks put in writing the same old stuff – “He had a marked improvement in flow rate following my transurethral resection performed in May of this  year.” (it was actually August.) Again with no physical examination being carried out. And again, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved.” again referring to an “urgency’ problem that his patient had never had.

Fact 17: In the two days our reader spent in hospital, he was in a room with another of of Brooks’ patients, and in those two days, Brooks only visited the two of them once, for a total time of two minutes – which was the total of Brooks’ aftercare for the two of them!

Fact 18: On 18 Nov. 2014, Brooks put in writing, “I have prescribed Oxytrol patches and I will review him in two months to check on his progress.” But after our reader had gone to the expense of getting the Oxytrol patches and started applying them, he happened to Google what Oxytrol patches were for, and the results indicated that he didn’t have any of the problems they were supposed to treat – so he threw them in the trash. Again Brooks being a waste of time and money.

Fact 18: Brooks had always claimed that if our reader’s bladder was increased in it’s capacity to a more normal size, something which he had indicated his treatment would achieve – but when our reader consulted another Urologist in April 2015, some 8 months after he’d had Brooks’ treatment, this other Urologist indicated that it then WAS of a more normal size, he showed our reader graphs and everything to confirm this, BUT, HE STILL HAD THE FREQUENCY PROBLEM!!!. This, together with Brooks’s absolute refusal to provide copies of anything that might indicate that our reader’s bladder was small back in August, 2014, would almost certainly indicate that his bladder was always of a more normal size, and that his claims that it was small, on which everything was based, was a lie.

Fact 19: Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, are, at present, considering a complaint our reader has lodged with them about Brooks, based on the above facts. And we know exactly what will happen – Brooks will say, “I warned him he’d be damaged for life, AND that there was a 20% chance he wouldn’t be helped in any way, but, although I’ve got nothing in writing confirming this, he said that if there was a chance he would no longer have to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, he didn’t care,” and Dawson and her people will believe him, and tell our reader he has no basis to complain, the result of which being that Brooks will feel free to keep doing what he’s no doubt been doing doing for years – getting his greedy hands on his $3,200 fees for less than an hour’s work, without ever caring in any way about the consequences for his patients of the treatments he’s been recommending and carrying out, and with absolutely no concerns that any of his patients might lodge any complaints about him. Perhaps other Urologists will start joining him, or already have?

info@questionsmisc.info

To us the way in which the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission is run, under Ms Sue Dawson, the Commissioner, (the “boss”) is nothing short of farcical, as illustrated by things such as this.

If you click on this link, you are taken to one of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission’s Media Releases, dated 10 Mar. 2021, from which you will see that the complaint is that a Ms Breanna Ford, a 23 year old former nurse, (she’d already ceased being a nurse,) had “inappropriately taken two prescription pads and used them to forge eight prescriptions.” Heavy stuff, huh!

Well! Would you believe it? This complaint is given VIP treatment – SO many resources allocated to dealing with it! Amongst other things, a full hearing is had into it in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales.

which is followed up with a report into it’s proceedings that has 68 items!!! and goes on for pages and pages – to view it, click on this link.

It would be interesting to know how much of the taxpayers money was paid to the four members, shown above, for their day’s work? – not that we, the people, will ever find out.

This, when hundreds and hundreds of far far more serious complaints are just dismissed at the administrative level by Ms Dawson and her people – the people who have lodged complaints are just told they have nothing to complain about.

It seems that more and more things and areas are just a CIRCUS under the Berejiklian Government, perhaps because Premier Berejiklian doesn’t care, and so many people know she doesn’t care – nobody feels accountable, this when modern technology makes it so easy to make people more accountable, particularly if you’re a Premier!!!

info@questionsmisc.info

We’ve come to realise that things are much more serious in New South Wales than we’ve been thinking. The fact is that certain NSW doctors are DANGEROUS, that it’s DANGEROUS for people to get involved with them, and that in many ways the whole situation in New South Wales is DANGEROUS for us the people, for which, dare we say it, Premier Berejiklian must bear the ultimate responsibility.

To reiterate, as an example, when a patient is referred to A/Prof Brooks for help with what is called the frequency problem, he’s been having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate, Brooks tells him that it’s because his bladder has become small, with a capacity of about 200 mls, when it could have been because was of a more normal size, about 350 to 400 mls in capacity, but wasn’t emptying properly during urination. And when, on the basis of Brook’s claim, he recommends and carries out treatment which has consequences for his patient which are nothing short of disastrous, he is asked for evidence that the claim that his bladder was small was correct he doesn’t respond – he obviously thinks, “I’ll get away with this.” Which may well be what happens!

In particular after his patient has sent Brooks numerous requests for the evidence, to which he is entitled to by law, 3 emails in particular, which Brooks has ignored, and the help of the NSW Privacy Commissioner is sought, Brooks’ response to her is, “Oh, I didn’t get those emails. My email address is set up so it weeds out emails from patients, so I don’t get them.”

Readers, we now believe that any doctor who makes such claims is DANGEROUS.

And worse was to follow! The Privacy Commissioner didn’t question this response in any way – her response was, “Oh yes, Dr Brooks, that’s a perfectly understandable reason for you not to respond to your patient’s requests.”

This when we believe it would have been elementary for her to look into this excuse and question it’s likelihood. Our technology advisers tell us that it’s not possible for email addresses to be set up in the way Brooks claimed. And one email that had been sent to him, one asking for details as to how best to pay his $3,2oo fee for less the than an hour’s work, was acknowledged and responded to really promptly. But Privacy Commissioners in New South Wales, and the like, don’t do that sort of thing.

But that’s how DANGEROUS it is in New South Wales -where claims by doctors are readily accepted by those in authority, by those who should be looking after and protecting us the people, when what we, the people, have to say is often just dismissed – something we’ve come to believe we’ve been completely underestimating.

Incidentally, the bottom line to all this is that the patient did eventually get copies of 2 or 3 documents, but nothing to substantiate Brooks’s claim that his bladder had been small.

It will be interesting to see what Brooks comes up with, now that a formal complaint about his has been lodged with the Health Care Complaint’s Commission. It’s a concern that Brooks got his nurse to come up with the evidence he based his claims on – not a properly qualified Urologist. Goodness knows what she may have come up with, or will now come up with.

The only thing we can be sure of it that Commissioner Dawson will come up with nonsense like the Privacy Commissioner did! We can anticipate that Brooks will come up with so many lies, which, at his request, won’t be disclosed to the complainant before the HCCC has made it’s decision, if at all – the complainant will never get an opportunity to see any of Brooks’s claims and comment on them. As we’ve said, it’s like having court cases in which the prosecution and their people have to leave the court while the defence put their case – so the judge hears what they have to say, but not the prosecution.

As we say, SO DANGEROUS for us the people.

info@questionsmisc.info

Briefly, a patient, Mr XXX, was referred to A/Prof. Brooks, Urologist, for help with what is called “the frequency problem,” common in seniors – he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate which made it harder to get a good night’s sleep.

The diagnosis Brooks pitched to the patient was that the patient’s bladder had become muscular, and therefore smaller, from years of forcing urine past partial blockages in his urinary tract, down from a more normal capacity of 400 mls or more, to a capacity of about 200 mls or less, and this was the reason he was having to urinate more often.

On the basis of this diagnosis, he recommended to the patient was that he undergo what is called a TURP operation in which the partial blockages would be removed, saying to the patient that if this was carried out, his bladder would be back largely back to a more normal size within 3 months, certainly within 6 months, and he would no longer have the frequency problem.

But after he carried it out, at a cost of more than 6,000 dollars, even after Medicare rebates, for Brooks’ fee of $3,200 for less than an hours work and the hospital charges for 2 days in hospital, nothing had changed, that, as Brooks admitted himself in writing, the patient still had the frequency problem exactly the same!

AND as an inevitable consequence of the TURP, the patient was deprived of the considerable pleasure that is normally experienced by men during sexual intercourse when their semen is ejected though their penis – that no longer happens, the semen just goes up into the bladder – it doesn’t just happen sometimes, it ALWAYS happens, and it’s for life, it can’t be reversed.

Subsequently, about 8 months later, Mr XXX consulted another Urologist, Dr AAA, who advised him that his bladder was then of a relatively normal size, explaining it with graphs and so on – but he still had the frequency problem??? This, when Brooks had promised his patient that if he underwent the treatment he was recommending, his bladder would, within 6 months or so, be of a more normal size, and that if this happened he would no longer have the frequency problem. Dr AAA went on to explain that the frequency problem is normally caused by the fact that as patients get older, or for whatever reason, their bladders become too weak to empty properly during urination, perhaps remaining up to half full after urination, and that this is the reason for the frequency problem – and that nothing can be done to make weak bladders strong again. Which raises the probability that when XXX first consulted Brooks, that this was the position with his bladder – it was relatively normal in size, but weak. In other words, it could, perhaps, be alleged that Brooks’ patient had undergone an operation under a full anaesthetic, which always has it’s risks, had spent two uncomfortable days in hospital, had incurred expenditure of over six thousand dollars, and had been damaged for life – ALL FOR NOTHING!!! 

It’s hard to imagine a more serious allegation!

(If a thug in the street bashed up someone, a side effect of which being that that someone was damaged for life in the way Brooks had damaged his patient, one could imagine them being sent to gaol – perhaps for very long time.)

Of course, Brooks could easily counter any allegations like this. How? By producing the evidence that lead him to claim that, when he first saw the patient, his bladder was, in fact, small and muscular. But SO many requests, over the years, for him to produce this evidence have been ignored. The patient is entitled to copies of this evidence by law, and he says he’s even sought the assistance of the NSW Privacy Commissioner to get it – but Brooks has taken no notice.

One aspect of this is that Brooks got his nurse to carry out the tests to establish the size of the patients’s bladder, (for which, the patient claims, he was charged more than a properly qualified urologist would have charged,) and at some stage the question as to how much trust is to be placed in the results produced by a nurse may arise.

Why have we set out all this information? Because it’s recently all been presented to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission in a formal complaint about Dr Brooks, and, in case our readers haven’t realised it, on the HCCC’s track record, it will probably all come to nothing, will probably turn out to have been a complete waste for time and effort. Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people are geniuses at finding ways, in their minds at least, to end up telling people who make complaints like this, that they have nothing to complain about. In a sense, we can’t wait to see what they come up with, with this complaint. It should be fun! Brooks will tell lies and lies and lies, none of which will be made available to the complainant, certainly before the HCCC has made it’s decision, if ever, it will be dismissed initially, with an invitation to have the decision reviewed, and in the review it will be dismissed again. And do you know what? The senior people in our Government, from Premier Berejiklian downwards will agree with the decision, and won’t entertain for a nanosecond any thought that Sue Dawson shouldn’t keep her job. We’ll see.

P.S: Things seem to be getting worse and worse – more and more farcical, more and more comical.

Two days ago, as subscribers to receive copies of media releases from the HCCC, we got a media release about how a complaint about Breanna Ford, a 23 year old nurse, was dealt with.(Incidentally, Breanna had already ceased to be a nurse, and perhaps was unlikely to seek to ever be a nurse again.) The complaint? – that Breanna, while working as a nurse, had stolen 2 prescription pads and used them to forge 8 prescriptions. A big deal, huh! If you use this link, you will be taken to such a long report on the proceedings of a full investigation before 4 senior members of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal! In contrast, with the complaint against Brooks, what is likely to happen is that all his lies, (of which the complainant will never get a copy,) will be read at the administrative level, and that will be it, end of story – the complainant will be told that he has nothing to complain about.

info@questionsmisc.info