A letter emailed to Sue Dawson, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner, on 17 Mar. 2021

A letter just, on Wed. 17 Mar. 2021, emailed to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner.
Ms Sue Dawson
NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner
Dear Madam
I was referred to Dr Andrew J Brooks, Urologist, for help with the frequency problem I was experiencing – I was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate.
The explanation Brooks gave me for this problem was that it was caused by the fact that my bladder had become muscular from years of having to force my urine past partial blockages in my urinary tract, and therefore smaller – down to a capacity of 200 mls or less. And that the solution was for me to undergo an operation called a TURP, in which the partial blockages would be removed, and that if I underwent this, my problem would be solved in that my bladder would be restored to a more normal size within 6 months or so, with a capacity of at least 350 mls.
I went along with this. I underwent an operation under a full anaesthetic, which always has it’s risks, I spent two uncomfortable days in hospital, was more that $6,000 out of pocket, even after Medicare rebates, for Brooks’ $3,200 fee for less than an hours work, and hospital charges. AND I wasn’t helped in any way!!! I still had the frequency problem exactly the same!!!as Brooks himself eventually admitted in writing. AND I was damaged seriously FOR LIFE!!! in a highly personal way – it can’t be reversed.
Brooks, while, no doubt, laughing all the way to the bank, claimed this wasn’t his fault, it was just the luck of the game, “the way the cookie crumbles,” that there had always been a 20% chance that what he’d put me through wouldn’t help in any way, and further claimed that he’d explained this to me right from the beginning – which, of course, was a lie, one of the many Brooks lies.
What do you think, Sue? That if this was explained to any sane person, particularly that they would be seriously damaged for life in a highly personal way, wouldn’t it be more likely that they would say, “No thanks! I’d sooner put up with having to get up 2 or 3 times a night.” But my fear, Sue, is that, based on your track record, you will probably believe Brooks.
Eight months after I had Brooks’ operation, I consulted another Urologist, and he told me, showing me graphs and everything, that my bladder was then of a normal size, having a capacity of 350 mls or more – in other words, what Brooks had promised would happen if I underwent his treatment, HAD happened – but I still had the problem???? This made it incredibly likely that my bladder had had a normal capacity when I first saw Brooks, that his claims that it then only had a capacity of about 200 mls was fairy tale stuff, told, just so he could get his greedy hands on $3,200 for less than an hour’s work, made more likely by the fact that, even though he’s been asked at least a dozen times, he’s refused to provide any evidence that my bladder was small, evidence to which I’m entitled to by law.
There’s another aspect to all this.
On six different occasions I’ve had a phone call from someone claiming to be speaking on Brooks behalf, requesting/demanding that I take down the stuff I’ve put up on the internet about all this, all even claiming that I owed Brooks an apology??? that I owed Brooks an apology??? (I would have thought it was the other way round – that he owed me an apology!) And one of them mentioned that Brooks, from time to time, made “contributions” to GPs to help them in running their practices, which he described as a “norm” in the industry. When I raised this possibility with Dr Chris Grant, the GP who’d referred me to Brooks, and asking him if he’d ever received one of Brooks “contributions,” not only did he fail to respond, he blocked me from sending him any more emails.
(The last one of these six to ring me had asked me whether I’d ever thought of the possibility that if I made too many complaints about doctors, like the ones I was making about Brooks, that doctors might start refusing to treat me if I had any medical problems? In other words, suggesting that it might be best if I keep quiet about the problems I’d had with Brooks!)
So, Sue, not a pretty picture? People in New South Wales like Brooks thinking/knowing that they can almost get away with murder, but getting referrals from GPs, who know what he’s like, but doing it to keep getting his “contributions.”
(When I mentioned to Dr Grant that I thought Dr Brooks might be building up a “nest egg” for his retirement, Grant just laughed, saying, “I would have thought Dr Brooks would have lots of “nest eggs” already.” In other words he thought he was filthy rich already.)
Sue, there are many who believe that this situation in New South Wales has been largely brought about by the “reward system” you and your people have brought about, in which the “crooks” are doing doing better, making more money, than the “good guys.” A system under which 98%, perhaps 99%, of the people who lodge complaints with you are told they have nothing to complain. And those who lodge complaints about doctors with the status of A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks are told they have nothing to complain about 100% of the time. 
Extremely serious stuff! The lives and health of the people of New South Wales is at stake. But it seems you don’t care?
Have you anything to say that might make these people think otherwise?
Yours faithfully

Readers, we’ll let you know if we get a reply.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.