The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission in general 10

One of A/Prof Andrew J Brooks’ patients had been referred to him for help with what is called the “frequency problem,” – he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet. Brooks recommended and carried out an operation called a TURP, which, firstly, didn’t help his patient with his “frequency problem” in any way, as Brooks himself subsequently admitted in writing, and which, secondly, inevitably results in severe damage to the sex life of those who have it – it’s for the rest of their lives, it ALWAYS happens and can’t be reversed.

As we’re sure our readers will agree, it’s hard to imagine anything much worse – treatment which didn’t help in any way and which inflicted serious life long damage, all at a cost of more than $6,000, for hospital expenses and  Brooks $3,200 fee for less than an hour’s work, even after Medicare refunds. And when the patient lodged a complaint about Dr Brooks with  Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, he received a decision  which can be summed up in one sentence in it – “WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A DEFICIENCY IN THE CLINICAL CARE AND TREATMENT PROVIDED TO YOU BY DR BROOKS.”

What??? Yes, it’s true, readers – Richard Murdoch, one of Sue Dawson’s officers came to the decision that, even though the patient still had the health problem Brooks had been supposed to fix, exactly the same, and had been damaged for life, that the patient had no basis to complain. If readers don’t believe this, by clicking on this link, they can be taken to Murdoch’s decision in full.

To try and make the slightest sense of this nonsense, Murdoch had postulated that, somewhere along the line, Brooks had properly explained to his patient that his treatment would damage him for life and might not help him in any way – both of which happened, and that the patient had responded with something like, “I don’t care.”

Readers, how likely do you think it is that this actually happened? To us, it requires us to believe that the patient was stark raving mad!

In a letter Brooks sent to the HCCC, he had said, and we quote, “I would USUALLY discuss the alterations to sexual function and the loss of ejaculation.” It seems to us that from this, even he is not claiming that he actually explained these things to his client in this case. Don’t you think, readers?

So the patient asked for a review of Murdoch’s decision, and got a response which you can read by clicking on this link. There are so many things wrong with this response that we intend write them up in a separate post, as time allows. But basically the three ladies involved in the review, obviously Sue Dawson, “Commissioner,” and Jane Probert, who describes herself as “Director, Resolution and Customer Engagement,” and Leanne Evans, who describes herself a “Senior Review Officer,” seem happy to ignore that the facts that Brooks’ treatment hadn’t helped his patient in any way and had damaged him for life, on the basis that it was all the patient’s fault in that he had ignored the warnings he’d been given that these things might happen.

(One has to question whether females could ever fully appreciate the damage the patient had suffered, as a male?)

As you can see from the following paragraph, they purport to be “sitting on the fence,” as the old saying goes, unable to determine who to believe.

That they should claim this is, of course, is utter nonsense – they’ve clearly come down, fairly and squarely, on Brooks side, believing every word he’s said, at the same time dismissing anything the patient may have said to the contrary, as lies.

You would think that it would be reasonable for the HCCC people to expect Brooks to be able provide iron clad proof that he’d properly explained to his patient that his treatment mightn’t help, (as it turned out,) and that he would be damaged for life – something in writing at least. But no, Brooks clearly knew he didn’t have to bother with such things, presumably because he’d done the same thing to other patients before, and that, if they’d complained, they’d also been told they had no basis to complain, leaving Brooks free to go on his merry way, getting his greedy hands on his $3,200 fees for less than an hour’s work, over and over again, without a worry in the world.

Readers, in case you haven’t realised it before, that’s how it is with Sue Dawson and her people in the HCCC.

And no one cares – least of all Ms Dawson and any of her people, or anyone in the whole Berejiklian Government. If any of them ever provided the slightest indication that they cared, we’d be in a state of shock.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.