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.