As with most so-called oversights in Australia even assuring medicos are up to standards is opaque and left to the patient.
“A doctor doesn’t need to let a patient know that they have restrictions on their practicing rights, so it’s up to patients to make sure they thoroughly research the doctor or surgeon before they undergo a serious procedure,” principal lawyer in the medical negligence department at Maurice Blackburn, Libby Brooks, told A Current Affair.
While there is no way a distant arm chair observer could know all the facts it appears this surgeon may be convinced an artery nicked itself.
From protecting dodgy unsanitary restaurants (in most states) through to you name it, the system continually seems designed to protect itself not police itself, or so it seems. Self regulation surely works. Surely it must, or at least it works for the respective industry participants who profit from looking over their own shoulders.
Taken to a Vic regional hospital, the elderly father of a friend of mine was urgently operated on for a twisted bowel.
Somehow they managed to stitch his bladder and part of the bowel together.
After months of hospitalisation and suffering, he now has a colostomy bag for life.
His fault for not making sure the medicos were up to standard? The lawyer in the above quote seems to think so.
Must remember to check that the Toyota technician/s who assembled, bled and tested the brakes of my new car was up to standard.
Is there an assumption with medical professionals that all proceedings and investigations of medical practice standards are published in full on line and are also accessible to non internet users. The assumption is that both positive and negative outcomes are available, without redactions? Doubtless it would also need to include relevant details of ongoing and pending investigations to ensure patients are most fully aware of whom shortly might be of doubtful competence.
Otherwise it would appear an impossible ask of the patient to make a reliably informed decision? The suggestion of legal responsibility by Maurice Blackburn might be correct at law. That does not make it morally correct, or prevent governments from changing the law to improve the outcomes for the consumers/patients.
Whose side is Maurice Blackburn really on? A good guess is that medical professionals and their insurers have deeper pockets than the average patient!
‘… fault for not making sure the medicos were up to standard?’ If you look at the quote in context, he is criticising the system whereby people are responsible for vetting their own medicos under the policy of secrecy or at least non-publication. His comment is a critical statement of the situation he has to deal with, not a defence of it.
Note he is a medical negligence lawyer, not a medical defence lawyer, on our side! BTW, it always pays to read more than a snippet.
I think you are being overly generous in your assessment. I think it should be criminal to consciously conceal such information per the approved status quo.
True, my error, I rushed past the context. M&B were actually pointing out a concern and not defending the medical profession.
Out of curiosity, the tool that is available from the links to check registration is also revealing of just how useful or useless it may be in assisting patients.
One example relating to a Doctor patient conflict of interest.
The event dated from 25 Nov 2010
The hearing date was 02 Nov 2016
Decision delivered date 01 May 2019
