A letter, just, (on 27 May, 2021,) emailed to Ms Sue Dawson, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission’s Commissioner, with copies to Jane Probert and Leanne Evans, two of her officers, in response to their response to a request one of our readers had made for a decision that the HCCC had made, that he had no basis to complain about treatment he had received from A/Prof. Andrew J. Brooks, Urologist.
The complaint I lodged was that, as an INEVITABLE consequence of the treatment Dr Brooks had recommended and carried out on me, surgery called a TURP, I suffered severe damage, which is for the rest of my life, it can’t be reversed, (about which I’m SO angry, particularly when I’m having sex,) and that I WASN’T warned that this happened, not just sometimes, but that it ALWAYS happened!!!!!
Dr Brooks response was that I had no basis to complain as he HAD warned me that this would happen, and that this is what I’D CHOSEN MYSELF – TO BE DAMAGED FOR LIFE!!!!!!!! That, at some stage, I’d been given the clear choice – TO BE DAMAGED FOR LIFE, OR, to continue having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, and my response had never been, “No thanks, I’d prefer to continue having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet” – I’D ALWAYS CHOSEN TO BE DMAGED FOR LIFE!!!!!!!
There are two absolutely clearcut alternatives – mine, that I HADN’T been warned, and his, that I HAD been warned, but had chosen to have the TURP.
In the face of these two alternatives, you three ladies have written in your review:-
This, of course, is nonsense – particularly the last sentence. You HAVE determined what occurred, and CONCLUSIVELY at that – you’ve accepted Dr Brooks’ alternative, and rejected my alternative as lies.
This, despite the fact that I believe that these two alternatives could be put to a thousand males, or even, perhaps, ten thousand – be damaged for life, or, continue having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet? – and not one of them would choose to be damaged for life. One would have to think that anyone would have to be stark raving mad to accept the former. But perhaps this wouldn’t be fully appreciated by females?
Brooks hasn’t got an iota of proof that his version is the truth – you ladies have obviously decided that the fact that he wrote to my GP saying simply, “I have explained the risks and complications,” is conclusive proof that he had explained everything he needed to explain. One would think it would be reasonable to expect that, on such an important matter, Brooks would need to get his patient to put in writing what he’d explained to him, exactly. But no, Brooks obviously believes/knows, and with good reason, that he doesn’t need to be bothered with such things, because he can say whatever he likes and the HCCC will believe him, and that anyone who dares to differ will be deemed to be lying.
I don’t know if you three ladies fully realise that your decision leaves Brooks to go on his merry way, (it would be incredibly unlikely that I would be the only one he’s done it to, or that I’ve been the only one that’s lodged a complaint, getting his greedy hands on $3,200 for less than an hour’s work, why not?) recommending and carrying out treatment that damages patients for life, (and, which, incidentally, in my case at least, doesn’t help in any ways with the “frequency problem” he’s been referred the patient for help with,) without having to bother with getting anything in writing from the patients to confirm that he’s explained things properly, knowing that the HCCC will believe that anything he says is right and that any one who disagrees with him is wrong.