The Raleigh News & Observer reports that a Raleigh physician . . . one I do not know . . . one who is obviously incredibly brave or very pissed off about something or both . . . filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina Medical Board today.
The complaint states the obvious: The North Carolina Medical Board is controlled by the North Carolina Medical Society, and if you are not a member of the Society (especially if you complain about the behavior of someone who is) you are out of luck.
Well yeah. Duh.
I normally just use excerpts from news reports in my posts, but this one is important, so here's the entire text of the N&O's "staff report" (no authors were cited):
A Raleigh physician and three patients filed a lawsuit today challenging state laws that let the private N.C. Medical Society nominate doctors to serve on the state board that licenses and disciplines physicians.
The suit, filed in Wake Superior Court, complains that the N.C. Medical Board has failed to identify, investigate and prosecute doctors who endanger patients, because it is under the Medical Society's control.
It claims the state is violating the N.C. Constitution by delegating public authority to a private entity. In addition, it claims the system denies physicians who are not members of the Medical Society the chance to help select members of the Medical Board, in violation of their constitutional rights of free association, equal protection and due process.
Plaintiffs in the case include Dr. John Faulkner, a primary care physician in Raleigh. A news release announcing the filing of the suit says Faulkner, like most North Carolina physicians, does not belong to the Medical Society.
State laws require the governor to appoint as physician members of the Medical Board only physicians nominated by the Medical Society. Burton Craige, the Raleigh lawyer who prepared and filed the complaint initiating the lawsuit, said in the news release that the Medical Society, a trade group, works "to serve the interests of doctors, not to protect patients."
"You can't have a trade association controlling the appointments to a professional regulatory board. That's a conflict of interest. The people of North Carolina deserve a Medical Board that is strong, effective and independent."
But Mike Edwards, a spokesman for the Medical Society, said the governor, not the Medical Society, has final say over the physicians who serve on the Medical Board.
"The Medical Society holds an election each year to identify nominees, as the law requires, but we do not make the decision" Edwards said. "The governor decides who gets appointed to the medical board."
Doctors who don't belong to the Medical Society have access to the nominating process, he said. "The Medical Society does not make any inquiry into the membership status of
physicians seeking nomination to the governor. Any physician who is licensed to practice can seek nomination to the board."
The plaintiffs in the case are asking a judge to declare unconstitutional the method of appointing physicians to the Medical Board. They also seek an injunction ordering the governor not to appoint members of the board except by a method that meets constitutional standards.
The details spelled out in the civil complaint sound very much like my own interactions with the Medical Board . . . reporting bad/substandard care only to see nothing done . . . while I take the professional & financial beating for speaking out. Indeed, I have heard bits and pieces of the stories Faulkner tells.
I need to contact Dr. Faulkner's attorney and give him my blog address.
But hey, I guess my story is still "not relevant" to our local newspapers . . . the News & Record and Courier Tribune.
3/1 Update: More from the N&O . . . styled as "Doctor Takes On Medical Board". I'm glad (1) Dr. Faulkner apparently has the resources to fight (mine are depleted from the legal cluster-screw I've already endured), (2) he has the courage to do it (taking on the Board makes you a target for all sorts of ugliness) and (3) he found a lawyer both scruples AND cahoones (a rare bird by my experience).
It appears Dr. Faulkner became disenchanted with the Medical Society after his wife was injured by malpractice (so we have lots in common). As I have blogged before, the NC Medical Society's position on tort reform does not include reform of medical peer review (in several posts I have discussed my disappointing experience as a member of a joint NCMS-NCHA "peer-review task force" in 2002). In other words, the Medical Society wants relief from lawsuits without responsibility . . . without proving to the public that the medical profession can adequately and fairly police its own.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Hallelujah! A Doctor Sues The NC Medical Board Because It Serves The Interests Of (Select) Doctors, Not Patients
"Duplicity" And Smith-Moore
I am still trying to catch up on the goings-on in the Wray fray and Mitch meet-up (although it appears a whole lot of nothing came out of that).
Mitch apparently mistook Bubba for Joe Guarino at one point . . . and got pretty flustered . . . when Bubba asked him about the Simpkins PAC.
Dr. Joe latest post on "Duplicity" . . . citing the Rhino's last installment on the Wray fray . . . mentions that the law firm Smith-Moore is represents the city of Greensboro in its various legal entanglements:
The police department had been cooperating with the US Attorney's office and set up a sting operation for officers suspected of selling confidential police information to criminals. This operation was repeatedly cited as one of the major inappropriate activities in which GPD officers were engaged.
Nicole Pettiford-- the individual who is reported to have purchased information from police officers-- at one point was questioned by Special Intelligence, and later sued the city over her prolonged interrogation. The Smith Moore law firm represented the city against the suit.
It turns out that this firm, representing the city, used arguments that would tend to be exculpatory toward the Special Intelligence officers and those directing them. The filing cited the involvement of the US Attorney's office, and the approval of the operation by that office. Yet these Special Intelligence officers are still being criminally investigated, and may soon be charged over matters such as these.
Now, as it happens, I am familiar with the Greensboro mega-law firm Smith, Moore. In fact it used to be Smith, Helms, Mullis and Moore - until March 2002 when it split in two. Helms, Muliss, Wicker is the other by-product of the split.
You see, Robert L. Wilson, Jr. Randoph Hospital's attorney works for Smith-Moore. He's the attorney who thought it was a good idea to fire me but keep me on the pay-roll for six months (to shut me up and keep the business) . . . this after I defied "the team" of Morrison/Eblin/Bridges to save a newborn's life and report the problems I encountered with another doctor to peer review. He's also the attorney who advised the Executive Committee that zapping my hospital privileges without so much as a phone call (after I filed my lawsuit against the hospital's "controlled affiliate") presented no problem at all (that pesky thing called due process notwithstanding).
Wilson Jr. is also the attorney whose "considerable due diligence" could not ascertain as to whether or not an agreement ever existed between the National Health Services Corps and Randolph Hospital/RMA.
So I sent Wilson, Jr. a copy of the agreement. And I called Howard Coble. It took several rounds of correspondence and about nine months of wrangling with a brain-dead government bureaucracy obsessed with CYA (you wanna talk about "due diligence?), but Coble helped me get to the bottom of it and get my (malpractice) tail coverage paid.
And when we did, it all made Wilson, Jr. look like an idiot. I mean, was he asleep when he was advising his clients on this little employment matter or what?
Wilson, Jr. is also the attorney who, when confronted with evidence of perjury, contempt and fraud and the part of his clients several years back, told my attorney that being an "expert on non-profits", he would never have made such an error.
Translation: It was the trial attorneys' fault.
But what has Wilson, Jr. done to correct this "error" since it was brought to his attention?
Nothing.
What have his clients . . . the hospital and Board of Directors that condoned every nasty thing these two greedy liars did . . . who employ them to this day . . . done to rectify the situation?
Nothing.
I expect Wilson, Jr. would've liked me to sue somebody so he could rack up some more billable hours.
The Smith-Moore website boldly displays its corporate values of "history, teamwork, collegiality, excellence, and integrity". Dr. Mary Johnson's "history" with this law firm clearly demonstrates that all of that "collegiality" and "teamwork" is NOT geared towards rewarding "excellence" OR acting with "integrity".
Now, with regards to the actual criminal act of perjury, Wilson, Jr.'s hands are technically "clean". After I filed my lawsuit against RMA in 1999, the case was passed off to the insurance company and a new firm took over the litigation.
Robert Ford and Demetrius Worley (Berry), the lawyers who handled the litigation, were once employed by Tuggle, Duggins and Meschan in Greensboro.
Mr. Ford and Mrs. Worley (Berry) are the legal geniuses who thought filing a "libel" lawsuit against a physician reporting a hospital's malfeasance to the government (in confidence and in response to the government's request) was a good idea.
Ford & Worley (Berry) are no longer with Tuggle Duggins. Now they are bosses in their own firm, Brotherton, Ford, Yeoman, & Berry.
How nice for them that they could just step right over my dead body and get on with their lives.
Of course, they're still corporate defense attorneys . . . defending big business against pesky types like me . . . who won't just roll over and die when we're wronged.
Their firm's website says, "We're the answer to your defense."
In my case, their answer to Randolph Hospital's defense was obfuscation and outright lying about the confidentiality of the hospital's books and finances . . . in what ultimately proved to be a successful move to shield their clients from scrutiny. You see, by lying, they were able to low-ball the damages that the hospital paid at settlement.
You see these two attorneys are the ones who filed the false/sworn answers on behalf of Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin . . . in the discovery responses of their own despicable SLAPP-suit . . . the brilliant idea designed to humiliate and financially destroy the pesky public-service Pediatrician who would not "just go away" and leave their fine, upstanding (over-paid) clients alone.
These "experts" on "non-profit" litigation should have known better . . . it was their job to know what was really "strictly confidential" and what was not. As officers of the North Carolina court, was their job to see that their clients told the truth under Oath.
In other words, it was their job to see that their clients coughed up the financial records that I asked for . . . that a judge ordered them to provide . . . which included tax returns that happened to be posted as public record on the Guidestar website. If these two were Al Gore types, and did not want to give the appearance of killing trees (suggestion for Al: get Oscar a coat and turn down the thermostat at your house), all they had to do in their responses was point me in the direction of the website . . . and say, "The information you want about profits and losses and salaries is there."
But they did not do that. These two fine upstanding examples of North Carolina legal acumen, allowed their clients to lie under Oath . . . about financial matters relevant to my damages claim. It was "highly confidential", they said.
That lie perpetuated a fraud at settlement . . . and destroyed any hope I had of picking up the pieces in Asheboro and being able to move on.
That lie was a crime.
Of course, my own attorney's responsibilities to me in this matter are a whole nuther subject.
This is awful, you say. Report this all to the NC State Bar, you say. What a great idea!
Well, I did. And the Bar (now righteously chasing after Mike Nifong for lying to a judge in a court proceeding) quietly dismissed the complaints without so much as interviewing me.
Translation: It's okay to lie to a citizen. Just don't lie to a judge (or the IRS).
I believe the Bar calls it "aggressive representation".
Of course, my case is not getting any press attention (the N&R and Courier Tribune do not deem threatening/intimidating/firing/slandering/suing & humiliating/defrauding a local doctor "relevant" to our troubled times) that would drum up the public outrage that might get the State Bar to sing a different tune on the ethical contortions of these three brilliant North Carolina lawyers.
And, of course, all of this happened in the hey-day of Jim Black's "pay-to-play" power-mongering . . . blithely presided over by state leaders and chief law enforcement officers like Jim Hunt, Mike Easley and Roy Cooper.
This is the way the law and lawyers really work in North Carolina. And it is why I am not surprised by ANTHING that might be revealed in the GSO police fiasco . . . including indictments against police officers who may have been cooperating with federal authorities . . .
. . . and especially the maneverings of a law firm.
Mitch apparently mistook Bubba for Joe Guarino at one point . . . and got pretty flustered . . . when Bubba asked him about the Simpkins PAC.
Dr. Joe latest post on "Duplicity" . . . citing the Rhino's last installment on the Wray fray . . . mentions that the law firm Smith-Moore is represents the city of Greensboro in its various legal entanglements:
The police department had been cooperating with the US Attorney's office and set up a sting operation for officers suspected of selling confidential police information to criminals. This operation was repeatedly cited as one of the major inappropriate activities in which GPD officers were engaged.
Nicole Pettiford-- the individual who is reported to have purchased information from police officers-- at one point was questioned by Special Intelligence, and later sued the city over her prolonged interrogation. The Smith Moore law firm represented the city against the suit.
It turns out that this firm, representing the city, used arguments that would tend to be exculpatory toward the Special Intelligence officers and those directing them. The filing cited the involvement of the US Attorney's office, and the approval of the operation by that office. Yet these Special Intelligence officers are still being criminally investigated, and may soon be charged over matters such as these.
Now, as it happens, I am familiar with the Greensboro mega-law firm Smith, Moore. In fact it used to be Smith, Helms, Mullis and Moore - until March 2002 when it split in two. Helms, Muliss, Wicker is the other by-product of the split.
You see, Robert L. Wilson, Jr. Randoph Hospital's attorney works for Smith-Moore. He's the attorney who thought it was a good idea to fire me but keep me on the pay-roll for six months (to shut me up and keep the business) . . . this after I defied "the team" of Morrison/Eblin/Bridges to save a newborn's life and report the problems I encountered with another doctor to peer review. He's also the attorney who advised the Executive Committee that zapping my hospital privileges without so much as a phone call (after I filed my lawsuit against the hospital's "controlled affiliate") presented no problem at all (that pesky thing called due process notwithstanding).
Wilson Jr. is also the attorney whose "considerable due diligence" could not ascertain as to whether or not an agreement ever existed between the National Health Services Corps and Randolph Hospital/RMA.
So I sent Wilson, Jr. a copy of the agreement. And I called Howard Coble. It took several rounds of correspondence and about nine months of wrangling with a brain-dead government bureaucracy obsessed with CYA (you wanna talk about "due diligence?), but Coble helped me get to the bottom of it and get my (malpractice) tail coverage paid.
And when we did, it all made Wilson, Jr. look like an idiot. I mean, was he asleep when he was advising his clients on this little employment matter or what?
Wilson, Jr. is also the attorney who, when confronted with evidence of perjury, contempt and fraud and the part of his clients several years back, told my attorney that being an "expert on non-profits", he would never have made such an error.
Translation: It was the trial attorneys' fault.
But what has Wilson, Jr. done to correct this "error" since it was brought to his attention?
Nothing.
What have his clients . . . the hospital and Board of Directors that condoned every nasty thing these two greedy liars did . . . who employ them to this day . . . done to rectify the situation?
Nothing.
I expect Wilson, Jr. would've liked me to sue somebody so he could rack up some more billable hours.
The Smith-Moore website boldly displays its corporate values of "history, teamwork, collegiality, excellence, and integrity". Dr. Mary Johnson's "history" with this law firm clearly demonstrates that all of that "collegiality" and "teamwork" is NOT geared towards rewarding "excellence" OR acting with "integrity".
Now, with regards to the actual criminal act of perjury, Wilson, Jr.'s hands are technically "clean". After I filed my lawsuit against RMA in 1999, the case was passed off to the insurance company and a new firm took over the litigation.
Robert Ford and Demetrius Worley (Berry), the lawyers who handled the litigation, were once employed by Tuggle, Duggins and Meschan in Greensboro.
Mr. Ford and Mrs. Worley (Berry) are the legal geniuses who thought filing a "libel" lawsuit against a physician reporting a hospital's malfeasance to the government (in confidence and in response to the government's request) was a good idea.
Ford & Worley (Berry) are no longer with Tuggle Duggins. Now they are bosses in their own firm, Brotherton, Ford, Yeoman, & Berry.
How nice for them that they could just step right over my dead body and get on with their lives.
Of course, they're still corporate defense attorneys . . . defending big business against pesky types like me . . . who won't just roll over and die when we're wronged.
Their firm's website says, "We're the answer to your defense."
In my case, their answer to Randolph Hospital's defense was obfuscation and outright lying about the confidentiality of the hospital's books and finances . . . in what ultimately proved to be a successful move to shield their clients from scrutiny. You see, by lying, they were able to low-ball the damages that the hospital paid at settlement.
You see these two attorneys are the ones who filed the false/sworn answers on behalf of Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin . . . in the discovery responses of their own despicable SLAPP-suit . . . the brilliant idea designed to humiliate and financially destroy the pesky public-service Pediatrician who would not "just go away" and leave their fine, upstanding (over-paid) clients alone.
These "experts" on "non-profit" litigation should have known better . . . it was their job to know what was really "strictly confidential" and what was not. As officers of the North Carolina court, was their job to see that their clients told the truth under Oath.
In other words, it was their job to see that their clients coughed up the financial records that I asked for . . . that a judge ordered them to provide . . . which included tax returns that happened to be posted as public record on the Guidestar website. If these two were Al Gore types, and did not want to give the appearance of killing trees (suggestion for Al: get Oscar a coat and turn down the thermostat at your house), all they had to do in their responses was point me in the direction of the website . . . and say, "The information you want about profits and losses and salaries is there."
But they did not do that. These two fine upstanding examples of North Carolina legal acumen, allowed their clients to lie under Oath . . . about financial matters relevant to my damages claim. It was "highly confidential", they said.
That lie perpetuated a fraud at settlement . . . and destroyed any hope I had of picking up the pieces in Asheboro and being able to move on.
That lie was a crime.
Of course, my own attorney's responsibilities to me in this matter are a whole nuther subject.
This is awful, you say. Report this all to the NC State Bar, you say. What a great idea!
Well, I did. And the Bar (now righteously chasing after Mike Nifong for lying to a judge in a court proceeding) quietly dismissed the complaints without so much as interviewing me.
Translation: It's okay to lie to a citizen. Just don't lie to a judge (or the IRS).
I believe the Bar calls it "aggressive representation".
Of course, my case is not getting any press attention (the N&R and Courier Tribune do not deem threatening/intimidating/firing/slandering/suing & humiliating/defrauding a local doctor "relevant" to our troubled times) that would drum up the public outrage that might get the State Bar to sing a different tune on the ethical contortions of these three brilliant North Carolina lawyers.
And, of course, all of this happened in the hey-day of Jim Black's "pay-to-play" power-mongering . . . blithely presided over by state leaders and chief law enforcement officers like Jim Hunt, Mike Easley and Roy Cooper.
This is the way the law and lawyers really work in North Carolina. And it is why I am not surprised by ANTHING that might be revealed in the GSO police fiasco . . . including indictments against police officers who may have been cooperating with federal authorities . . .
. . . and especially the maneverings of a law firm.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
High Point Regional And Cone Hospitals: Turf Wars
Speaking of turf wars, I found the little ditty in today's N&R . . . on Moses Cone's plans to build a new ER/ambulatory care center in north High Point . . . very interesting.
For the uninformed, to build a new ER or hospital or nursing home in North Carolina, one must apply to the state (DHHS's Department of Facility Services to be exact) for a "Certificate of Need". You can't just go out and build it. In this case, High Point Regional is (justifiably) worried that the new center (which they say will cater to the more affluent areas of High Point) will cut into its "market share". The High Point City Council opposed the center citing economic concerns. There is little doubt High Point Regional will appeal the state's decision.
This lovely little dance doesn't do a lot to boost those "free market" notions some misguided folks still have about healthcare.
And based on experience, nobody . . . not even the state . . . says no to Moses Cone.
For the uninformed, to build a new ER or hospital or nursing home in North Carolina, one must apply to the state (DHHS's Department of Facility Services to be exact) for a "Certificate of Need". You can't just go out and build it. In this case, High Point Regional is (justifiably) worried that the new center (which they say will cater to the more affluent areas of High Point) will cut into its "market share". The High Point City Council opposed the center citing economic concerns. There is little doubt High Point Regional will appeal the state's decision.
This lovely little dance doesn't do a lot to boost those "free market" notions some misguided folks still have about healthcare.
And based on experience, nobody . . . not even the state . . . says no to Moses Cone.
But Dr. West, Randolph Hospital Sues Doctors For That
I am back from a blissful few days in Central Virginia (the Charlottesville area). In fact we got snowed in on Sunday. It was wonderful. But alas, I've come back to chaos. I'm going back to work next week and I'm behind on several projects (including getting all of the letters/e-mails out on last week's blog project). And apparently I missed a lot of blogger-fun (regarding GSO City Manager Mitch Johnson and the Wray fray) that I am still trying to catch up on.
What a tangled web one weaves when first one practices to deceive.
On that note, a week or so ago, I got a letter from Randolph Hospital.
Putting this in context, it has been YEARS since I got anything in an envelope from Randolph that was not (1) a legal nasty or (2) the 990 tax returns that now freely flow my way with a mere e-mail request (as opposed to their "strictly confidential" status during litigation).
By the way, I just got copies of the latest Randolph Hospital/RMA returns last week: Fuel for the fire of justice-denied that burns in my soul.
I was hesitant to open the letter, but decided that the appearance of the envelope was generic enough. As it happens, so was what it contained.
It was an unsigned, undated request for physican feedback sent by Dr. Charles West, Chairman of Randolph Hospital's Credentials Committee.
According to the tax returns I just got in the mail (I've really got to update the salaries page on the Asheboro Peds website), Dr. West now sits on the hospital's Board of Directors.
How very nice for him.
Let that be a lesson for the young ones: It pays to play the game.
I'm not going to publish the whole text of the letter here. What's more important is what prompted it. Being home over the last few months, I've heard (through the grapevine) bits and pieces about developing turf wars . . . doctors discarded and/or disgusted with the status quo (and Randolph Hospital's iron-fisted management "team") taking business and the building of facilities (independent of Randolph) into their own hands. The letter recycled an old RMA standby, "We want to know what you think in order to better serve you" fare.
The trouble is, Randolph Hospital sues doctors for that.
THIS HOSPITAL HAS NO CREDIBILITY on that whole, "we want to partner with you . . . we want to know what you think so we can make things better" line.
One of my Yas took one look at the letter and chuckled, "If you answer that, the poor clueless sap who sent it to you is going to get fired." With that in mind, I was going to ignore the thing, but as I pondered the hypocrisy of it all, I just got madder and madder.
So me being me, I wrote a letter:
23 February, 2007
Charles West, Jr., M.D.
124 North Park Street
Asheboro, N.C. 27203
Dr. West,
I am in receipt of an undated/unsigned generic letter sent out by Randolph Hospital on your behalf.
The letter states, “Whether you are currently a member of the medical staff or not, we would like to know how we might be able to change our staff membership criteria to accommodate you and the way you practice medicine. If you have questions or concerns, if you face specific clinical situations where your patient care delivery could be improved by having some kind of access to hospital facilities and services, then we are interested in knowing about them.”
Forgive me, Dr. West, but the summer of 2000, I was SLAPP-sued for “libel” by Randolph Hospital because I responded to the federal government when they sent me a letter very much like this one . . . asking for physician feedback. Let’s just say, I’m skeptical of your motives for sending me this.
In 1995, I put my trust and my future in the hands of Randolph Hospital. You know how I was repaid. In the resultant “slow-moving train wreck” my life and career became, I begged colleagues (particularly Board & Medical Executive Committee members) for help. I was ignored or spat upon . . . treated like a pariah for daring to question the omnipotence of Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin. The fact that I’m getting this letter . . . literally trolling for a “market” . . . tells me that “the team” is not so omnipotent anymore.
In 1997, I put my trust and health in the hands of a physician then-employed by your practice. Last September (2006), I underwent surgery to correct that mistake.
I did not sue for malpractice. And although I had every right and good reason to do so, I did not name a single physician in my original legal complaint against RMA. Tying to be “collegial”, I did not depose a single physician. Indeed, I did not technically sue the hospital (not that it mattered to anybody). Don’t bother to say “Thank You”. No physician at Randolph Hospital ever has. Just like no physician in an executive position ever told Bob and Steve, “Stop, you’ve gone too far . . . or told me, “I’m sorry.”
Last January, I sent a letter to the entire Randolph Hospital Medical Staff, including the Board of Directors and Medical Executive Committee. It referenced a specific clinical situation – and the cascade of events that followed – initiated by the act of a Pediatrician standing up to threats and intimidation. I advised the staff that I have uncovered evidence of blatant contempt, perjury and fraud during litigation . . . on the part of hospital executives (and lawyers) who are (very well) paid to know better . . . exercised against one of your former colleagues. I did not get a single response. SO MUCH FOR ETHICS.
Randolph Hospital did not listen to me when I was there, trying to build a Pediatric practice in the face of the hospital’s bad reputation and open hostility/petty turf wards. I practiced medicine very well, thank you very much. It was not "accommodated". I have no illusions that you will listen, or are listening now. You and yours . . . some of whom I was foolish/naive enough to call “friend” . . . stood by while I was cast out of my home . . . out of this so-called “medical community” . . . for doing the right thing by a patient in the middle of the night. Randolph Hospital has a lot more to fix than some credentials categories.
Please do not insult my intelligence now by sending me a letter like this. I will not pretend for your sake.
Sincerely,
Mary Johnson, M.D.
*Address withheld
Now, I know nothing will come of this. Drs. West and Stout and Kinlaw, long-standing and stalwart examples of Asheboro's oh-so-collegial medical elite . . . being the champions of medical ethics that they are . . . have never had the inclination or the courage to stand up to Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin before. As physicians, they never had the gumption to tell the Board of Directors they were just flat out WRONG in condoning everything these two did . . . and in continuing to condone it now.
But sometimes, it's just good to get something off your chest.
What a tangled web one weaves when first one practices to deceive.
On that note, a week or so ago, I got a letter from Randolph Hospital.
Putting this in context, it has been YEARS since I got anything in an envelope from Randolph that was not (1) a legal nasty or (2) the 990 tax returns that now freely flow my way with a mere e-mail request (as opposed to their "strictly confidential" status during litigation).
By the way, I just got copies of the latest Randolph Hospital/RMA returns last week: Fuel for the fire of justice-denied that burns in my soul.
I was hesitant to open the letter, but decided that the appearance of the envelope was generic enough. As it happens, so was what it contained.
It was an unsigned, undated request for physican feedback sent by Dr. Charles West, Chairman of Randolph Hospital's Credentials Committee.
According to the tax returns I just got in the mail (I've really got to update the salaries page on the Asheboro Peds website), Dr. West now sits on the hospital's Board of Directors.
How very nice for him.
Let that be a lesson for the young ones: It pays to play the game.
I'm not going to publish the whole text of the letter here. What's more important is what prompted it. Being home over the last few months, I've heard (through the grapevine) bits and pieces about developing turf wars . . . doctors discarded and/or disgusted with the status quo (and Randolph Hospital's iron-fisted management "team") taking business and the building of facilities (independent of Randolph) into their own hands. The letter recycled an old RMA standby, "We want to know what you think in order to better serve you" fare.
The trouble is, Randolph Hospital sues doctors for that.
THIS HOSPITAL HAS NO CREDIBILITY on that whole, "we want to partner with you . . . we want to know what you think so we can make things better" line.
One of my Yas took one look at the letter and chuckled, "If you answer that, the poor clueless sap who sent it to you is going to get fired." With that in mind, I was going to ignore the thing, but as I pondered the hypocrisy of it all, I just got madder and madder.
So me being me, I wrote a letter:
23 February, 2007
Charles West, Jr., M.D.
124 North Park Street
Asheboro, N.C. 27203
Dr. West,
I am in receipt of an undated/unsigned generic letter sent out by Randolph Hospital on your behalf.
The letter states, “Whether you are currently a member of the medical staff or not, we would like to know how we might be able to change our staff membership criteria to accommodate you and the way you practice medicine. If you have questions or concerns, if you face specific clinical situations where your patient care delivery could be improved by having some kind of access to hospital facilities and services, then we are interested in knowing about them.”
Forgive me, Dr. West, but the summer of 2000, I was SLAPP-sued for “libel” by Randolph Hospital because I responded to the federal government when they sent me a letter very much like this one . . . asking for physician feedback. Let’s just say, I’m skeptical of your motives for sending me this.
In 1995, I put my trust and my future in the hands of Randolph Hospital. You know how I was repaid. In the resultant “slow-moving train wreck” my life and career became, I begged colleagues (particularly Board & Medical Executive Committee members) for help. I was ignored or spat upon . . . treated like a pariah for daring to question the omnipotence of Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin. The fact that I’m getting this letter . . . literally trolling for a “market” . . . tells me that “the team” is not so omnipotent anymore.
In 1997, I put my trust and health in the hands of a physician then-employed by your practice. Last September (2006), I underwent surgery to correct that mistake.
I did not sue for malpractice. And although I had every right and good reason to do so, I did not name a single physician in my original legal complaint against RMA. Tying to be “collegial”, I did not depose a single physician. Indeed, I did not technically sue the hospital (not that it mattered to anybody). Don’t bother to say “Thank You”. No physician at Randolph Hospital ever has. Just like no physician in an executive position ever told Bob and Steve, “Stop, you’ve gone too far . . . or told me, “I’m sorry.”
Last January, I sent a letter to the entire Randolph Hospital Medical Staff, including the Board of Directors and Medical Executive Committee. It referenced a specific clinical situation – and the cascade of events that followed – initiated by the act of a Pediatrician standing up to threats and intimidation. I advised the staff that I have uncovered evidence of blatant contempt, perjury and fraud during litigation . . . on the part of hospital executives (and lawyers) who are (very well) paid to know better . . . exercised against one of your former colleagues. I did not get a single response. SO MUCH FOR ETHICS.
Randolph Hospital did not listen to me when I was there, trying to build a Pediatric practice in the face of the hospital’s bad reputation and open hostility/petty turf wards. I practiced medicine very well, thank you very much. It was not "accommodated". I have no illusions that you will listen, or are listening now. You and yours . . . some of whom I was foolish/naive enough to call “friend” . . . stood by while I was cast out of my home . . . out of this so-called “medical community” . . . for doing the right thing by a patient in the middle of the night. Randolph Hospital has a lot more to fix than some credentials categories.
Please do not insult my intelligence now by sending me a letter like this. I will not pretend for your sake.
Sincerely,
Mary Johnson, M.D.
*Address withheld
Now, I know nothing will come of this. Drs. West and Stout and Kinlaw, long-standing and stalwart examples of Asheboro's oh-so-collegial medical elite . . . being the champions of medical ethics that they are . . . have never had the inclination or the courage to stand up to Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin before. As physicians, they never had the gumption to tell the Board of Directors they were just flat out WRONG in condoning everything these two did . . . and in continuing to condone it now.
But sometimes, it's just good to get something off your chest.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Prisoner: "As God is my judge, I am innocent." Judge: "He Isn't, I Am, And You're Not."
Would't you know it, Alford pleas originated with a case in North Carolina: For fallen politicians, accused sex offenders and other criminal defendants, it is a way to say: "You caught me, but I didn't do it." Just like I caught Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin LYING and no one anywhere in Asheboro or Raleigh wants to admit it.
It completely fits with this state's total denial about the corruption that permeates our halls of government and public service . . . from the rafters of power in Raleigh to the back-rooms in the smallest towns.
Evidence: the mealy-mouthed Governor Easley on Black.
I'm taking a break for a few days. I've got to wash off the slime.
It completely fits with this state's total denial about the corruption that permeates our halls of government and public service . . . from the rafters of power in Raleigh to the back-rooms in the smallest towns.
Evidence: the mealy-mouthed Governor Easley on Black.
I'm taking a break for a few days. I've got to wash off the slime.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The NC Medical Board Has A Choice: It Can Condemn Retaliation Against Physicians, Or Continue To Condone It.
I don't have my hopes up. After last week, I am convinced everyone in Raleigh is dirty. And the NC Medical Board's track record of keeping doctors out of the line of ethical fire (as evidenced by the Board's contortions around the state's laws regarding executions) is dismal.
The following is the text of a letter to the Presidents (past/present/future) of the North Carolina Medical Board. It is followed by the text of a post first published on February 14th. I had planned to send the letter out last week, but held off . . . as I realized it risked getting lost in the immediate aftershock following the very hard fall of former House Speaker Jim Black.
21 February, 2007
H. Arthur McCulloch, M.D. President
Janelle A. Rhyne, M.D. President Elect
Robert C. Moffatt, M.D. Past-President
North Carolina Medical Board
P.O. Box 20007
Raleigh, N.C. 27619-0007
RE: Request For The NC Medical Board To Refer A Criminal Case To the Attorney General
Drs. MuCullock, Rhyne and Moffatt,
My name is Mary H. Johnson. I am a Board-certified Pediatrician who lives in Asheboro. I was born, raised and educated within an hour’s radius of the town. However I do not work there anymore. Since leaving practice in Asheboro in 1998, I’ve made my living as a Locum Tenens physician . . . covering practices all over this state (and others).
For nine long years, I have been the bastard-stepchild of North Carolina physician public service. In the past, NO ONE at the Medical Board, or in NC Medical Society’s leadership has wanted to publicly acknowledge what happened to me in Asheboro . . . when, in 1998, as a young and naïve physician finishing up a public service obligation, I stood up for the best interests of a patient (specifically a critically-ill newborn being grossly mismanaged by another doctor). I answered the nurses’ call in the middle of the night and did my duty (for a patient that was not even mine). The baby survived . . . by ALL accounts because of my efforts. I reported what happened to hospital peer review.
For my trouble, my life as I knew it . . . the life, hometown practice and good reputation that I had worked very hard to build . . . a practice that (by the terms of state & federal agreements) I was supposed to be able to transition as my own . . . was systematically destroyed/absorbed. Within two weeks of my intervention in the case (and filing the report with peer hospital review), I was fired.
The problems I was dealing with (as Chair of the the hospital's "Peri-natal Committee) and could not just overlook were "embarrassing" to the hospital. And had I been allowed to transtion to private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital-owned affiliate that fired me.
This letter is posted on my blog (omitting two paragraphs referencing the case last year – as it is currently under investigation by the Medical Board). The full letter has been hard-copied to officers of the NC Medical Board and Pediatric Societies. It has also been copied (by e-mail) to members of the appropriate NC House & Senate oversight committees . . . along with a link to the post that outlines my case against Randolph Hospital executives.
Please note that one of the Representatives receiving this letter is my own, Harold Brubaker, of Asheboro. The former House Speaker serves on the House Committees for Ethics and Health, yet has never deemed it necessary to respond to correspondence on these matters. Ditto for Senator Jerry Tillman. The best financial interests of the hospital and its Board of Directors have always come before the small matter of right and wrong. I believe the strategy has been to bounce me from jurisdiction to jurisdiction . . . or dismiss me as a “whack-job” female.
It is funny how, in the middle of the night, it’s been the “whack-job” that the nurses called in to clean up the bad messes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D.
*Street Address Omitted
Asheboro, N.C.
mary.h.johnson@att.net
cc: Thomas Mansfield, Legal Department, NCMB
R. David Henderson, Executive Director, NCMB
NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper
Lt. Governor, Beverly Perdue
Senator Mark Basnight
Speaker of the House, Joe Hackney
Robert Seligson, Executive VP/CEO NCMS
Darlyne Menscer, M.D., President, NCMS
G. Hadley Callaway, M.D., President-Elect, NCMS
Charles, F. Willson, M.D., Immediate Past President, NCMS
Herbert Clegg, M.D., President NCPS
Steve Shore, Executive Director, NCPS
House Committees on Ethics, Health and the Judiciary. Appropriations Subcommittee for Health and Human Services.
Senate Committees on Health, the Judiciary (civil & criminal) and Appropriations for Health & Human Services.
THE VALENTINE'S DAY POST:
The N&O reported last Thursday on the deal Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby made in securing a felony conviction against M. Scott Edwards, a political crony of former House Speaker Jim Black. Black resigned from the NC House today, and will plead guilty to a felony public corruption charge tomorrow.
According to Willoughby, Securing a felony conviction sends a message to anyone who might flout state campaign finance laws.
But there's a catch: A small part of why he made the deal deserves some attention from legislators, Willoughby said Wednesday.
It seems that treasurers who file campaign reports are not required to use a notary or otherwise "swear" or "affirm" that what they are filing is true. They are only required to certify that what they submit is true/correct.
Edwards was accused of filing false campaign reports four times in 2002 and 2003. The state's election law says: "Any person making a certification ... knowing the information to be untrue may be prosecuted for perjury.
"Edwards was indicted on four perjury charges.
But perjury -- the willing telling of a lie under oath -- requires that someone took an oath or affirmation.
The lie also has to be "material" to the matters at hand. In this case, Edwards lied about financial matters. No rocket science there.
The lay person will love this: Edwards' lawyer, Stephen T. Smith of Raleigh, argued to the judge before the trial that Edwards could not be guilty of perjury because the forms he filed were sent in only with his certification. He argued: No oath or affirmation, then no perjury.
The judge was reportedly intrigued by the novel argument exploiting a legal technicality, but allowed the perjury charges to stand. However, the issue was ripe for an appeal, both sides agreed.
A deal was cut. Before jurors started hearing the case, Willoughby offered to allow Edwards to plead guilty to a charge other than perjury: One count of obstruction of justice.
Smith said Edwards took the deal because it was a substantial reduction of the original charges, and his client would avoid jail. "We never believed he would have been guilty of perjury," Smith said.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the people of North Carolina are pretty sick and tired of liars.
After six years of obfuscation and every legal dodge under the sun, I'm very sick and tired of liars too.
Let's review why I'm tired:
As per North Carolina General Statute 14-209, SubChapter VIII, Article 28 “Punishment for Perjury”, “If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in ANY suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the States, or in ANY deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in ANY oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, EVERY person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.”
U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79, Sub-Sections 1621 & 1623, the penalty for perjury (per count) is imprisonment for not more than five years and/or appropriate fines.
The specifics of why I am so peeved are detailed on the Asheboro Pediatrics in this link. But here's the short version:
After working like a dog in public service for three years . . . after taking critical-care back-up 24/7 . . . after building a hometown practice that federal & state agreements stated clearly that I was supposed to be able to transition . . . I was threatened, then fired for doing the duties required by the North Carolina Medical Board (saving a newborn's life and reporting a problem to hosptial peer review) . . . duties the Medical Board did not EVER see fit to protect or defend. The baby was not even my patient. I simply answered a phone call and did what I had to do.
Doctors in the middle? Who cares?
Why, you ask, would Randolph Hospital fire a (by ALL accounts, excellent/dedicated) Pediatrician who went above and beyond? It makes no sense.
But yes, actually it does . . . in the greedy world of what I like to call "evil medicine" (forgive the Austin Powers reference). (1) The things I was complaining about were "embarrassing" to the hospital, and (2) if I had been allowed to transiton into private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital's "controlled affiliate". Hospital officials did not want that. And God knows, in the town of Asheboro, North Carolina what Randolph Hospital wants Randolph Hospital gets.
I turned to the North Carolina civil courts for justice. For my trouble, I spent three more years in litigation . . . including being SLAPP-sued for "libel" (a despicable legal tactic designed to humiliate and financially/professionally destroy me). But I would not back down . . . or "just go away". And after enduring insult after injury . . . after being locally black-balled . . . after struggling mightily working on the road to make ends meet . . . after surviving a myriad of legal challenges and finally dragging Randolph Hospital to a trial date . . . in the end, I was ultimately swindled of a fair & equitable resolution that would have allowed me to re-build my practice and my life.
Here's how:
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin, executives of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital repeatedly lied under Oath in their own bogus "libel" suit about the "confidentiality" of their books and salaries . . . information that is, by law (IRS Code), public record. The information they deliberately withheld was certainly relative and material to the considerable financial damages I suffered at their hands. They withheld the information even though a judge ordered them to provide it (criminal contempt). Then they negoitated a damages settlement based upon the lie (fraud). Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin swore out their answers/verifications in front of a Notary Public (either Jane Spencer Pinnix or Wanda H. Bray), and those answers were served upon Dr. Johnson’s legal counsel (Steven S. Schmidly) by their attorneys, Robert A. Ford and/or Demetrius L. Worley of Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, Inc. Mr. Ford and Ms. Worley, as both legal advisors and witnesses to the discovery responses, represented themselves to be “experts” in the representation of non-profit institutions. It was their responsibility, as officers of the Court, to ensure that Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin told the truth in their discovery responses.
North Carolina Statute does not specify a statute of limitations on perjury.
Randolph Hospital was made aware of the charges . . . via communications between my attorney (Steven Schmidly) and theirs (Robert Wilson) . . . in 2002. The hospital took no measures to rectify the situation or to discipline Mr. Morrison & Mr. Eblin.
Both gentlemen should have been fired. Randolph Hospital's Board of Directors has KNOWINGLY allowed an agreement negotiated in BAD FAITH to stand. They've made no effort whatsoever to right the wrong. In fact, the "team" of Morrison and Eblin have gotten fat raises.
Citing a recent hospital advertising campaign, I must say the "E" does not stand for "ethics".
Given the strong-arm tactics Randolph Hospital has routinely employed with doctors, why would anybody enter into a business relationship with these people?
Fed up with the endless posturing of lawyers looking to line their own pockets, I presented this information to the Randolph County District Attorney, Garland Yates in June of 2003. The complaint was re-drafted and re-presented in December 2005. All appropriate documentation - including copies of the discovery responses and the sworn signatures of Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin were included. Mr. Yates has NEVER met with me to discuss the allegations. He will not take a phone call. He will not schedule an appointment. As I have waited on him to take action, statutes of limitations on civil claims (a corrupted venue in this case & jurisdiction) have run out.
Given the fact that (1) I was in public service and recruited back home to Asheboro with state & federal funds, and (2) Randolph Hospital is licensed by the state of North Carolina as a "non-profit", I was under the apparently misguided and naive impression that accusations as ironclad and black & white as those I was making merited an independent investigation by the NC Attorney General/SBI.
If, because of the very important locals involved (including all of the "honorable" Randolph Hospital Board members who continue to deem Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin worthy of employment), Mr. Yates was uncomfortable asking the Asheboro Police Department to investigate (the hospital and Courthouse are in the Department's jurisdiction), ALL Mr. Yates had to do was ask Roy Cooper to take the case (as New Hanover County DA, Ben David, did just this week).
As the general public has learned from the Duke fiasco - presided over by Mike Nifong - the Attorney General cannot intervene in a case unless he's asked. Randolph County ADA Andy Gregson has made it crystal clear that nobody can make the DA prosecute . . . not Dateline or 60 Minutes . . . not the Governor.
"You can't make me", is essentially the DA's argument. It is arrogance in the extreme.
The FACT is that state of North Carolina has NEVER conducted a proper investigation of my case. Justice has been obstructed.
And let's face it, because I will not give up or give in, it's MUCH easier for those involved (and those who should be helping) to slur my character/sanity than really examine what happened . . . and prosecute the find upstanding citizens who abused the public trust and showed nothing but contempt for the law.
I filed complaints with the NC State Bar . . . regarding the behavior of all of the attorneys involved . . . including mine . . . and including Mr. Yates. The Bar very quickly and quietly dismissed ALL of the complaints without even sending an investigator to interview me.
I met with IRS officials in October 2006. The problem there (from a criminal standpoint) appears to be that it does not matter to them if Randolph Hospital officials lied to me. It only matters if the hospital lied to the IRS. The real "jurisdiction" lies with state court.
But victims have no real "standing" in North Carolina, whereas District Attorneys have absolute power & "prosecutorial discretion".
Excepting Congressman Howard Coble, my elected "representatives" including Harold Brubaker, Jerry Tilman and former Senator John Edwards have offered no help whatsoever.
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin are NO DIFFERENT from M. Scott Edwards. In fact, what they did was technically LEGALLY worse. They REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH in discovery. They lied to me. They lied to the Court. And, by extension, they lied to the state of North Carolina. In doing so, they OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. So WHY does Dr. Edwards stand convicted of a felony while Bob Morrison & Steven Elbin have yet to suffer ANY KIND of sanction?
With doctor shortages looming in this state's immediate future, where are the bills in the legislature that protect physicians (especially employed ones) from the kind of blatant retaliation I have experienced? Where is the peer review and tort reform? In the wake of Mike Nifong, and given the example of Garland Yates, where are the bills to reign in District Attorneys . . . to protect citizens from being railroaded or victims from being ignored . . . to provide real checks and balances?
WHERE IS THE NC MEDICAL BOARD AND NC MEDICAL SOCIETY ON THESE ISSUES? WHERE WAS THE NC PEDIATRIC SOCIETY? They've known FOR YEARS that good doctors are getting slaughtered playing by the so-called rules of corporate medicine. In my dance with Randolph Hospital, many of the Medical Board's position statements on ethical conduct were literally spat up by hospital executives. They did not have to be bothered and a good doctor was just a bug to crush. What have our medical gurus and professional "advocates" in Raleigh done about it except collegially play politics?
When is the "advocacy" of the mighty AMA going to be about something besides Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements . . . or battling errant insurance companies (who, like the executives of Randolph Hospital, feel that they can ignore and/or distort physician contracts . . . with NO consequences)?
Meanwhile, the legislature is more worried about what one swears on rather than what one swears to. I've asked this question before, if perjury is rarely prosecuted except to pursue a political agenda, why does it matter if you swear on a Bible, a Quran, or a TV Guide?
As the victim of a series of white-collar crimes committed by people charged with the public trust, I would say that there are indeed, "flaws in the law".
The same message that was sent to Jim Black and M. Scott Edwards needs to be sent to "non-profits" in North Carolina:
You do NOT get to lie to the people of North Carolina.
That "message" needs to be sent to EVERYONE gifted with the public trust . . . not just the politicians.
The following is the text of a letter to the Presidents (past/present/future) of the North Carolina Medical Board. It is followed by the text of a post first published on February 14th. I had planned to send the letter out last week, but held off . . . as I realized it risked getting lost in the immediate aftershock following the very hard fall of former House Speaker Jim Black.
21 February, 2007
H. Arthur McCulloch, M.D. President
Janelle A. Rhyne, M.D. President Elect
Robert C. Moffatt, M.D. Past-President
North Carolina Medical Board
P.O. Box 20007
Raleigh, N.C. 27619-0007
RE: Request For The NC Medical Board To Refer A Criminal Case To the Attorney General
Drs. MuCullock, Rhyne and Moffatt,
My name is Mary H. Johnson. I am a Board-certified Pediatrician who lives in Asheboro. I was born, raised and educated within an hour’s radius of the town. However I do not work there anymore. Since leaving practice in Asheboro in 1998, I’ve made my living as a Locum Tenens physician . . . covering practices all over this state (and others).
For nine long years, I have been the bastard-stepchild of North Carolina physician public service. In the past, NO ONE at the Medical Board, or in NC Medical Society’s leadership has wanted to publicly acknowledge what happened to me in Asheboro . . . when, in 1998, as a young and naïve physician finishing up a public service obligation, I stood up for the best interests of a patient (specifically a critically-ill newborn being grossly mismanaged by another doctor). I answered the nurses’ call in the middle of the night and did my duty (for a patient that was not even mine). The baby survived . . . by ALL accounts because of my efforts. I reported what happened to hospital peer review.
For my trouble, my life as I knew it . . . the life, hometown practice and good reputation that I had worked very hard to build . . . a practice that (by the terms of state & federal agreements) I was supposed to be able to transition as my own . . . was systematically destroyed/absorbed. Within two weeks of my intervention in the case (and filing the report with peer hospital review), I was fired.
The problems I was dealing with (as Chair of the the hospital's "Peri-natal Committee) and could not just overlook were "embarrassing" to the hospital. And had I been allowed to transtion to private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital-owned affiliate that fired me.
Knowing I was in the right and (incorrectly) assuming that the state of North Carolina would not condone what Randolph Hospital had done, I fought back. I litigated. It has been a nightmarish nine years . . . a medico-legal quagmire of conflicting jurisdictions and ineffectual, disinterested regulatory agencies. The details of that ordeal are now outlined on my website (www.asheboropediatrics.com) and blog (www.drjshousecalls.blogspot.com).
Those with short attention spans (which, alas, will mean most of you) can view the profile on my blog for the “short version” of what happened. The “long version” is cited in a homepage side-link. I am, quite frankly, tired of spoon-feeding the story to deaf ears.
I have discovered that what the law says does not matter in North Carolina. It is about who has the money and power. I have found that NO ONE really cares about justice or medical/legal ethics as long as their own lives are not inconvenienced or disrupted.
For four years I have been begging the Randolph County District Attorney, Garland Yates, to refer the allegations I’ve made (of perjury, contempt & fraud) against “non-profit” Randolph Hospital executives (Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin) to the State Attorney General’s Office/SBI for a proper investigation and prosecution. The basis for these allegations is well-documented in the black and white of sworn court documents . . . and well-founded in the circumstances that existed when these documents were sworn. It is clear that Randolph Hospital executives wanted to avoid scrutiny of the hospital's assets (and their bloated salaries) as they negotiated a settlement in bad faith. I originally went to court in order to recoup my losses and be in a position to start all over. The "in-your-face" perjury of these two "non-profit" hospital administrators thwarted that hope/goal . . . and obstructed (civil) justice.
A case that many regulatory agencies previously brushed off as "too complicated" is now quite simple.
These things notwithstanding, District Attorney Yates has repeatedly refused to take phone calls or schedule appointments to discuss the complaint . . . he has failed to answer correspondence, and has consistently treated me with general condescension & disdain.
But then again, so has Thomas Mansfield, the head of your legal Department . . . who once dismissed me in an e-mail . . . saying he was “sorry” he could not help me with my “problems”. Never mind that Randolph Hospital officials all but spat on a half-dozen Medical Board "position statements" as they railroaded me out of my hometown. Never mind that my “problems” exist because the NC Medical Board (and DHHS) let me swing while Randolph Hospital did whatever it wanted (ethical, legal or not) under cover of its “non-profit” status.
It was more important to be “collegial” and to go along to get along.
Public corruption abounds in North Carolina. Pursuing my case has taught me many things that I did not want to know. In the fashion of Jim Black, smooth-talking, slick “good-ole-boys” rule our cities and small towns with a cool & casual, gentlemanly arrogance that makes the more crass antics of politicians in Louisiana look positively amateurish. The NC Medical Board does NOTHING to defend the duties it requites . . . physicians cannot rely upon the Board’s ethical position statements for ANY legal protection in any contract matter. The NC Medical Society does not “do” individual advocacy . . . and has entrenched itself so deeply with the “pay to play” culture in Raleigh, that it has forgotten who it is supposed to serve. And the NC State Bar has proven beyond any shadow of any doubt that “legal ethics” is a contradiction in terms. Meanwhile, our legal system is a joke. Victims of white-collar crime have no standing in this state, and must bang their heads against the doors of prosecutors who pander to special interests and chant, “You can’t make me”.
I also found out, long before the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, that citizens in the state of North Carolina do not have the right to directly petition the Attorney General for help.
*Two paragraphs referencing a nursery case I rescued last year are omitted from this blog-copy, as the matter is still under investigation by the NCMB.
The case last year was the last straw. I am tired of what I have seen over and over again on the road. If I am to remain in this profession for another 15-20 years (and I’m not sure I want to), I cannot remain silent about the joke that is our current system of medical oversight. "Just go away" is not an option.
Last year, Mr. Mansfield was instrumental in getting the legislature to pass House Bill 1301. It modified General Statutes pertaining to the policing of physicians. Of note is NC General Statute 90-16(h), which states, “if investigative information in the possession of the Board, its employees, or agents indicates that a crime may have been committed, the Board SHALL; report the information to the appropriate law enforcement agency.”
90-16(h), as written, does NOT specifically & only apply to physicians. It says that if the Medical Board has evidence of criminal conduct in its possession, it SHALL refer the matter to appropriate law enforcement agencies. It does not say this will happen only if Thomas Mansfield wants it to . . . or on the third Tuesday in November every second year (serving the political agendas that apparently fuel perjury trials). It says the Medical Board SHALL refer the matter to the proper authorities.
Just like NC General Statute 14-209 (SubChapter VIII, Article 28) says that lying under Oath about matters relevant to a damages claim (in ANY court venue, and in ANY deposition or affidavit) IS PERJURY and SHALL be prosecuted as a Class F felony.
It doesn't say only when Garland Yates wants to prosecute.
I copied everything I sent to the Randolph County District Attorney to the Medical Board. Therefore the NC Medical Board has long had in its possession black & white evidence that Randolph Hospital administrators committed crimes as they attempted to silence and destroy a physician for doing her duty . . . then swindle her of fair restitution after she dragged them to trial.
Randolph Hospital is a “non-profit”, licensed as a public charity by the state of North Carolina. And I was in state and federal public service (via the NC Office of Rural Health and National Health Service Corps). My former partner and I received federal and state repayment of our medical student loans in return for service . . . money that was poured down the drain when we were literally driven from Asheboro (while the state and federal governments we served sat on their hands and did nothing to stop what was going on). We are talking about an amount of money that far exceeds anything that Jim Black ever passed under the table. The taxpayer paid that bill . . . as they have since supplemented the generous salary increases of the men who did us wrong.
Therefore, I am sick and tired of being told by state officials that the state of North Carolina does not have the power to do anything unless Garland Yates wants to call in the Attorney General. For the reasons I've outlined above, that is simply a lie and a cop-out. The State of North Carolina licenses and regulates non-profits. It controls much of their funding. The State of North Carolina also licenses physicians . . . and then charges them with duties that the state is supposed to protect and defend. The NC Attorney General represents DHHS and has the clear jurisdiction to protect the interests of doctors in public service. Something could have been done to STOP what was going on long before now. But everyone dived under their desks.
The truth is that (1) Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin are “very important people” in Asheboro . . . and obviously well-connected in Raleigh, and (2) and no one dares offend/challenge the mighty NC Hospital Association on the ethical behavior of hospital administrators.
The truth is, I am a nobody. That is exactly the way the state of North Carolina has treated me.
Mr. Mansfield's excuse until now has been that the NC Medical Board had no authority to refer matters related to a non-physician's behavior to law enforcement. When Mike Easley signed HR 1301 into law, that excuse ceased to exist. And perjury has no statute of limitations.
Therefore, I herein request that the North Carolina Medical Board refer this matter to the NC Attorney General . . . and make the strong recommendation that Randolph Hospital officials (Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin) be investigated & prosecuted (and Randolph Hospital sanctioned) to the fullest extent of the law.
North Carolina is facing doctor shortages in the very near future. As the profession becomes increasingly corporatized, we on the front lines of medicine are being pummeled by outside interests whose only concern is profit . . . not the patient. Pediatricians, in particular, are often regarded as being there to “just dry off the baby” . . . and are generally treated like pawns on a chessboard by hospitals pandering to the higher-dollar specialties. The state of North Carolina must WAKE UP and start fixing what my case proves is obviously wrong with our current system of medical and legal oversight.
Doctors in this state should not have to endure the kinds of professional insults and hardships I have simply because they’re trying to do the right thing: Retaliation against physicians for doing their jobs is unacceptable.
And "non-profits" do not get to lie their way out of accountability.
If the state prosecuted just ONE case like this . . . if North Carolina clocked JUST ONE hospital for the kinds of amoral/unethical/illegal things that were done to me, it would nip a lot of the nonsense that has been going on in the bud.This letter is posted on my blog (omitting two paragraphs referencing the case last year – as it is currently under investigation by the Medical Board). The full letter has been hard-copied to officers of the NC Medical Board and Pediatric Societies. It has also been copied (by e-mail) to members of the appropriate NC House & Senate oversight committees . . . along with a link to the post that outlines my case against Randolph Hospital executives.
Please note that one of the Representatives receiving this letter is my own, Harold Brubaker, of Asheboro. The former House Speaker serves on the House Committees for Ethics and Health, yet has never deemed it necessary to respond to correspondence on these matters. Ditto for Senator Jerry Tillman. The best financial interests of the hospital and its Board of Directors have always come before the small matter of right and wrong. I believe the strategy has been to bounce me from jurisdiction to jurisdiction . . . or dismiss me as a “whack-job” female.
It is funny how, in the middle of the night, it’s been the “whack-job” that the nurses called in to clean up the bad messes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D.
*Street Address Omitted
Asheboro, N.C.
mary.h.johnson@att.net
cc: Thomas Mansfield, Legal Department, NCMB
R. David Henderson, Executive Director, NCMB
NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper
Lt. Governor, Beverly Perdue
Senator Mark Basnight
Speaker of the House, Joe Hackney
Robert Seligson, Executive VP/CEO NCMS
Darlyne Menscer, M.D., President, NCMS
G. Hadley Callaway, M.D., President-Elect, NCMS
Charles, F. Willson, M.D., Immediate Past President, NCMS
Herbert Clegg, M.D., President NCPS
Steve Shore, Executive Director, NCPS
House Committees on Ethics, Health and the Judiciary. Appropriations Subcommittee for Health and Human Services.
Senate Committees on Health, the Judiciary (civil & criminal) and Appropriations for Health & Human Services.
THE VALENTINE'S DAY POST:
The N&O reported last Thursday on the deal Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby made in securing a felony conviction against M. Scott Edwards, a political crony of former House Speaker Jim Black. Black resigned from the NC House today, and will plead guilty to a felony public corruption charge tomorrow.
According to Willoughby, Securing a felony conviction sends a message to anyone who might flout state campaign finance laws.
But there's a catch: A small part of why he made the deal deserves some attention from legislators, Willoughby said Wednesday.
It seems that treasurers who file campaign reports are not required to use a notary or otherwise "swear" or "affirm" that what they are filing is true. They are only required to certify that what they submit is true/correct.
Edwards was accused of filing false campaign reports four times in 2002 and 2003. The state's election law says: "Any person making a certification ... knowing the information to be untrue may be prosecuted for perjury.
"Edwards was indicted on four perjury charges.
But perjury -- the willing telling of a lie under oath -- requires that someone took an oath or affirmation.
The lie also has to be "material" to the matters at hand. In this case, Edwards lied about financial matters. No rocket science there.
The lay person will love this: Edwards' lawyer, Stephen T. Smith of Raleigh, argued to the judge before the trial that Edwards could not be guilty of perjury because the forms he filed were sent in only with his certification. He argued: No oath or affirmation, then no perjury.
The judge was reportedly intrigued by the novel argument exploiting a legal technicality, but allowed the perjury charges to stand. However, the issue was ripe for an appeal, both sides agreed.
A deal was cut. Before jurors started hearing the case, Willoughby offered to allow Edwards to plead guilty to a charge other than perjury: One count of obstruction of justice.
Smith said Edwards took the deal because it was a substantial reduction of the original charges, and his client would avoid jail. "We never believed he would have been guilty of perjury," Smith said.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the people of North Carolina are pretty sick and tired of liars.
After six years of obfuscation and every legal dodge under the sun, I'm very sick and tired of liars too.
Let's review why I'm tired:
As per North Carolina General Statute 14-209, SubChapter VIII, Article 28 “Punishment for Perjury”, “If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in ANY suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the States, or in ANY deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in ANY oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, EVERY person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.”
U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79, Sub-Sections 1621 & 1623, the penalty for perjury (per count) is imprisonment for not more than five years and/or appropriate fines.
The specifics of why I am so peeved are detailed on the Asheboro Pediatrics in this link. But here's the short version:
After working like a dog in public service for three years . . . after taking critical-care back-up 24/7 . . . after building a hometown practice that federal & state agreements stated clearly that I was supposed to be able to transition . . . I was threatened, then fired for doing the duties required by the North Carolina Medical Board (saving a newborn's life and reporting a problem to hosptial peer review) . . . duties the Medical Board did not EVER see fit to protect or defend. The baby was not even my patient. I simply answered a phone call and did what I had to do.
Doctors in the middle? Who cares?
Why, you ask, would Randolph Hospital fire a (by ALL accounts, excellent/dedicated) Pediatrician who went above and beyond? It makes no sense.
But yes, actually it does . . . in the greedy world of what I like to call "evil medicine" (forgive the Austin Powers reference). (1) The things I was complaining about were "embarrassing" to the hospital, and (2) if I had been allowed to transiton into private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital's "controlled affiliate". Hospital officials did not want that. And God knows, in the town of Asheboro, North Carolina what Randolph Hospital wants Randolph Hospital gets.
I turned to the North Carolina civil courts for justice. For my trouble, I spent three more years in litigation . . . including being SLAPP-sued for "libel" (a despicable legal tactic designed to humiliate and financially/professionally destroy me). But I would not back down . . . or "just go away". And after enduring insult after injury . . . after being locally black-balled . . . after struggling mightily working on the road to make ends meet . . . after surviving a myriad of legal challenges and finally dragging Randolph Hospital to a trial date . . . in the end, I was ultimately swindled of a fair & equitable resolution that would have allowed me to re-build my practice and my life.
Here's how:
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin, executives of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital repeatedly lied under Oath in their own bogus "libel" suit about the "confidentiality" of their books and salaries . . . information that is, by law (IRS Code), public record. The information they deliberately withheld was certainly relative and material to the considerable financial damages I suffered at their hands. They withheld the information even though a judge ordered them to provide it (criminal contempt). Then they negoitated a damages settlement based upon the lie (fraud). Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin swore out their answers/verifications in front of a Notary Public (either Jane Spencer Pinnix or Wanda H. Bray), and those answers were served upon Dr. Johnson’s legal counsel (Steven S. Schmidly) by their attorneys, Robert A. Ford and/or Demetrius L. Worley of Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, Inc. Mr. Ford and Ms. Worley, as both legal advisors and witnesses to the discovery responses, represented themselves to be “experts” in the representation of non-profit institutions. It was their responsibility, as officers of the Court, to ensure that Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin told the truth in their discovery responses.
North Carolina Statute does not specify a statute of limitations on perjury.
Randolph Hospital was made aware of the charges . . . via communications between my attorney (Steven Schmidly) and theirs (Robert Wilson) . . . in 2002. The hospital took no measures to rectify the situation or to discipline Mr. Morrison & Mr. Eblin.
Both gentlemen should have been fired. Randolph Hospital's Board of Directors has KNOWINGLY allowed an agreement negotiated in BAD FAITH to stand. They've made no effort whatsoever to right the wrong. In fact, the "team" of Morrison and Eblin have gotten fat raises.
Citing a recent hospital advertising campaign, I must say the "E" does not stand for "ethics".
Given the strong-arm tactics Randolph Hospital has routinely employed with doctors, why would anybody enter into a business relationship with these people?
Fed up with the endless posturing of lawyers looking to line their own pockets, I presented this information to the Randolph County District Attorney, Garland Yates in June of 2003. The complaint was re-drafted and re-presented in December 2005. All appropriate documentation - including copies of the discovery responses and the sworn signatures of Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin were included. Mr. Yates has NEVER met with me to discuss the allegations. He will not take a phone call. He will not schedule an appointment. As I have waited on him to take action, statutes of limitations on civil claims (a corrupted venue in this case & jurisdiction) have run out.
Given the fact that (1) I was in public service and recruited back home to Asheboro with state & federal funds, and (2) Randolph Hospital is licensed by the state of North Carolina as a "non-profit", I was under the apparently misguided and naive impression that accusations as ironclad and black & white as those I was making merited an independent investigation by the NC Attorney General/SBI.
If, because of the very important locals involved (including all of the "honorable" Randolph Hospital Board members who continue to deem Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin worthy of employment), Mr. Yates was uncomfortable asking the Asheboro Police Department to investigate (the hospital and Courthouse are in the Department's jurisdiction), ALL Mr. Yates had to do was ask Roy Cooper to take the case (as New Hanover County DA, Ben David, did just this week).
As the general public has learned from the Duke fiasco - presided over by Mike Nifong - the Attorney General cannot intervene in a case unless he's asked. Randolph County ADA Andy Gregson has made it crystal clear that nobody can make the DA prosecute . . . not Dateline or 60 Minutes . . . not the Governor.
"You can't make me", is essentially the DA's argument. It is arrogance in the extreme.
The FACT is that state of North Carolina has NEVER conducted a proper investigation of my case. Justice has been obstructed.
And let's face it, because I will not give up or give in, it's MUCH easier for those involved (and those who should be helping) to slur my character/sanity than really examine what happened . . . and prosecute the find upstanding citizens who abused the public trust and showed nothing but contempt for the law.
I filed complaints with the NC State Bar . . . regarding the behavior of all of the attorneys involved . . . including mine . . . and including Mr. Yates. The Bar very quickly and quietly dismissed ALL of the complaints without even sending an investigator to interview me.
I met with IRS officials in October 2006. The problem there (from a criminal standpoint) appears to be that it does not matter to them if Randolph Hospital officials lied to me. It only matters if the hospital lied to the IRS. The real "jurisdiction" lies with state court.
But victims have no real "standing" in North Carolina, whereas District Attorneys have absolute power & "prosecutorial discretion".
Excepting Congressman Howard Coble, my elected "representatives" including Harold Brubaker, Jerry Tilman and former Senator John Edwards have offered no help whatsoever.
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin are NO DIFFERENT from M. Scott Edwards. In fact, what they did was technically LEGALLY worse. They REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH in discovery. They lied to me. They lied to the Court. And, by extension, they lied to the state of North Carolina. In doing so, they OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. So WHY does Dr. Edwards stand convicted of a felony while Bob Morrison & Steven Elbin have yet to suffer ANY KIND of sanction?
With doctor shortages looming in this state's immediate future, where are the bills in the legislature that protect physicians (especially employed ones) from the kind of blatant retaliation I have experienced? Where is the peer review and tort reform? In the wake of Mike Nifong, and given the example of Garland Yates, where are the bills to reign in District Attorneys . . . to protect citizens from being railroaded or victims from being ignored . . . to provide real checks and balances?
WHERE IS THE NC MEDICAL BOARD AND NC MEDICAL SOCIETY ON THESE ISSUES? WHERE WAS THE NC PEDIATRIC SOCIETY? They've known FOR YEARS that good doctors are getting slaughtered playing by the so-called rules of corporate medicine. In my dance with Randolph Hospital, many of the Medical Board's position statements on ethical conduct were literally spat up by hospital executives. They did not have to be bothered and a good doctor was just a bug to crush. What have our medical gurus and professional "advocates" in Raleigh done about it except collegially play politics?
When is the "advocacy" of the mighty AMA going to be about something besides Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements . . . or battling errant insurance companies (who, like the executives of Randolph Hospital, feel that they can ignore and/or distort physician contracts . . . with NO consequences)?
Meanwhile, the legislature is more worried about what one swears on rather than what one swears to. I've asked this question before, if perjury is rarely prosecuted except to pursue a political agenda, why does it matter if you swear on a Bible, a Quran, or a TV Guide?
As the victim of a series of white-collar crimes committed by people charged with the public trust, I would say that there are indeed, "flaws in the law".
The same message that was sent to Jim Black and M. Scott Edwards needs to be sent to "non-profits" in North Carolina:
You do NOT get to lie to the people of North Carolina.
That "message" needs to be sent to EVERYONE gifted with the public trust . . . not just the politicians.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Jim Black: The State Gets Its Pound Of Flesh
The Charlotte Observer did not mince words when reporting on Jim Black appearance in state court today: Former House Speaker Jim Black pleaded guilty in state court in Raleigh today to felony charges of offering a bribe and obstructing justice, stemming from a lengthy investigation into campaign contributions to Black from optometrists.
More on the Alford Plea.
The N&O's blurb. There's really not a lot to say.
“It’s been my advice to Dr. Black that we not fight that fight,” Kenneth Bell, Black’s attorney, said of the Alford plea.
Has anyone besides me noticed that suddenly folks are referring to the former Speaker as "Dr. Black"?
The fact that he did these things as a doctor (of optometry) makes it worse in my book. Not better.
There is much speculation about where the money went. And many people in Raleigh are nervous as Black does the cooperation dance.
2/21 Update: Binker's report in the N&R.
The N&O on the bribes that let Black hold onto power. With video.
Does anyone else want to HEAVE yet?
More on the Alford Plea.
The N&O's blurb. There's really not a lot to say.
“It’s been my advice to Dr. Black that we not fight that fight,” Kenneth Bell, Black’s attorney, said of the Alford plea.
Has anyone besides me noticed that suddenly folks are referring to the former Speaker as "Dr. Black"?
The fact that he did these things as a doctor (of optometry) makes it worse in my book. Not better.
There is much speculation about where the money went. And many people in Raleigh are nervous as Black does the cooperation dance.
2/21 Update: Binker's report in the N&R.
The N&O on the bribes that let Black hold onto power. With video.
Does anyone else want to HEAVE yet?
Monday, February 19, 2007
While You're Taking Those Criminals To Court Faster, Governor Easley, Consider This:
Fox 8 reports tonight that the City of Winston-Salem finally "settled" with and apologized to Darryl Hunt . . . wrongfully convicted of rape & murder and incarcerated for 18 years. For those forgetful of (or unacquainted with) this shameful story, William Anderson recently did a very good OpEd on the case (as he continues his spot-on coverage of the Duke Lacrosse fiasco). The settlement makes Hunt the city's newest millionaire.
The "Sykes Committee" report detailing the settlement was released tonight. Reading this thing is chilling. It seems every concept of due process and fair play was abandoned.
Hunt got 1.65 million dollars in the settlement.
He deserves every penny and more.
It puts Governor Easley's recommendations (in his "State of the State address) regarding prosecuting (violent) crime in a very sobering light.
We're still not clear on where the Governor stands on not-so-violent crime.
More check and balances are in order.
The "Sykes Committee" report detailing the settlement was released tonight. Reading this thing is chilling. It seems every concept of due process and fair play was abandoned.
Hunt got 1.65 million dollars in the settlement.
He deserves every penny and more.
It puts Governor Easley's recommendations (in his "State of the State address) regarding prosecuting (violent) crime in a very sobering light.
We're still not clear on where the Governor stands on not-so-violent crime.
More check and balances are in order.
Governor Easley's "State Of The State": Ignoring The Obvious
Governor Easley delivered his last "State of the State" address tonight. Here's the text.
Incredibly (yet predictably) no mention was made of Jim Black's very hard fall from North Carolina's political heavens. And ethics was but a passing thought.
Also predictable: Easley's shameless pander to education-themes . . . a move he learned from Jim Hunt.
I found this encouraging: We are adding additional prosecutors, judges, victims' assistance and clerks, and expanding our prisons.
If you commit a violent crime in this state, we are going to take you to court faster and keep you in jail longer.
Just violent crime Governor?
How about white-collar crime (also known as sleaze) . . . the kind that will be sending Mr. Black to prison?
Or does that hit a little too close to home?
Additional late night thoughts: And in taking the violent criminals to court, are you going to do anything that might ensure the state is sending the right people to jail? Maybe hold those overzealous DA's (or in my case, the "you can't make me" ones) accountable?
Darryl Hunt and the Duke three would like to know.
Binker is on the case.
Doug got that right.
2/20/06 Update: The N&O weighs in on "post-Jim Black" etiquette: "This guy was the point man down here for the governor for the past six years," said Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican who has been pushing for tougher ethics laws and trying to spread legislative power.
It's standard operating procedure in Raleigh: Step over the dead bodies and look to the future. Never mind how the dead bodies got dead.
A good many "liberal" Democrat-loving bloggers are following suit. Don't talk about it and it will go away faster.
Those who forget/ignore the past . . .
Incredibly (yet predictably) no mention was made of Jim Black's very hard fall from North Carolina's political heavens. And ethics was but a passing thought.
Also predictable: Easley's shameless pander to education-themes . . . a move he learned from Jim Hunt.
I found this encouraging: We are adding additional prosecutors, judges, victims' assistance and clerks, and expanding our prisons.
If you commit a violent crime in this state, we are going to take you to court faster and keep you in jail longer.
Just violent crime Governor?
How about white-collar crime (also known as sleaze) . . . the kind that will be sending Mr. Black to prison?
Or does that hit a little too close to home?
Additional late night thoughts: And in taking the violent criminals to court, are you going to do anything that might ensure the state is sending the right people to jail? Maybe hold those overzealous DA's (or in my case, the "you can't make me" ones) accountable?
Darryl Hunt and the Duke three would like to know.
Binker is on the case.
Doug got that right.
2/20/06 Update: The N&O weighs in on "post-Jim Black" etiquette: "This guy was the point man down here for the governor for the past six years," said Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican who has been pushing for tougher ethics laws and trying to spread legislative power.
It's standard operating procedure in Raleigh: Step over the dead bodies and look to the future. Never mind how the dead bodies got dead.
A good many "liberal" Democrat-loving bloggers are following suit. Don't talk about it and it will go away faster.
Those who forget/ignore the past . . .
Jim Black: Just Call Him "Alford"
The Charlotte Observer reports that Jim Black will do a repeat performance on Tuesday in state court . . . and plead guilty to something (nobody is exactly sure what at this writing).
Black, will enter an "Alford plea" which allows him to plead guilty but not admit his guilt. He will be sentenced as if he was guilty.
Defendants can use the "Alford" plea if they feel they have not broken any laws but think juries might convict them if the cases go to trial. In a civil lawsuit, a guilty plea can be used as an admission of guilt, but an "Alford" plea can't because a defendant is not admitting wrongdoing.
Now, some people have good reason to do this. They feel they are innocent, but want an investigation to be over . . . they don't have the strength/will/resources to fight.
On the other hand given the guilty plea in federal court, I think that allowing Black the technical face-save in state court is a little lame.
And it just seems like a lot is being swept under the rug . . . very, very quickly.
Update: Binker cites Betts who explains the Alford business:
Prisoner: "As God is my judge, I am innocent."
Lord Birkett: "He isn’t. I am, and you’re not."
Black, will enter an "Alford plea" which allows him to plead guilty but not admit his guilt. He will be sentenced as if he was guilty.
Defendants can use the "Alford" plea if they feel they have not broken any laws but think juries might convict them if the cases go to trial. In a civil lawsuit, a guilty plea can be used as an admission of guilt, but an "Alford" plea can't because a defendant is not admitting wrongdoing.
Now, some people have good reason to do this. They feel they are innocent, but want an investigation to be over . . . they don't have the strength/will/resources to fight.
On the other hand given the guilty plea in federal court, I think that allowing Black the technical face-save in state court is a little lame.
And it just seems like a lot is being swept under the rug . . . very, very quickly.
Update: Binker cites Betts who explains the Alford business:
Prisoner: "As God is my judge, I am innocent."
Lord Birkett: "He isn’t. I am, and you’re not."
Just Call Me A "Clean-Government" Crank
The Wilmington Star wants Jim Black to do serious time.
Referencing Black's politically-motivated "do-gooding", the Star observes, Almost nobody seemed to care, other than a few clean-government cranks and editorial writers.
We're also known as "whack-jobs".
Referencing Black's politically-motivated "do-gooding", the Star observes, Almost nobody seemed to care, other than a few clean-government cranks and editorial writers.
We're also known as "whack-jobs".
A Lesson In Comparative Corruption: It Pays To Be On A First Name Basis With The CEO
Continuing in it's new-found theme of moral indignation over the state of our state, the N&O published a Rob Christensen ditty on Jim Black and comparative corruption.
Rob's take (a variation of a theme I've heard pop up over the last day or so) is that as bad as North Carolina's situation currently is, we're not nearly as awful as Louisiana. Black is an aberration. We should not be that concerned.
I disagree. I think that the gentlemanly, silver-tongued, orderly and outwardly "clean" corruption that permeates Raleigh is far more pervasive and long-lived than anyone dares admit. And it's just as, if not more, damaging than anything a Louisiana politician could dream up.
This statement in Rob's musings caught my eye: Black was on a first-name basis with nearly every CEO in the state.
Oh really? Do you think Jim Black knows Bob Morrison, CEO of Randolph Hospital? I am reliably informed that Bob's a "BIG Democrat". Maybe that's the reason I can't get the time of day out of my so-called representatives and "advocates" . . . maybe it's the REAL reason I can't get state law enforcement to take my criminal complaint against Morrison (and Steve Eblin) seriously: The wink and nod amongst political "pals".
Because it has NOTHING to do with what the law actually says.
Of course, many did not take the accusations against Jim Black seriously. Until he resigned at the Statehouse and pled guilty in the Courthouse.
Rob's take (a variation of a theme I've heard pop up over the last day or so) is that as bad as North Carolina's situation currently is, we're not nearly as awful as Louisiana. Black is an aberration. We should not be that concerned.
I disagree. I think that the gentlemanly, silver-tongued, orderly and outwardly "clean" corruption that permeates Raleigh is far more pervasive and long-lived than anyone dares admit. And it's just as, if not more, damaging than anything a Louisiana politician could dream up.
This statement in Rob's musings caught my eye: Black was on a first-name basis with nearly every CEO in the state.
Oh really? Do you think Jim Black knows Bob Morrison, CEO of Randolph Hospital? I am reliably informed that Bob's a "BIG Democrat". Maybe that's the reason I can't get the time of day out of my so-called representatives and "advocates" . . . maybe it's the REAL reason I can't get state law enforcement to take my criminal complaint against Morrison (and Steve Eblin) seriously: The wink and nod amongst political "pals".
Because it has NOTHING to do with what the law actually says.
Of course, many did not take the accusations against Jim Black seriously. Until he resigned at the Statehouse and pled guilty in the Courthouse.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Jim Black: I Would Say He Defines A Fecund Stench. But That Would Insult Fec.
Making up for lost time, the N&O is now all over the Jim Black saga.
According to the article, Black took an unusual (and very successful) approach to governing: he catered not to the capital's most influential groups but to some of its outsiders.
The state and federal investigations of Black show a pattern: He aligned himself with a less wealthy tier of special interests who concentrated their resources on the one House member who could most influence legislation.
Reminds me of "the message" that the drunk politician (who shall remain nameless - but I wrote his name down) gave all the disgruntled doctors (NOT optometrists) in the room . . . at that so-called NCMS "physician forum" (in Wilmington last year) .
The message was that his "friendship" could be bought. "Pay to Play". I wonder where he learned that?
It made me sick. So sick I blogged on it. What do I care anymore? The boys that really run the NC Medical Society lost my phone number long ago. Besides, Robert Seligson & company are too busy trying to rehabilitate Bob Morrison and Randolph Hospital to worry about the physician Morrison swindled. My sad saga does not fit their happy "look to the future" theme these days.
I won't just roll over and die, so I'm not a "team player".
Joe smells the stench too (and I'm not talking about Fec). I had my say there.
Connie Mack Berry, Jr. (husband to Rachel Hunter) makes an excellent point about judicial misconduct on the "other side of the aisle" over on "Off The Record".
And the N&O, the "hometown" Capital paper that has (for years) glossed over the dirty shenanigans going on right under its nose is waxing downright poetic: Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, you'd better get with it. Ask Jim Black. The party's over.
I dunno boys. I think the party has just begun.
According to the article, Black took an unusual (and very successful) approach to governing: he catered not to the capital's most influential groups but to some of its outsiders.
The state and federal investigations of Black show a pattern: He aligned himself with a less wealthy tier of special interests who concentrated their resources on the one House member who could most influence legislation.
Reminds me of "the message" that the drunk politician (who shall remain nameless - but I wrote his name down) gave all the disgruntled doctors (NOT optometrists) in the room . . . at that so-called NCMS "physician forum" (in Wilmington last year) .
The message was that his "friendship" could be bought. "Pay to Play". I wonder where he learned that?
It made me sick. So sick I blogged on it. What do I care anymore? The boys that really run the NC Medical Society lost my phone number long ago. Besides, Robert Seligson & company are too busy trying to rehabilitate Bob Morrison and Randolph Hospital to worry about the physician Morrison swindled. My sad saga does not fit their happy "look to the future" theme these days.
I won't just roll over and die, so I'm not a "team player".
Joe smells the stench too (and I'm not talking about Fec). I had my say there.
Connie Mack Berry, Jr. (husband to Rachel Hunter) makes an excellent point about judicial misconduct on the "other side of the aisle" over on "Off The Record".
And the N&O, the "hometown" Capital paper that has (for years) glossed over the dirty shenanigans going on right under its nose is waxing downright poetic: Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, you'd better get with it. Ask Jim Black. The party's over.
I dunno boys. I think the party has just begun.
32,048 Of Me
Back in the early days of my blogging . . . when I was mostly commenting on other sites, several snarks (especially on the now-defunct ProCare site) sniped about me using the prefix of "Dr." whenever I commented. All sorts of insults were hurled my way . . . the snarks assuming that I was arrogant or full of myself or whatever. Of course, I could be. The snarks could also be the critter that assuming makes them.
My explanation was always that (1) I am a doctor, I earned the right to use the prefix, and (2) I use my own name. Since "Mary Johnson" is about as common as common comes (there being about six jillion Mary Johnsons in the computer at NC Baptist Hospital), I wanted something that set me apart.
Well maybe not six jillion. As it happens there are "only" an estimated 32,048 Mary Johnsons in the United States.
Hat tip to the poet. My convention will be bigger.
My explanation was always that (1) I am a doctor, I earned the right to use the prefix, and (2) I use my own name. Since "Mary Johnson" is about as common as common comes (there being about six jillion Mary Johnsons in the computer at NC Baptist Hospital), I wanted something that set me apart.
Well maybe not six jillion. As it happens there are "only" an estimated 32,048 Mary Johnsons in the United States.
Hat tip to the poet. My convention will be bigger.
"You Were Just A Kid"
Yesterday, in addition to those who posted on the blog, I got several "Happy Birthday" messages from friends & family.
One e-mail was from two good friends I have made in the ether . . .
"Congrats . . . you are just a kid . . . no wonder you got your clock cleaned 9 years ago . . . you were a baby in a very evil mature world."
Exactly. I was a baby . . . just a little too bright-eyed and bushy-tailed . . . believing in right over might and all that. And it is part of the reason I still fight. The newbies of medicine . . . the babies . . . should not have to experience, as I did, the light at the end of the tunnel as an on-coming train.
Still waiting on our "man of the people" John Edwards to place that phone call asking me about the bad experience I had as a young/naive physician in public service . . . in the same kind of program he now advocates. I hear Elizabeth wanted him to be the "web candidate".
Alas, I've seen who Edwards aligns himself with in on the web.
Edwards is all sunshine and light(weight) anyway. Step over the dead bodies and look to the future.
The kid grew up.
One e-mail was from two good friends I have made in the ether . . .
"Congrats . . . you are just a kid . . . no wonder you got your clock cleaned 9 years ago . . . you were a baby in a very evil mature world."
Exactly. I was a baby . . . just a little too bright-eyed and bushy-tailed . . . believing in right over might and all that. And it is part of the reason I still fight. The newbies of medicine . . . the babies . . . should not have to experience, as I did, the light at the end of the tunnel as an on-coming train.
Still waiting on our "man of the people" John Edwards to place that phone call asking me about the bad experience I had as a young/naive physician in public service . . . in the same kind of program he now advocates. I hear Elizabeth wanted him to be the "web candidate".
Alas, I've seen who Edwards aligns himself with in on the web.
Edwards is all sunshine and light(weight) anyway. Step over the dead bodies and look to the future.
The kid grew up.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Today Is My Birthday
After 35, a Southern lady doesn't say which one. On the other hand, you do have some clues. I have noted (in previous posts) that at the age of 40, my YaYas and I decided to start saying what we really think.
The best birthday present in the world would be a phone call from the NC Attorney General's office telling me that THIS was finally being investigated . . . something that should have happened about four birthdays ago.
Of course, that would mean the tag team of Randolph County DA Garland Yates and his ADA "You Can't Make Me" Andy Gregson had grown a conscience and some cahoones . . . and had stood up to the mill-kings who did not treat me like a lady.
In this state, where the corruption is so gentlemanly and elegant, I suppose I have a better chance of winnning the lottery.
Will we still have a lottery by the time they're done with Jim Black?
After birthday-lunch with Mom Addendum (where she briefly reminisceed about the pain I caused her ** years ago today): I stand corrected. It's after the age of 29 that a Southern lady stops admitting to birthdays. After 35, you're supposed to stop having them altogether;-)
Party on. And I will. With what Yas we can round up.
Evening addendum: An we did (round them up) . . . to enjoy a wonderful dinner at a new fine dining establishment in High Point called "Aquaria". I had fried oyster salad . . . probably the best oyster salad I've ever had (that's saying a lot as Noble's version is very good).
The best birthday present in the world would be a phone call from the NC Attorney General's office telling me that THIS was finally being investigated . . . something that should have happened about four birthdays ago.
Of course, that would mean the tag team of Randolph County DA Garland Yates and his ADA "You Can't Make Me" Andy Gregson had grown a conscience and some cahoones . . . and had stood up to the mill-kings who did not treat me like a lady.
In this state, where the corruption is so gentlemanly and elegant, I suppose I have a better chance of winnning the lottery.
Will we still have a lottery by the time they're done with Jim Black?
After birthday-lunch with Mom Addendum (where she briefly reminisceed about the pain I caused her ** years ago today): I stand corrected. It's after the age of 29 that a Southern lady stops admitting to birthdays. After 35, you're supposed to stop having them altogether;-)
Party on. And I will. With what Yas we can round up.
Evening addendum: An we did (round them up) . . . to enjoy a wonderful dinner at a new fine dining establishment in High Point called "Aquaria". I had fried oyster salad . . . probably the best oyster salad I've ever had (that's saying a lot as Noble's version is very good).
Friday, February 16, 2007
Courtesy Of Jim Black: NC Healthcare In The Toilet. Literally
I am absolutely STEAMING over what I am reading this morning in the N&O. Mark Binker's Capital Beat alluded "cash in a bathroom" last night.
"BLACK TOOK PAYOFFS" is the N&O's headline. They left out IN THE JOHN!
From the article: Former House Speaker (KING OF THE NC DEMOCRATS - my addition) Jim Black admitted Thursday that during clandestine meetings in restaurants and restrooms he took at least $29,000 from three chiropractors who wanted him to push legislation favorable to their profession.
Black admitted soliciting the money in exchange for inserting legislation in the 2005 budget that prohibited insurers from charging chiropractic patients higher co-payments than what they must pay primary doctors. He also sought to pass two other bills that would boost chiropractors' business, but the bills did not become law.
Prosecutors said that between 2000 and 2002, Black approached two chiropractors and told them that cash would be more useful than campaign contributions made by check. The two agreed and later recruited a third chiropractor to give Black cash. Prosecutors did not identify the chiropractors.
Black got the last payment, $3,000 in cash handed to him just outside the men's bathroom of the Capital Grille in Charlotte. Black told the chiropractor, "This is just between me and you. Don't you ever tell anybody about this," according to prosecutors.
Prosecutors said the other exchanges took place in unidentified private dining clubs and restaurants in Concord and Charlotte.
Money for a law affecting healthcare!?!
I've known for a long time that this is the way business is really done in Raleigh and Charlotte and Greensboro and all of the rest of the smaller-town "good-ole-boy" fiefdoms in North Carolina. But I assumed it was being done in Country Clubs and on golf courses.
Not in restrooms. It'ts a whole new twist on the term "dirty money". Makes me want to wash my hands.
Given the state of healthcare in North Carolina on the Easley/Black watch(remember "disproportionate share?) . . . particularly mental healthcare . . . it's no surprise that deals were made in a toilet.
Makes you wonder how that eye-exams for kindergarteners law really went down. I remember when some of the more more deluded members of the public (and blogosphere) earnestly debated the pros and cons of that under-the-table legislation . . . under the false impression that Black actually cared about the vision of the state's four & five-year-olds . . . instead of his pocketbook and the pocketbooks of his friends.
Federal prosecutors say they're not done with Black. And he probably faces state sanctions as well.
As the dominos of power (so arrogantly abused) fall, this could get pretty entertaining for those of us who have been squashed like bugs by a broken system. I should stock up on popcorn.
Joe Sinsheimer (of "Jim Black Must Go") was in court when Black pled guilty. Joe called Black a "scoundrel" who sold out the public to raise money that kept him and other Democrats in power. He said Democrats from Easley on down were in denial about corruption in their ranks.
TELL ME ABOUT IT. They are so casually, arrogantly, and gentlemanly dirty in Raleigh that when I turned to the Medical/Pediatric Societies and Medical Board and State Bar and Attorney General and my "local representatives" (NOT) for help with lying, cheating "non-profit" hospital executives in Asheboro, I was blown off . . . called names . . . told to "just go away". Never mind what the law says . . . or the HELL a doctor was put through over the last nine years for the simple sin of trying to do her job the right way.
IT'S JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL IN NORTH CAROLINA!
Forest Gump would say, "Dirty is as dirty does."
Update: As the news cycle plays out, the "big city" mainstream media has subtly done its part to downplay this story . . . from emphasizing Black's contributions to NC (as arguably the most powerful man in the state) . . . to citing fellow legislators (both friends and foes) feeling sorry for the former Speaker . . . to failing to mention his affiliation to the Democratic Party ("unintentional oversight" again).
The perks of power continue.
But not everyone is buying it.
"BLACK TOOK PAYOFFS" is the N&O's headline. They left out IN THE JOHN!
From the article: Former House Speaker (KING OF THE NC DEMOCRATS - my addition) Jim Black admitted Thursday that during clandestine meetings in restaurants and restrooms he took at least $29,000 from three chiropractors who wanted him to push legislation favorable to their profession.
Black admitted soliciting the money in exchange for inserting legislation in the 2005 budget that prohibited insurers from charging chiropractic patients higher co-payments than what they must pay primary doctors. He also sought to pass two other bills that would boost chiropractors' business, but the bills did not become law.
Prosecutors said that between 2000 and 2002, Black approached two chiropractors and told them that cash would be more useful than campaign contributions made by check. The two agreed and later recruited a third chiropractor to give Black cash. Prosecutors did not identify the chiropractors.
Black got the last payment, $3,000 in cash handed to him just outside the men's bathroom of the Capital Grille in Charlotte. Black told the chiropractor, "This is just between me and you. Don't you ever tell anybody about this," according to prosecutors.
Prosecutors said the other exchanges took place in unidentified private dining clubs and restaurants in Concord and Charlotte.
Money for a law affecting healthcare!?!
I've known for a long time that this is the way business is really done in Raleigh and Charlotte and Greensboro and all of the rest of the smaller-town "good-ole-boy" fiefdoms in North Carolina. But I assumed it was being done in Country Clubs and on golf courses.
Not in restrooms. It'ts a whole new twist on the term "dirty money". Makes me want to wash my hands.
Given the state of healthcare in North Carolina on the Easley/Black watch(remember "disproportionate share?) . . . particularly mental healthcare . . . it's no surprise that deals were made in a toilet.
Makes you wonder how that eye-exams for kindergarteners law really went down. I remember when some of the more more deluded members of the public (and blogosphere) earnestly debated the pros and cons of that under-the-table legislation . . . under the false impression that Black actually cared about the vision of the state's four & five-year-olds . . . instead of his pocketbook and the pocketbooks of his friends.
Federal prosecutors say they're not done with Black. And he probably faces state sanctions as well.
As the dominos of power (so arrogantly abused) fall, this could get pretty entertaining for those of us who have been squashed like bugs by a broken system. I should stock up on popcorn.
Joe Sinsheimer (of "Jim Black Must Go") was in court when Black pled guilty. Joe called Black a "scoundrel" who sold out the public to raise money that kept him and other Democrats in power. He said Democrats from Easley on down were in denial about corruption in their ranks.
TELL ME ABOUT IT. They are so casually, arrogantly, and gentlemanly dirty in Raleigh that when I turned to the Medical/Pediatric Societies and Medical Board and State Bar and Attorney General and my "local representatives" (NOT) for help with lying, cheating "non-profit" hospital executives in Asheboro, I was blown off . . . called names . . . told to "just go away". Never mind what the law says . . . or the HELL a doctor was put through over the last nine years for the simple sin of trying to do her job the right way.
IT'S JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL IN NORTH CAROLINA!
Forest Gump would say, "Dirty is as dirty does."
Update: As the news cycle plays out, the "big city" mainstream media has subtly done its part to downplay this story . . . from emphasizing Black's contributions to NC (as arguably the most powerful man in the state) . . . to citing fellow legislators (both friends and foes) feeling sorry for the former Speaker . . . to failing to mention his affiliation to the Democratic Party ("unintentional oversight" again).
The perks of power continue.
But not everyone is buying it.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Bob Morrison Must Go
Excellent editorial by John Hood of the John Locke Foundation (the nod should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the Foundation) on the Jim Black scandal.
Many, many politicians of all stripes truly believe their policy goals are so important that they must “play the game,” by which they mean break the law or transgress ethical boundaries in order to serve a greater good.
This same observation can be applied to arrogance and unrestricted power of the two senior executives at Randolph Hospital. They have done untold damage in their desire to competely control the medical landscape (on the premise that this serves the greater good). This CEO and his VP of Corporate Planning & Development are out of control and need to go.
Many, many politicians of all stripes truly believe their policy goals are so important that they must “play the game,” by which they mean break the law or transgress ethical boundaries in order to serve a greater good.
This same observation can be applied to arrogance and unrestricted power of the two senior executives at Randolph Hospital. They have done untold damage in their desire to competely control the medical landscape (on the premise that this serves the greater good). This CEO and his VP of Corporate Planning & Development are out of control and need to go.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Perjury And Obstruction Of Justice And "Non-Profits" In NC: "Flaws In The Law"
The N&O reported last Thursday on the deal Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby made in securing a felony conviction against M. Scott Edwards, a political crony of former House Speaker Jim Black. Black resigned from the NC House today, and will plead guilty to a felony public corruption charge tomorrow.
According to Willoughby, Securing a felony conviction sends a message to anyone who might flout state campaign finance laws.
But there's a catch: A small part of why he made the deal deserves some attention from legislators, Willoughby said Wednesday.
It seems that treasurers who file campaign reports are not required to use a notary or otherwise "swear" or "affirm" that what they are filing is true. They are only required to certify that what they submit is true/correct.
Edwards was accused of filing false campaign reports four times in 2002 and 2003. The state's election law says: "Any person making a certification ... knowing the information to be untrue may be prosecuted for perjury."
Edwards was indicted on four perjury charges.
But perjury -- the willing telling of a lie under oath -- requires that someone took an oath or affirmation.
The lie also has to be "material" to the matters at hand. In this case, Edwards lied about financial matters. No rocket science there.
The lay person will love this: Edwards' lawyer, Stephen T. Smith of Raleigh, argued to the judge before the trial that Edwards could not be guilty of perjury because the forms he filed were sent in only with his certification. He argued: No oath or affirmation, then no perjury.
The judge was reportedly intrigued by the novel argument exploiting a legal technicality, but allowed the perjury charges to stand. However, the issue was ripe for an appeal, both sides agreed.
A deal was cut. Before jurors started hearing the case, Willoughby offered to allow Edwards to plead guilty to a charge other than perjury: One count of obstruction of justice.
Smith said Edwards took the deal because it was a substantial reduction of the original charges, and his client would avoid jail. "We never believed he would have been guilty of perjury," Smith said.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the people of North Carolina are pretty sick and tired of liars. After six years of obfuscation and every legal dodge under the sun, I'm very sick and tired of liars too.
Let's review why I'm tired:
As per North Carolina General Statute 14-209, SubChapter VIII, Article 28 “Punishment for Perjury”, “If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in ANY suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the States, or in ANY deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in ANY oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, EVERY person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.”
U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79, Sub-Sections 1621 & 1623, the penalty for perjury (per count) is imprisonment for not more than five years and/or appropriate fines.
The specifics of why I am so peeved are detailed on the Asheboro Pediatrics in this link. But here's the short version:
After working like a dog in public service for three years . . . after taking critical-care back-up 24/7 . . . after building a hometown practice that federal & state agreements stated clearly that I was supposed to be able to transition . . . I was threatened, then fired for doing the duties required by the North Carolina Medical Board (saving a newborn's life and reporting a problem to hosptial peer review) . . . duties the Medical Board did not EVER see fit to protect or defend. The baby was not even my patient. I simply answered a phone call and did what I had to do.
Doctors in the middle? Who cares?
Why, you ask, would Randolph Hospital fire a (by ALL accounts, excellent/dedicated) Pediatrician who went above and beyond? It makes no sense.
But yes, actually it does . . . in the greedy world of what I like to call "evil medicine" (forgive the Austin Powers reference). (1) The things I was complaining about were "embarrassing" to the hospital, and (2) if I had been allowed to transiton into private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital's "controlled affiliate". Hospital officials did not want that. And God knows, in the town of Asheboro, North Carolina what Randolph Hospital wants Randolph Hospital gets.
I turned to the North Carolina civil courts for justice. For my trouble, I spent three more years in litigation . . . including being SLAPP-sued for "libel" (a despicable legal tactic designed to humiliate and financially/professionally destroy me). But I would not back down . . . or "just go away". And after enduring insult after injury . . . after being locally black-balled . . . after struggling mightily working on the road to make ends meet . . . after surviving a myriad of legal challenges and finally dragging Randolph Hospital to a trial date . . . in the end, I was ultimately swindled of a fair & equitable resolution that would have allowed me to re-build my practice and my life.
Here's how:
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin, executives of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital repeatedly lied under Oath in their own bogus "libel" suit about the "confidentiality" of their books and salaries . . . information that is, by law (IRS Code), public record. The information they deliberately withheld was certainly relative and material to the considerable financial damages I suffered at their hands. They withheld the information even though a judge ordered them to provide it (criminal contempt). Then they negoitated a damages settlement based upon the lie (fraud). Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin swore out their answers/verifications in front of a Notary Public (either Jane Spencer Pinnix or Wanda H. Bray), and those answers were served upon Dr. Johnson’s legal counsel (Steven S. Schmidly) by their attorneys, Robert A. Ford and/or Demetrius L. Worley of Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, Inc. Mr. Ford and Ms. Worley, as both legal advisors and witnesses to the discovery responses, represented themselves to be “experts” in the representation of non-profit institutions. It was their responsibility, as officers of the Court, to ensure that Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin told the truth in their discovery responses.
North Carolina Statute does not specify a statute of limitations on perjury.
Randolph Hospital was made aware of the charges . . . via communications between my attorney (Steven Schmidly) and theirs (Robert Wilson) . . . in 2002. The hospital took no measures to rectify the situation or to discipline Mr. Morrison & Mr. Eblin.
Both gentlemen should have been fired. Randolph Hospital's Board of Directors has KNOWINGLY allowed an agreement negotiated in BAD FAITH to stand. They've made no effort whatsoever to right the wrong. In fact, the "team" of Morrison and Eblin have gotten fat raises.
Citing a recent hospital advertising campaign, I must say the "E" does not stand for "ethics". Given the strong-arm tactics Randolph Hospital has routinely employed with doctors, why would anybody enter into a business relationship with these people?
Fed up with the endless posturing of lawyers looking to line their own pockets, I presented this information to the Randolph County District Attorney, Garland Yates in June of 2003. The complaint was re-drafted and re-presented in December 2005. All appropriate documentation - including copies of the discovery responses and the sworn signatures of Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin were included. Mr. Yates has NEVER met with me to discuss the allegations. He will not take a phone call. He will not schedule an appointment. As I have waited on him to take action, statutes of limitations on civil claims (a corrupted venue in this case & jurisdiction) have run out.
Given the fact that (1) I was in public service and recruited back home to Asheboro with state & federal funds, and (2) Randolph Hospital is licensed by the state of North Carolina as a "non-profit", I was under the apparently misguided and naive impression that accusations as ironclad and black & white as those I was making merited an independent investigation by the NC Attorney General/SBI.
If, because of the very important locals involved (including all of the "honorable" Randolph Hospital Board members who continue to deem Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin worthy of employment), Mr. Yates was uncomfortable asking the Asheboro Police Department to investigate (the hospital and Courthouse are in the Department's jurisdiction), ALL Mr. Yates had to do was ask Roy Cooper to take the case (as New Hanover County DA, Ben David, did just this week).
As the general public has learned from the Duke fiasco - presided over by Mike Nifong - the Attorney General cannot intervene in a case unless he's asked. Randolph County ADA Andy Gregson has made it crystal clear that nobody can make the DA prosecute . . . not Dateline or 60 Minutes . . . not the Governor.
"You can't make me", is essentially the DA's argument. It is arrogance in the extreme.
The FACT is that state of North Carolina has NEVER conducted a proper investigation of my case. Justice has been obstructed.
And let's face it, because I will not give up or give in, it's MUCH easier for those involved (and those who should be helping) to slur my character/sanity than really examine what happened . . . and prosecute the find upstanding citizens who abused the public trust and showed nothing but contempt for the law.
I filed complaints with the NC State Bar . . . regarding the behavior of all of the attorneys involved . . . including mine . . . and including Mr. Yates. The Bar very quickly and quietly dismissed ALL of the complaints without even sending an investigator to interview me.
I met with IRS officials in October 2006. The problem there (from a criminal standpoint) appears to be that it does not matter to them if Randolph Hospital officials lied to me. It only matters if the hospital lied to the IRS. The real "jurisdiction" lies with state court.
But victims have no real "standing" in North Carolina, whereas District Attorneys have absolute power & "prosecutorial discretion".
Excepting Congressman Howard Coble, my elected "representatives" including Harold Brubaker, Jerry Tilman and former Senator John Edwards have offered no help whatsoever.
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin are NO DIFFERENT from M. Scott Edwards. In fact, what they did was technically LEGALLY worse. They REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH in discovery. They lied to me. They lied to the Court. And, by extension, they lied to the state of North Carolina. In doing so, they OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. So WHY does Dr. Edwards stand convicted of a felony while Bob Morrison & Steven Elbin have yet to suffer ANY KIND of sanction?
With doctor shortages looming in this state's immediate future, where are the bills in the legislature that protect physicians (especially employed ones) from the kind of blatant retaliation I have experienced? Where is the peer review and tort reform? In the wake of Mike Nifong, and given the example of Garland Yates, where are the bills to reign in District Attorneys . . . to protect citizens from being railroaded or victims from being ignored . . . to provide real checks and balances?
WHERE IS THE NC MEDICAL BOARD AND NC MEDICAL SOCIETY ON THESE ISSUES? WHERE WAS THE NC PEDIATRIC SOCIETY? They've known FOR YEARS that good doctors are getting slaughtered playing by the so-called rules of corporate medicine. In my dance with Randolph Hospital, many of the Medical Board's position statements on ethical conduct were literally spat up by hospital executives. They did not have to be bothered and a good doctor was just a bug to crush. What have our medical gurus and professional "advocates" in Raleigh done about it except collegially play politics?
When is the "advocacy" of the mighty AMA going to be about something besides Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements . . . or battling errant insurance companies (who, like the executives of Randolph Hospital, feel that they can ignore and/or distort physician contracts . . . with NO consequences)?
Meanwhile, the legislature is more worried about what one swears on rather than what one swears to. I've asked this question before, if perjury is rarely prosecuted except to pursue a political agenda, why does it matter if you swear on a Bible, a Quran, or a TV Guide?
As the victim of a series of white-collar crimes committed by people charged with the public trust, I would say that there are indeed, "flaws in the law".
It's the same message that was sent to Jim Black and M. Scott Edwards got sent to "non-profits" in North Carolina:
You do NOT get to lie to the people of North Carolina.
That "message" needs to be sent to EVERYONE gifted with the public trust . . . not just the politicians.
According to Willoughby, Securing a felony conviction sends a message to anyone who might flout state campaign finance laws.
But there's a catch: A small part of why he made the deal deserves some attention from legislators, Willoughby said Wednesday.
It seems that treasurers who file campaign reports are not required to use a notary or otherwise "swear" or "affirm" that what they are filing is true. They are only required to certify that what they submit is true/correct.
Edwards was accused of filing false campaign reports four times in 2002 and 2003. The state's election law says: "Any person making a certification ... knowing the information to be untrue may be prosecuted for perjury."
Edwards was indicted on four perjury charges.
But perjury -- the willing telling of a lie under oath -- requires that someone took an oath or affirmation.
The lie also has to be "material" to the matters at hand. In this case, Edwards lied about financial matters. No rocket science there.
The lay person will love this: Edwards' lawyer, Stephen T. Smith of Raleigh, argued to the judge before the trial that Edwards could not be guilty of perjury because the forms he filed were sent in only with his certification. He argued: No oath or affirmation, then no perjury.
The judge was reportedly intrigued by the novel argument exploiting a legal technicality, but allowed the perjury charges to stand. However, the issue was ripe for an appeal, both sides agreed.
A deal was cut. Before jurors started hearing the case, Willoughby offered to allow Edwards to plead guilty to a charge other than perjury: One count of obstruction of justice.
Smith said Edwards took the deal because it was a substantial reduction of the original charges, and his client would avoid jail. "We never believed he would have been guilty of perjury," Smith said.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the people of North Carolina are pretty sick and tired of liars. After six years of obfuscation and every legal dodge under the sun, I'm very sick and tired of liars too.
Let's review why I'm tired:
As per North Carolina General Statute 14-209, SubChapter VIII, Article 28 “Punishment for Perjury”, “If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in ANY suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the States, or in ANY deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in ANY oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, EVERY person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.”
U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79, Sub-Sections 1621 & 1623, the penalty for perjury (per count) is imprisonment for not more than five years and/or appropriate fines.
The specifics of why I am so peeved are detailed on the Asheboro Pediatrics in this link. But here's the short version:
After working like a dog in public service for three years . . . after taking critical-care back-up 24/7 . . . after building a hometown practice that federal & state agreements stated clearly that I was supposed to be able to transition . . . I was threatened, then fired for doing the duties required by the North Carolina Medical Board (saving a newborn's life and reporting a problem to hosptial peer review) . . . duties the Medical Board did not EVER see fit to protect or defend. The baby was not even my patient. I simply answered a phone call and did what I had to do.
Doctors in the middle? Who cares?
Why, you ask, would Randolph Hospital fire a (by ALL accounts, excellent/dedicated) Pediatrician who went above and beyond? It makes no sense.
But yes, actually it does . . . in the greedy world of what I like to call "evil medicine" (forgive the Austin Powers reference). (1) The things I was complaining about were "embarrassing" to the hospital, and (2) if I had been allowed to transiton into private practice, I would have been a competitive threat to the hospital's "controlled affiliate". Hospital officials did not want that. And God knows, in the town of Asheboro, North Carolina what Randolph Hospital wants Randolph Hospital gets.
I turned to the North Carolina civil courts for justice. For my trouble, I spent three more years in litigation . . . including being SLAPP-sued for "libel" (a despicable legal tactic designed to humiliate and financially/professionally destroy me). But I would not back down . . . or "just go away". And after enduring insult after injury . . . after being locally black-balled . . . after struggling mightily working on the road to make ends meet . . . after surviving a myriad of legal challenges and finally dragging Randolph Hospital to a trial date . . . in the end, I was ultimately swindled of a fair & equitable resolution that would have allowed me to re-build my practice and my life.
Here's how:
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin, executives of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital repeatedly lied under Oath in their own bogus "libel" suit about the "confidentiality" of their books and salaries . . . information that is, by law (IRS Code), public record. The information they deliberately withheld was certainly relative and material to the considerable financial damages I suffered at their hands. They withheld the information even though a judge ordered them to provide it (criminal contempt). Then they negoitated a damages settlement based upon the lie (fraud). Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin swore out their answers/verifications in front of a Notary Public (either Jane Spencer Pinnix or Wanda H. Bray), and those answers were served upon Dr. Johnson’s legal counsel (Steven S. Schmidly) by their attorneys, Robert A. Ford and/or Demetrius L. Worley of Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, Inc. Mr. Ford and Ms. Worley, as both legal advisors and witnesses to the discovery responses, represented themselves to be “experts” in the representation of non-profit institutions. It was their responsibility, as officers of the Court, to ensure that Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin told the truth in their discovery responses.
North Carolina Statute does not specify a statute of limitations on perjury.
Randolph Hospital was made aware of the charges . . . via communications between my attorney (Steven Schmidly) and theirs (Robert Wilson) . . . in 2002. The hospital took no measures to rectify the situation or to discipline Mr. Morrison & Mr. Eblin.
Both gentlemen should have been fired. Randolph Hospital's Board of Directors has KNOWINGLY allowed an agreement negotiated in BAD FAITH to stand. They've made no effort whatsoever to right the wrong. In fact, the "team" of Morrison and Eblin have gotten fat raises.
Citing a recent hospital advertising campaign, I must say the "E" does not stand for "ethics". Given the strong-arm tactics Randolph Hospital has routinely employed with doctors, why would anybody enter into a business relationship with these people?
Fed up with the endless posturing of lawyers looking to line their own pockets, I presented this information to the Randolph County District Attorney, Garland Yates in June of 2003. The complaint was re-drafted and re-presented in December 2005. All appropriate documentation - including copies of the discovery responses and the sworn signatures of Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin were included. Mr. Yates has NEVER met with me to discuss the allegations. He will not take a phone call. He will not schedule an appointment. As I have waited on him to take action, statutes of limitations on civil claims (a corrupted venue in this case & jurisdiction) have run out.
Given the fact that (1) I was in public service and recruited back home to Asheboro with state & federal funds, and (2) Randolph Hospital is licensed by the state of North Carolina as a "non-profit", I was under the apparently misguided and naive impression that accusations as ironclad and black & white as those I was making merited an independent investigation by the NC Attorney General/SBI.
If, because of the very important locals involved (including all of the "honorable" Randolph Hospital Board members who continue to deem Mr. Morrison and Mr. Eblin worthy of employment), Mr. Yates was uncomfortable asking the Asheboro Police Department to investigate (the hospital and Courthouse are in the Department's jurisdiction), ALL Mr. Yates had to do was ask Roy Cooper to take the case (as New Hanover County DA, Ben David, did just this week).
As the general public has learned from the Duke fiasco - presided over by Mike Nifong - the Attorney General cannot intervene in a case unless he's asked. Randolph County ADA Andy Gregson has made it crystal clear that nobody can make the DA prosecute . . . not Dateline or 60 Minutes . . . not the Governor.
"You can't make me", is essentially the DA's argument. It is arrogance in the extreme.
The FACT is that state of North Carolina has NEVER conducted a proper investigation of my case. Justice has been obstructed.
And let's face it, because I will not give up or give in, it's MUCH easier for those involved (and those who should be helping) to slur my character/sanity than really examine what happened . . . and prosecute the find upstanding citizens who abused the public trust and showed nothing but contempt for the law.
I filed complaints with the NC State Bar . . . regarding the behavior of all of the attorneys involved . . . including mine . . . and including Mr. Yates. The Bar very quickly and quietly dismissed ALL of the complaints without even sending an investigator to interview me.
I met with IRS officials in October 2006. The problem there (from a criminal standpoint) appears to be that it does not matter to them if Randolph Hospital officials lied to me. It only matters if the hospital lied to the IRS. The real "jurisdiction" lies with state court.
But victims have no real "standing" in North Carolina, whereas District Attorneys have absolute power & "prosecutorial discretion".
Excepting Congressman Howard Coble, my elected "representatives" including Harold Brubaker, Jerry Tilman and former Senator John Edwards have offered no help whatsoever.
Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin are NO DIFFERENT from M. Scott Edwards. In fact, what they did was technically LEGALLY worse. They REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH in discovery. They lied to me. They lied to the Court. And, by extension, they lied to the state of North Carolina. In doing so, they OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. So WHY does Dr. Edwards stand convicted of a felony while Bob Morrison & Steven Elbin have yet to suffer ANY KIND of sanction?
With doctor shortages looming in this state's immediate future, where are the bills in the legislature that protect physicians (especially employed ones) from the kind of blatant retaliation I have experienced? Where is the peer review and tort reform? In the wake of Mike Nifong, and given the example of Garland Yates, where are the bills to reign in District Attorneys . . . to protect citizens from being railroaded or victims from being ignored . . . to provide real checks and balances?
WHERE IS THE NC MEDICAL BOARD AND NC MEDICAL SOCIETY ON THESE ISSUES? WHERE WAS THE NC PEDIATRIC SOCIETY? They've known FOR YEARS that good doctors are getting slaughtered playing by the so-called rules of corporate medicine. In my dance with Randolph Hospital, many of the Medical Board's position statements on ethical conduct were literally spat up by hospital executives. They did not have to be bothered and a good doctor was just a bug to crush. What have our medical gurus and professional "advocates" in Raleigh done about it except collegially play politics?
When is the "advocacy" of the mighty AMA going to be about something besides Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements . . . or battling errant insurance companies (who, like the executives of Randolph Hospital, feel that they can ignore and/or distort physician contracts . . . with NO consequences)?
Meanwhile, the legislature is more worried about what one swears on rather than what one swears to. I've asked this question before, if perjury is rarely prosecuted except to pursue a political agenda, why does it matter if you swear on a Bible, a Quran, or a TV Guide?
As the victim of a series of white-collar crimes committed by people charged with the public trust, I would say that there are indeed, "flaws in the law".
It's the same message that was sent to Jim Black and M. Scott Edwards got sent to "non-profits" in North Carolina:
You do NOT get to lie to the people of North Carolina.
That "message" needs to be sent to EVERYONE gifted with the public trust . . . not just the politicians.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Black Taken Down
News flash: Devils are ice-skating tonight!
According to information leaked to the N&O and confirmed by his lawyer, Jim Black, embattled former Speaker of the NC House will plead guilty to one count of accepting illegal gratuities (a public corruption charge).
The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Black will also have to resign his House seat, as the N.C. constitution bars felons from holding office. He barely survived re-election last year.
Governor Sleazely (oops, I meant) Easley will appoint a replacement from a list of candidates proposed by the Executive Committee of the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party.
Let's hope Easley does better with this appointment than he did with Mike Nifong.
I suppose it is unseemly to dance upon this man's political grave. But I am not sorry. He deserves what he's getting. Being descended from good down-Eastern folk, I've often heard it said that a fish rots from its head. Public corruption and the arrogant abuse of power is rampant in North Carolina, and no one embodied that example more than the powerful former Speaker of Our House. Very simply, he got too big for his britches.
I sincerly hope that this message gets out: Corruption in any form and in any venue will not be tolerated by the people of North Carolina . . .
. . . who have, for so long, been beaten Black and Blue.
Oh, and may God bless Joe Sinsheimer.
12/14 Afternoon Update: Black resigns.
Asked if House members should get any message from what happened to Black, (new Speaker) Hackney said, “I don’t know. That’s something that we all will reflect on in the coming days.”
Well, I DO know. And you guys had better do a whole lot MORE than "reflect".
Mark Binker is on the case. I've posted more thoughts there.
12/15 Update: Black pleads guilty. He will be sentenced on May 14th.
According to information leaked to the N&O and confirmed by his lawyer, Jim Black, embattled former Speaker of the NC House will plead guilty to one count of accepting illegal gratuities (a public corruption charge).
The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Black will also have to resign his House seat, as the N.C. constitution bars felons from holding office. He barely survived re-election last year.
Governor Sleazely (oops, I meant) Easley will appoint a replacement from a list of candidates proposed by the Executive Committee of the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party.
Let's hope Easley does better with this appointment than he did with Mike Nifong.
I suppose it is unseemly to dance upon this man's political grave. But I am not sorry. He deserves what he's getting. Being descended from good down-Eastern folk, I've often heard it said that a fish rots from its head. Public corruption and the arrogant abuse of power is rampant in North Carolina, and no one embodied that example more than the powerful former Speaker of Our House. Very simply, he got too big for his britches.
I sincerly hope that this message gets out: Corruption in any form and in any venue will not be tolerated by the people of North Carolina . . .
. . . who have, for so long, been beaten Black and Blue.
Oh, and may God bless Joe Sinsheimer.
12/14 Afternoon Update: Black resigns.
Asked if House members should get any message from what happened to Black, (new Speaker) Hackney said, “I don’t know. That’s something that we all will reflect on in the coming days.”
Well, I DO know. And you guys had better do a whole lot MORE than "reflect".
Mark Binker is on the case. I've posted more thoughts there.
12/15 Update: Black pleads guilty. He will be sentenced on May 14th.
Another NC DA Defers To The Attorney General
Best I can tell, this story was featured for all of few hours this morning on the N&O's website before being buried in the archives:
New Hanover County District Attorney Ben David decided, in the end, that he couldn't win either way in the Peyton Strickland case.
He could go back to a grand jury in an effort to indict former sheriff's deputy Christopher Long in Strickland's shooting death and risk alienating the officers with whom he must work closely. Or he could not pursue the case and appear to be looking the other way.
So on Monday he turned over the case to the state Attorney General's Office.
HELLO GARLAND YATES? When are you going to refer this case . . . one of perjury, contempt and fraud on the part of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital executives . . . to the Attorney General's Office for a full and proper investigation?
Because you are definitely looking the other way.
New Hanover County District Attorney Ben David decided, in the end, that he couldn't win either way in the Peyton Strickland case.
He could go back to a grand jury in an effort to indict former sheriff's deputy Christopher Long in Strickland's shooting death and risk alienating the officers with whom he must work closely. Or he could not pursue the case and appear to be looking the other way.
So on Monday he turned over the case to the state Attorney General's Office.
HELLO GARLAND YATES? When are you going to refer this case . . . one of perjury, contempt and fraud on the part of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital executives . . . to the Attorney General's Office for a full and proper investigation?
Because you are definitely looking the other way.
Monday, February 12, 2007
On Collegiality
Continuing the "ethics" theme . . .
Over the last several months, I've cited/referenced an article in the 2006 Third-Quarter North Carolina Medical Board "Forum" entitled "On Collegiality". It was written by NCMB President, Dr. Robert Moffatt. It was a bright ode to the benefits of playing "nice".
For my own part, I think that, in the more corporatized environment doctors practice in these days . . . with insurance middlemen, and ambulance-chasing lawyers . . . and greedy businessmen managing the landscape . . . the medical collegiality of old is quickly dying out . . . giving way to more superficial professional relationships . . . as doctors isolate and insulate themselves in the simple act of self-preservation.
I digested Dr. Moffatt's musings as I do many of the banal, heavily-edited ditties published in the Forum . . . with the world-weary cynicism born of a career-altering event in the wake of which the North Carolina Medical Board did not protect a young Pediatrician in public service from being professionally eviscerated for performing duties her Oath and license required.
In the interest of "collegiality" the members of the North Carolina Medical Board dived under their collective desks and stayed there.
In fact, Thomas Mansfield, the Board's Chief legal eagle once (very disdainfully) told me that he was "sorry" the Medical Board could not help me with "my problems". Never mind that my problems exist because the Medical Board is about fifteen years behind the times in terms of getting the state legislature to reign in the outside influences that often dictate the decisions & behavior of doctors.
For this Pediatrician in public service, legally speaking, the hallowed "position statements" of the North Carolina Medical Board meant next to nothing. You see, these standards ONLY apply to doctors . . . and then only when the doctor has done something to violate them (as opposed to uphold them).
Going down the list of the Board's position statements (currently published in the Fourth Quarter 2006 edition of the NCMB Forum which arrived in my mailbox today) . . . respect for the physician-patient relationship . . . requirements governing the termination of that relationship . . . departures from practices . . . patient autonomy (with special attention given to permitting patient choice and promoting continuity of care) . . . (false) advertising . . . and this one most of all: "the professional obligation to report incompetence, impairment, and unethical conduct" . . . ALL of it was blatantly ignored by RMA & Randolph Hospital executives as they moved to crush and silence NHSC "provider" Dr. Mary Johnson . . . and keep the practice she worked very hard to build for themselves.
You see, these carefully-worded standards of behavior and ethics do not apply at all to the men of business & law who have so much influence these days over what doctors do.
In his editorial, Dr. Moffatt gave passing mention to these outside influences . . . of "stressful issues" like finances, reimbursement decreases, and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. He spoke of rancorous business relationships and "discord" amongst colleagues.
In a classic, "What comes first?" question (ala the chicken and the egg), when doctors become frustrated and rail against these stressors and inequities . . . or blow the whistle on bad care . . . they can be labelled "disruptive" and be disciplined for it. Anonymous witnesses can offer testimony against them in disciplinary actions . . . resulting in the revocation of the doctor's privileges or license . . . irrevocably changing their lives . . . never mind what the US Constitution says about due process and property rights. In fact, whole industries have been built around hospitals keeping doctors that administrators deem "disruptive" in line.
Of course, I was so "disruptive" that the nurses felt very comfortable in calling me in the middle of a January night in 1998 . . . to see a dying newborn patient who was not my own . . . because these nurses KNEW they could call me, and I would not berate them or throw things, and I would help. They also knew I would not be silent after.
Much gets covered up and the truth gets distorted these days, as the modern medical peer review process is more geared towards preventing liability rather than ensuring excellence and protecting patients. Appearance trumps substance. Mediocrity prevails. And good doctors get run over.
In his treatise, Dr. Moffatt first described mediating a disagreement between two physicians early in his tenure on the Board. Then he shared recollections of pleasantries exchanged in his own career. He spoke nobley of patient autonomy.
My Mom has expressed her concern that, in these years eeking out a living on the road as a Locum Tenens physician, I have not had the opportunity to enjoy the longterm "friendships, collegiality and camaraderie” that I might have in a permanent position. I don't agree entirely, as I would not trade the world for some of the good friends I've made . . . and kept in touch with (e-mail is a wonderful thing).
I've got some great, one-of-a-kind friends from my adventures on the road. I've walked through fire with some of them. The Medical Board knows about several of those fires.
But I do know what Mama means. I do occasionally look back wistfully on my residency days . . . or the early days in Asheboro . . . when some young doctors became good friends as they tried to make their difference.
Of course Randolph VP/RMA President Steve Eblin never missed an opporunity to try and undermine that camaraderie. . . especially with the "girls" on staff. He once called my partner and I in to tell us that some members of the (mostly male at the time) medical staff thought we were "arrogant and cliquish". He never did answer the question about WHO thought we were coming off that way. But this was often Steve's way . . . to throw out the accusation without any accountability required of the accuser . . . to push those buttons . . . and people into corners . . . until they snapped back and he could blame them for the snapping. It kept you on the defensive and way off balance. We were always boxing shadows with that guy. . . who could talk out of both sides of his mouth with a mastery that I have rarely encountered since.
Oops. Expressing that opinion probably wasn't "collegial". On the other hand, in business school, it's probably a great complement;-)
I am very grateful for those "arrogant & cliquish" (actually very principled and brave) women. You see, the "girls" (as opposed to "the boys") went to bat for me when I needed them most. Unbeknownst to Bob and the boys before they filed their despicable SLAPP suit, the "arrogant and cliquish" girls wrote letters to JCAHO and USDHHS that backed up the veracity of my complaint to then-USDHHS Secretary Shalala. In their correspondence, these exceptionally courageous women . . . mothers/patients/colleagues . . . made it crystal clear who the real liars were.
It was pretty "collegial" if you asked me.
Ulitmately Bob & Steve could not run fast enough away from that stunt. Of course, they themselves suffered no real consequence. They kept getting their big salaries & benefits packages. They slept in their own beds every night. The hospital paid the lawyers. The BOD winked and nodded. It was all very "collegial" for them.
After years of scraping by and living on the road and living in tiny apartments and hotels, I'm supposed to be "collegial" and say "bygones" now that I've discovered Bob and Steve repeatedly lied under Oath to get the lowball settlement they wanted.
On the subject of lawyers, I've never met a profession so stocked full of people who will go for the jugular one second and smile/want to shake your hand the next. Lawyers are such good buddies in negotiating rooms and chambers . . . falling all over themselves to be collegial . . . often times accomodating every stupid excuse to stall or delay the process . . . dragging out what is already a lumbersome nightmare for the litigants . . . just so they can rack up the billable hours . . . winking and nodding when collegues misbehave. "Nothing personal," they admonish. "It's just an adversarial system," they say.
I always try to remember that every year when I get my Social Security statement.
By the way, those "arrogant & cliquish" girls we were talking about . . . those very goood doctors who were a credit and tremendous asset to this community . . . left Asheboro within a year of my termination from RMA. They could not abide what the hospital did (or in one case, seemed determined to over-look) and refused to correct.
I've likened what Randolph Hospital and its "controlled affiliate" did to being muzzled, gang-raped, and locked in a dark windowless room . . . with the rapists throwing some chump change on the table and then going out to tell the world I liked it. The world (i.e. medical community) knew better but chose to look the other way.
My website and this blog exist now to tell the world that I did not like it.
I've blogged before on my profound disappointment in the rest of my so-called colleagues & mentors at Randolph Hospital . . . who stood by and watched the "slow-moving-train-wreck" that my life became . . . deaf, dumb and mute . . . despite the fact that I had helped and "rescued" them on any number of occasions. It is perhaps the deepest wound inflicted by medical "community" of Asheboro. I haven't recovered from that wound. Probably won't ever.
I've also blogged on the strained "relationship" I had with one of my partners . . . of jealousy and back-stabbing behavior worthy of a bad soap opera. Not very collegial.
I've blogged on my horror when I discovered that, despite paying years of dues to professional societies, those so-called "advocacy" organizations did not "do" individual advocacy. I was on my own. I don't think abandoning members is especially collegial.
I've blogged on local District Attorneys who have been "habitually intemperent" towards me . . . and on a State Bar that has demonstrated over & over again that "legal ethics" is a contradiction in terms.
I've blogged on being suckered into serving on "task forces" with no teeth, and being lectured by drunk politicians. Didn't feel particularly collegial after that.
I've blogged on the personal betrayal by a colleague who was truly disruptive. Nope, can't pull a scintilla of collegial out of that story.
I've blogged on not feeling especially collegial after finding out I would have to go under the knife again . . . to fix a second surgery botched at Randolph Hospital.
I've blogged on my less-than-collegial feelings towards a certain ex-Senator who was too busy running for President to help a physician wronged by the very kind of do-gooder program he endorses.
And I've even blogged on the collegiality embodied by our local newspapers and blogosphere.
So I guess my take on "collegiality" is slightly different from Dr. Moffatt's.
You see, as I've told several legislators in the last few weeks, being "nice" and patient and playing by the rules never really paid off for me. It doesn't work AT ALL when other people ignore the rules entirely . . . and can get away with it.
One of my Yas gave me a refrigerator magnet that says it best . . .
"Well-behaved (translation: collegial) women do not make history."
Over the last several months, I've cited/referenced an article in the 2006 Third-Quarter North Carolina Medical Board "Forum" entitled "On Collegiality". It was written by NCMB President, Dr. Robert Moffatt. It was a bright ode to the benefits of playing "nice".
For my own part, I think that, in the more corporatized environment doctors practice in these days . . . with insurance middlemen, and ambulance-chasing lawyers . . . and greedy businessmen managing the landscape . . . the medical collegiality of old is quickly dying out . . . giving way to more superficial professional relationships . . . as doctors isolate and insulate themselves in the simple act of self-preservation.
I digested Dr. Moffatt's musings as I do many of the banal, heavily-edited ditties published in the Forum . . . with the world-weary cynicism born of a career-altering event in the wake of which the North Carolina Medical Board did not protect a young Pediatrician in public service from being professionally eviscerated for performing duties her Oath and license required.
In the interest of "collegiality" the members of the North Carolina Medical Board dived under their collective desks and stayed there.
In fact, Thomas Mansfield, the Board's Chief legal eagle once (very disdainfully) told me that he was "sorry" the Medical Board could not help me with "my problems". Never mind that my problems exist because the Medical Board is about fifteen years behind the times in terms of getting the state legislature to reign in the outside influences that often dictate the decisions & behavior of doctors.
For this Pediatrician in public service, legally speaking, the hallowed "position statements" of the North Carolina Medical Board meant next to nothing. You see, these standards ONLY apply to doctors . . . and then only when the doctor has done something to violate them (as opposed to uphold them).
Going down the list of the Board's position statements (currently published in the Fourth Quarter 2006 edition of the NCMB Forum which arrived in my mailbox today) . . . respect for the physician-patient relationship . . . requirements governing the termination of that relationship . . . departures from practices . . . patient autonomy (with special attention given to permitting patient choice and promoting continuity of care) . . . (false) advertising . . . and this one most of all: "the professional obligation to report incompetence, impairment, and unethical conduct" . . . ALL of it was blatantly ignored by RMA & Randolph Hospital executives as they moved to crush and silence NHSC "provider" Dr. Mary Johnson . . . and keep the practice she worked very hard to build for themselves.
You see, these carefully-worded standards of behavior and ethics do not apply at all to the men of business & law who have so much influence these days over what doctors do.
In his editorial, Dr. Moffatt gave passing mention to these outside influences . . . of "stressful issues" like finances, reimbursement decreases, and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. He spoke of rancorous business relationships and "discord" amongst colleagues.
In a classic, "What comes first?" question (ala the chicken and the egg), when doctors become frustrated and rail against these stressors and inequities . . . or blow the whistle on bad care . . . they can be labelled "disruptive" and be disciplined for it. Anonymous witnesses can offer testimony against them in disciplinary actions . . . resulting in the revocation of the doctor's privileges or license . . . irrevocably changing their lives . . . never mind what the US Constitution says about due process and property rights. In fact, whole industries have been built around hospitals keeping doctors that administrators deem "disruptive" in line.
Of course, I was so "disruptive" that the nurses felt very comfortable in calling me in the middle of a January night in 1998 . . . to see a dying newborn patient who was not my own . . . because these nurses KNEW they could call me, and I would not berate them or throw things, and I would help. They also knew I would not be silent after.
Much gets covered up and the truth gets distorted these days, as the modern medical peer review process is more geared towards preventing liability rather than ensuring excellence and protecting patients. Appearance trumps substance. Mediocrity prevails. And good doctors get run over.
In his treatise, Dr. Moffatt first described mediating a disagreement between two physicians early in his tenure on the Board. Then he shared recollections of pleasantries exchanged in his own career. He spoke nobley of patient autonomy.
My Mom has expressed her concern that, in these years eeking out a living on the road as a Locum Tenens physician, I have not had the opportunity to enjoy the longterm "friendships, collegiality and camaraderie” that I might have in a permanent position. I don't agree entirely, as I would not trade the world for some of the good friends I've made . . . and kept in touch with (e-mail is a wonderful thing).
I've got some great, one-of-a-kind friends from my adventures on the road. I've walked through fire with some of them. The Medical Board knows about several of those fires.
But I do know what Mama means. I do occasionally look back wistfully on my residency days . . . or the early days in Asheboro . . . when some young doctors became good friends as they tried to make their difference.
Of course Randolph VP/RMA President Steve Eblin never missed an opporunity to try and undermine that camaraderie. . . especially with the "girls" on staff. He once called my partner and I in to tell us that some members of the (mostly male at the time) medical staff thought we were "arrogant and cliquish". He never did answer the question about WHO thought we were coming off that way. But this was often Steve's way . . . to throw out the accusation without any accountability required of the accuser . . . to push those buttons . . . and people into corners . . . until they snapped back and he could blame them for the snapping. It kept you on the defensive and way off balance. We were always boxing shadows with that guy. . . who could talk out of both sides of his mouth with a mastery that I have rarely encountered since.
Oops. Expressing that opinion probably wasn't "collegial". On the other hand, in business school, it's probably a great complement;-)
I am very grateful for those "arrogant & cliquish" (actually very principled and brave) women. You see, the "girls" (as opposed to "the boys") went to bat for me when I needed them most. Unbeknownst to Bob and the boys before they filed their despicable SLAPP suit, the "arrogant and cliquish" girls wrote letters to JCAHO and USDHHS that backed up the veracity of my complaint to then-USDHHS Secretary Shalala. In their correspondence, these exceptionally courageous women . . . mothers/patients/colleagues . . . made it crystal clear who the real liars were.
It was pretty "collegial" if you asked me.
Ulitmately Bob & Steve could not run fast enough away from that stunt. Of course, they themselves suffered no real consequence. They kept getting their big salaries & benefits packages. They slept in their own beds every night. The hospital paid the lawyers. The BOD winked and nodded. It was all very "collegial" for them.
After years of scraping by and living on the road and living in tiny apartments and hotels, I'm supposed to be "collegial" and say "bygones" now that I've discovered Bob and Steve repeatedly lied under Oath to get the lowball settlement they wanted.
On the subject of lawyers, I've never met a profession so stocked full of people who will go for the jugular one second and smile/want to shake your hand the next. Lawyers are such good buddies in negotiating rooms and chambers . . . falling all over themselves to be collegial . . . often times accomodating every stupid excuse to stall or delay the process . . . dragging out what is already a lumbersome nightmare for the litigants . . . just so they can rack up the billable hours . . . winking and nodding when collegues misbehave. "Nothing personal," they admonish. "It's just an adversarial system," they say.
I always try to remember that every year when I get my Social Security statement.
By the way, those "arrogant & cliquish" girls we were talking about . . . those very goood doctors who were a credit and tremendous asset to this community . . . left Asheboro within a year of my termination from RMA. They could not abide what the hospital did (or in one case, seemed determined to over-look) and refused to correct.
I've likened what Randolph Hospital and its "controlled affiliate" did to being muzzled, gang-raped, and locked in a dark windowless room . . . with the rapists throwing some chump change on the table and then going out to tell the world I liked it. The world (i.e. medical community) knew better but chose to look the other way.
My website and this blog exist now to tell the world that I did not like it.
I've blogged before on my profound disappointment in the rest of my so-called colleagues & mentors at Randolph Hospital . . . who stood by and watched the "slow-moving-train-wreck" that my life became . . . deaf, dumb and mute . . . despite the fact that I had helped and "rescued" them on any number of occasions. It is perhaps the deepest wound inflicted by medical "community" of Asheboro. I haven't recovered from that wound. Probably won't ever.
I've also blogged on the strained "relationship" I had with one of my partners . . . of jealousy and back-stabbing behavior worthy of a bad soap opera. Not very collegial.
I've blogged on my horror when I discovered that, despite paying years of dues to professional societies, those so-called "advocacy" organizations did not "do" individual advocacy. I was on my own. I don't think abandoning members is especially collegial.
I've blogged on local District Attorneys who have been "habitually intemperent" towards me . . . and on a State Bar that has demonstrated over & over again that "legal ethics" is a contradiction in terms.
I've blogged on being suckered into serving on "task forces" with no teeth, and being lectured by drunk politicians. Didn't feel particularly collegial after that.
I've blogged on the personal betrayal by a colleague who was truly disruptive. Nope, can't pull a scintilla of collegial out of that story.
I've blogged on not feeling especially collegial after finding out I would have to go under the knife again . . . to fix a second surgery botched at Randolph Hospital.
I've blogged on my less-than-collegial feelings towards a certain ex-Senator who was too busy running for President to help a physician wronged by the very kind of do-gooder program he endorses.
And I've even blogged on the collegiality embodied by our local newspapers and blogosphere.
So I guess my take on "collegiality" is slightly different from Dr. Moffatt's.
You see, as I've told several legislators in the last few weeks, being "nice" and patient and playing by the rules never really paid off for me. It doesn't work AT ALL when other people ignore the rules entirely . . . and can get away with it.
One of my Yas gave me a refrigerator magnet that says it best . . .
"Well-behaved (translation: collegial) women do not make history."
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The NC Legislature Confronts (Not) The Complexities of Medical Ethics
Like I said, I got distracted by my little foray into Sue's world, but that foray has helped emphasize how little the lay public actually knows about the ethical dilemas physicians face every day . . . not to mention the "advocacy organizations" (like the AMA and state medical societies) whose public face differs mightily from what they show to those they're supposed to represent.
And here's another example (I missed the story when it first came out - but got caught up via Carolina Online).
The North Carolina Legislature's "first foray" into the debate over putting a physician in the middle of executions includes a bill filed by Senator Phil Berger (R-Guilford/Rockingham), a death penalty supporter, that would protect any medical professional from punishment by a state board for participating in a lawful execution.
"It seemed to me that, if in fact the procedure that was adopted (by the council) does run afoul of the ethics board, that this would be a way to address that issue," he said. "Even if the new protocol is accepted (by the Medical Board), there's always a possibility that in the future some other Superior Court judge will have an issue with it."
In other words, let the North Carolina legislature make an end run around the ethical issue. Every medical and nursing organization under the sun (the NC Nurses Association weighed in this week) is telling you that putting medical professionals in the middle of the execution process is fundamentally wrong.
But hey, let's put them in the middle anyway!
Senator Berger just doesn't get it.
In contrast to Senator Berger's smooth move, Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange/Person) has also filed a bill calling for a study commission on lethal injection and a moratorium on executions until June 1, 2009.
It's discussion should cover not just a doctor's potential role but that of any medical professional, Kinnaird said after filing the bill Wednesday.
"I think it's important for us to discuss this in the context of professional codes of ethics," she said. "And that means not only doctors, but also nurses and pharmacists — should they be producing the chemicals that kill people? I think it means EMT people. I think it means anybody."
Respectfully, the pharmacy thing is a big leap. The "chemicals that kill people" (also called drugs) are already being made and will continue to be made. They're used every day in fashions that do not kill people. But apart from that, Senator Kinnaird demonstrates she is thinking very clearly about the issue at hand.
Of course, cutting to the chase, the contortions legislators are doing around one ethical issue (a doctor's presence at an execution) lifts the lid on the bigger ethical can of worms . . . whether or not death penalty should exist at all in North Carolina. And in the end, this is the issue that all of the contortionists are gunning for . . . or trying to keep carved in stone.
Quagmires involving medical ethics do not get their due from the state. For example, in the last few weeks, I've sent two sets of e-mails to the entire NC Legislature about my own situation . . . a professional quagmire created when I adhered to ethical cannons established by the NC Medical Board in the face of threats and coercion on the part of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital officials.
I've gotten a few phone calls from representatives who took the time to read beyond the first few paragraphs (the fact that I was fired for saving a child's life seems to be the big "hook" in the story), but my biggest problem seems to be the very short attention span of anyone in government. If something cannot be explained in 100 words or less, nobody has the time or inclination to delve further.
One legislator helpfully (not) offered that, "Perhaps this is a matter for the courts?".
Exactly my point. Criminal court. Hello Garland Yates.
It's a lot like what I have encountered from the journalists who play in our local blogosphere (see my profile . . . drafted for the benefit of folks like Edward Cone and John Robinson).
Randolph Hospital officials have always counted on this kind of thing to obscure their deeds. While I flounder, lost in the ethical and legal complexities that led up to their perjury & contempt (criminally speaking, now a relatively simple & straightforward charge), they can tell their good buddies in DA's office . . . or their contacts in Raleigh that I'm just a "disgruntled employee" or (worse) a "whack-job".
As I have blogged before, in 2002, after the lawsuits with Randolph were "settled", I was appointed as a physician representative to a joint NC Medical Society/NC Hospital Association "Peer Review Task Force". In retrospect, the NCMS was just throwing me crumbs . . . after three years of telling me that they could not help legally me (apart from waiving one year's membership fee). I was fired, locally black-balled, and sued (among a host of smaller professional humiliations) for doing the absolutely right/moral/ethical thing and reporting what happened to hospital peer review.
But the NCMS and NCPS and mighty AMA stood on the sidelines and watched . . . deaf, dumb and mute.
The Peer Review task force met FIVE YEARS ago. We talked about "bad-faith medical peer review" and the difficulites employed physicians (particularly young doctors/minority doctors/doctors in public service) can face in the corporatized world. But the meetings were for naught. The recommendations coming out of those meetings (addressing little matters like due process in any disciplinary action) were ultimately torpedoed by the NC Hospital Association's refusal to accept them as anything more than suggestions.
Could that be because the NC Hospital Association KNOWS there are BIG problems . . . and that a lot of NC doctors would/could come out of the woodwork with a lot of ugly accusations?
Despite doctor shortages looming in the near future, in the five years since the task force meetings fizzled into a whole lot of nothing, the NC Medical Society has DONE NOTHING to enact ANY KIND of peer review reform . . . or take measures to offer more protections to employed physicians in this "right-to-work" state.
Contrary to popular belief, whistleblower protection exists in a complex muddle of state and federal jurisdictions . . . that few lawyers have the knowledge to navigate on behalf of doctors . . . and few physicians have enough money/resources to pay them to wade through. And let's be perfectly clear, the individual physician will NOT get any help with that from the NC Medical Society.
The truth is, the state actually wants the individual doctor wronged to "just go away". We simply cannot embarrass our hospitals. I guess the bureaucrats and businessmen (battling for "market share") think patients have tons of choices of where to go when they're really sick.
Last year, I sat through a NCMS "physician forum" in Wilmington where an obviously drunk legislator lectured a room FULL of frustrated physicians on the real meaning of "getting involved" in politics: Give them money and they'll pay attention . . . otherwise you're SOL.
The NC Medical Board, in fact, has compounded the problem of bad-faith review by pushing through a new law (last year) that allows anonymous complainants/experts to stand unchallenged against physicians in its review process. A physician under review (sometimes for nebulous accusations like being "disruptive") does not have the right to confront his/her accuser. Please tell me, in what other court proceding . . . against any other citizen apart than a physician . . . where property rights (in a doctor's case, a medical license or hospital privileges) are at stake . . . would that be considered "constitutional"?
Here's the thing: The NC Legislature is very worried about whether a condemned murderer "suffers" the least little bit when he/she is executed. As it stands now, some bureaucrats are ready to go to the mat in order to ensure that someone is killed "constitutionally" . . . even if it puts a doctor in the middle of something the medical profession deems unethical.
But upholding the civil and constitutional rights of a doctor who stuck to her ethical guns and did her licensed duty (to the public that the Medical Board and Legislature says it serves) is barely a serious consideration . . . buried by the Courts and law enforcement.
Over and over again, our leaders have proven they cannot deal with the complex.
What they don't seem to get is, that if they sat down and dealt with the complex before they filed the bills and passed the laws, they might not have so many problems.
Oh, and if they insisted that the laws we already have were enforced . . .
And here's another example (I missed the story when it first came out - but got caught up via Carolina Online).
The North Carolina Legislature's "first foray" into the debate over putting a physician in the middle of executions includes a bill filed by Senator Phil Berger (R-Guilford/Rockingham), a death penalty supporter, that would protect any medical professional from punishment by a state board for participating in a lawful execution.
"It seemed to me that, if in fact the procedure that was adopted (by the council) does run afoul of the ethics board, that this would be a way to address that issue," he said. "Even if the new protocol is accepted (by the Medical Board), there's always a possibility that in the future some other Superior Court judge will have an issue with it."
In other words, let the North Carolina legislature make an end run around the ethical issue. Every medical and nursing organization under the sun (the NC Nurses Association weighed in this week) is telling you that putting medical professionals in the middle of the execution process is fundamentally wrong.
But hey, let's put them in the middle anyway!
Senator Berger just doesn't get it.
In contrast to Senator Berger's smooth move, Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange/Person) has also filed a bill calling for a study commission on lethal injection and a moratorium on executions until June 1, 2009.
It's discussion should cover not just a doctor's potential role but that of any medical professional, Kinnaird said after filing the bill Wednesday.
"I think it's important for us to discuss this in the context of professional codes of ethics," she said. "And that means not only doctors, but also nurses and pharmacists — should they be producing the chemicals that kill people? I think it means EMT people. I think it means anybody."
Respectfully, the pharmacy thing is a big leap. The "chemicals that kill people" (also called drugs) are already being made and will continue to be made. They're used every day in fashions that do not kill people. But apart from that, Senator Kinnaird demonstrates she is thinking very clearly about the issue at hand.
Of course, cutting to the chase, the contortions legislators are doing around one ethical issue (a doctor's presence at an execution) lifts the lid on the bigger ethical can of worms . . . whether or not death penalty should exist at all in North Carolina. And in the end, this is the issue that all of the contortionists are gunning for . . . or trying to keep carved in stone.
Quagmires involving medical ethics do not get their due from the state. For example, in the last few weeks, I've sent two sets of e-mails to the entire NC Legislature about my own situation . . . a professional quagmire created when I adhered to ethical cannons established by the NC Medical Board in the face of threats and coercion on the part of "non-profit" Randolph Hospital officials.
I've gotten a few phone calls from representatives who took the time to read beyond the first few paragraphs (the fact that I was fired for saving a child's life seems to be the big "hook" in the story), but my biggest problem seems to be the very short attention span of anyone in government. If something cannot be explained in 100 words or less, nobody has the time or inclination to delve further.
One legislator helpfully (not) offered that, "Perhaps this is a matter for the courts?".
Exactly my point. Criminal court. Hello Garland Yates.
It's a lot like what I have encountered from the journalists who play in our local blogosphere (see my profile . . . drafted for the benefit of folks like Edward Cone and John Robinson).
Randolph Hospital officials have always counted on this kind of thing to obscure their deeds. While I flounder, lost in the ethical and legal complexities that led up to their perjury & contempt (criminally speaking, now a relatively simple & straightforward charge), they can tell their good buddies in DA's office . . . or their contacts in Raleigh that I'm just a "disgruntled employee" or (worse) a "whack-job".
As I have blogged before, in 2002, after the lawsuits with Randolph were "settled", I was appointed as a physician representative to a joint NC Medical Society/NC Hospital Association "Peer Review Task Force". In retrospect, the NCMS was just throwing me crumbs . . . after three years of telling me that they could not help legally me (apart from waiving one year's membership fee). I was fired, locally black-balled, and sued (among a host of smaller professional humiliations) for doing the absolutely right/moral/ethical thing and reporting what happened to hospital peer review.
But the NCMS and NCPS and mighty AMA stood on the sidelines and watched . . . deaf, dumb and mute.
The Peer Review task force met FIVE YEARS ago. We talked about "bad-faith medical peer review" and the difficulites employed physicians (particularly young doctors/minority doctors/doctors in public service) can face in the corporatized world. But the meetings were for naught. The recommendations coming out of those meetings (addressing little matters like due process in any disciplinary action) were ultimately torpedoed by the NC Hospital Association's refusal to accept them as anything more than suggestions.
Could that be because the NC Hospital Association KNOWS there are BIG problems . . . and that a lot of NC doctors would/could come out of the woodwork with a lot of ugly accusations?
Despite doctor shortages looming in the near future, in the five years since the task force meetings fizzled into a whole lot of nothing, the NC Medical Society has DONE NOTHING to enact ANY KIND of peer review reform . . . or take measures to offer more protections to employed physicians in this "right-to-work" state.
Contrary to popular belief, whistleblower protection exists in a complex muddle of state and federal jurisdictions . . . that few lawyers have the knowledge to navigate on behalf of doctors . . . and few physicians have enough money/resources to pay them to wade through. And let's be perfectly clear, the individual physician will NOT get any help with that from the NC Medical Society.
The truth is, the state actually wants the individual doctor wronged to "just go away". We simply cannot embarrass our hospitals. I guess the bureaucrats and businessmen (battling for "market share") think patients have tons of choices of where to go when they're really sick.
Last year, I sat through a NCMS "physician forum" in Wilmington where an obviously drunk legislator lectured a room FULL of frustrated physicians on the real meaning of "getting involved" in politics: Give them money and they'll pay attention . . . otherwise you're SOL.
The NC Medical Board, in fact, has compounded the problem of bad-faith review by pushing through a new law (last year) that allows anonymous complainants/experts to stand unchallenged against physicians in its review process. A physician under review (sometimes for nebulous accusations like being "disruptive") does not have the right to confront his/her accuser. Please tell me, in what other court proceding . . . against any other citizen apart than a physician . . . where property rights (in a doctor's case, a medical license or hospital privileges) are at stake . . . would that be considered "constitutional"?
Here's the thing: The NC Legislature is very worried about whether a condemned murderer "suffers" the least little bit when he/she is executed. As it stands now, some bureaucrats are ready to go to the mat in order to ensure that someone is killed "constitutionally" . . . even if it puts a doctor in the middle of something the medical profession deems unethical.
But upholding the civil and constitutional rights of a doctor who stuck to her ethical guns and did her licensed duty (to the public that the Medical Board and Legislature says it serves) is barely a serious consideration . . . buried by the Courts and law enforcement.
Over and over again, our leaders have proven they cannot deal with the complex.
What they don't seem to get is, that if they sat down and dealt with the complex before they filed the bills and passed the laws, they might not have so many problems.
Oh, and if they insisted that the laws we already have were enforced . . .
But We In NC Specialize In Quagmires Don't We?
An in-depth look by the N&O at the problems with lethal injection. Officials are now looking at a one-drug procedure (like you suggested MeB!) that will eliminate the need for a doctor's presence . . . essentially just an overdose of a powerful sedative. It would, however, take much longer for the condemned man/woman to die. And dosing could get dicey. And lawyers trying to achieve a "constitutional execution" could probably try to shoot some more holes throuth all that.
The drugs currently used are Sodium Pentathol (a sedative), Pancuronium Bromide (to cause paralysis) and Potassium Chloride (to stop the heart). Inmates' attorneys and medical experts for both sides say that the second and third drugs are not required to kill an inmate -- a large enough dose of the barbiturate can be lethal -- and that the other two drugs are used mostly for the benefit of witnesses. The second drug prevents the inmate's body from moving, and the third quickly ends the inmate's life.
The drugs currently used are Sodium Pentathol (a sedative), Pancuronium Bromide (to cause paralysis) and Potassium Chloride (to stop the heart). Inmates' attorneys and medical experts for both sides say that the second and third drugs are not required to kill an inmate -- a large enough dose of the barbiturate can be lethal -- and that the other two drugs are used mostly for the benefit of witnesses. The second drug prevents the inmate's body from moving, and the third quickly ends the inmate's life.
So. Apparently the doctor was just there to assist with the show . . . to make it look "pretty".
My question to the NC Medical Board, as someone with some small experience in the quagmires that the Board sets up (yet does not rescue its own from), is this:
How and why did the NC Medical Board let a doctor be put in the middle in the first place?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
NC Justice: William Anderson on Darryl Hunt
Anderson strikes again with a dead-on re-telling of Hunt's wrongful conviction for rape & murder by overzealous prosecutors who ignored evidence for the sake of a notch in their belt. Hunt spent 20 years in prison for a murder DNA later proved he did not commit.
Darryl Hunt was wrongly convicted, and it is obvious now that the state never had a case worthy of trial. It is further understood that once again, we saw North Carolina juries failing in their duties to seriously evaluate evidence instead of just assuming that prosecutors are omniscient and would not bring a case to trial unless they had serious evidence.
Omniscient prosecutors. Yeah, sure. They think they are.
Darryl Hunt was wrongly convicted, and it is obvious now that the state never had a case worthy of trial. It is further understood that once again, we saw North Carolina juries failing in their duties to seriously evaluate evidence instead of just assuming that prosecutors are omniscient and would not bring a case to trial unless they had serious evidence.
Omniscient prosecutors. Yeah, sure. They think they are.
Buds In Bed
FNB donates $150,000 to Randolph Hospital's $4 million dollar campaign to help build its new outpatient center.
The big boys at the bank (who sit on the Boards) could care less about what Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin did to a local home-grown Pediatrician. Throw more money. Get your name on a plaque.
The big boys at the bank (who sit on the Boards) could care less about what Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin did to a local home-grown Pediatrician. Throw more money. Get your name on a plaque.
Study This: Real World Medical Ethics
My recent go-around with Sue (which touched upon "terminal sedation") prompted me to visit Dr. Anna Pou's website and check on the status of her case. Pou is the ENT surgeon accused (along with two nurses) of euthanizing patients at a flooded/powerless New Orleans hospital in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
In a preliminary turn worthy of Mike Nifong's grandstanding, the idiot Attorney General of Louisiana accused the women of adminisering a "lethal cocktail" of drugs that would "guarantee death". But friends and colleagues jumped to Dr. Pou's defense, saying, "This isn't some marginal, flaky physician." Boston Legal did a scathingly critical (of prosecutors) episode based on the case last month. On January 11, the American College of Surgeons expressed concerns about due process and the general publicly hostile tenor of the investigation (Dr. Pou has not worked since the charges were made).
ABC News reported on February 2 that, toxicology reports by the New Orleans Coroner's Office (on four of the patients who died) did not clearly show lethal amounts of medication in their bodies, which is good news for the three women.
Legal experts have advised ABC News that there is no forensic evidence that supports any criminal or civil claim that Dr. Pou or these nurses acted in any manner other than to alleviate pain/discomfort (in what amounted to Third World conditions after the hurricane).
Yet (again, in a move worthy of Nifong) prosecutors plan to pursue murder charges despite the news this week that toxicology reports do not support the New Orleans district attorney's claim that three medical workers took the lives of patients at New Orleans Memorial Hospital during Hurricane Katrina.
This is "ethics" in the real world. Doctors making tough decisions . . . trying to do the right thing . . . under impossible circumstances and getting professionally crucified for it.
In a preliminary turn worthy of Mike Nifong's grandstanding, the idiot Attorney General of Louisiana accused the women of adminisering a "lethal cocktail" of drugs that would "guarantee death". But friends and colleagues jumped to Dr. Pou's defense, saying, "This isn't some marginal, flaky physician." Boston Legal did a scathingly critical (of prosecutors) episode based on the case last month. On January 11, the American College of Surgeons expressed concerns about due process and the general publicly hostile tenor of the investigation (Dr. Pou has not worked since the charges were made).
ABC News reported on February 2 that, toxicology reports by the New Orleans Coroner's Office (on four of the patients who died) did not clearly show lethal amounts of medication in their bodies, which is good news for the three women.
Legal experts have advised ABC News that there is no forensic evidence that supports any criminal or civil claim that Dr. Pou or these nurses acted in any manner other than to alleviate pain/discomfort (in what amounted to Third World conditions after the hurricane).
Yet (again, in a move worthy of Nifong) prosecutors plan to pursue murder charges despite the news this week that toxicology reports do not support the New Orleans district attorney's claim that three medical workers took the lives of patients at New Orleans Memorial Hospital during Hurricane Katrina.
This is "ethics" in the real world. Doctors making tough decisions . . . trying to do the right thing . . . under impossible circumstances and getting professionally crucified for it.
Don't Go To The Hospital
All of my friends were cracking jokes about this yesterday . . . none of the jokes are repeatable. The story was even picked up on DRUDGE.
Wash your hands.
Wash your hands.
The Thing I Hate About Studies
As I mentioned yesterday, I got distracted by a foray into Sue's blog in which she was "southernly ranting" about medical ethics . . . specifically, a study just published in the New England Journal of Medcine. (Pause to say, "Ohhhhhhh . . . Ahhhhhhh"). The whole stop at Sue's was a wrong turn. For some reason (I think I was chasing Trouble), I wound up clicking her on.
Because, you see, she doesn't read this blog. And I don't read hers. I used to. Not anymore.
For the record, I do not subscribe to the NEJM. It's too expensive. I read other (Pediatric) journals. Besides, the newspapers will always tell me when something important get published in the NEJM. Like now.
The University of Chicago's study method was as follows: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a stratified, random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties by mail. The primary criterion variables were physicians' judgments about their ethical rights and obligations when patients request a legal medical procedure to which the physician objects for religious or moral reasons. These procedures included administering terminal sedation in dying patients, providing abortion for failed contraception, and prescribing birth control to adolescents without parental approval.
In other words, this was a broad opinon survey (conducted not face-to-face but by US Mail) of physicians who may or may not be involved in providing the services mentioned, but who may have strong opinons about those particular services.
For instance, here's mine: "Terminal sedation", for some doctors, has been just a hop/skip/jump from a murder or conspiracy rap (or a lawsuit from an angry out-of-the-loop family member who did not agree with the sedation) . . . (especially in Pediatrics) it belongs in a specialist's hands . . . and is not something to do (or refer) lightly. I've published my thoughts on abortion & Plan B just once before, and that's all I'm going to say on the matter. And (the "rights" of twelve and thirteen year olds to make "autonomous" medical decisions aside) as a Pediatrician, I'm not too keen on prescribing or recommending any medical intervention for an adolescent or teenager that at least one parent doesn't know about.
Call me old-fashioned.
Anyway, the publication of the results of the study becames a "News Flash" (Not!) for the Boston Globe: "Doctor's Moral Beliefs May Affect Care".
Well, duh.
Buried in the article is the important tidbit: The survey did not examine whether these doctors act on their beliefs -- that is, whether they actually withhold information or refuse to refer patients. But the researchers calculated that tens of millions of Americans might be going to such doctors.
Hello? The researchers took that leap . . . for the headline . . . and to get funding for the next study/set of mailings.
The study ends with a fairly innocuous conclusion: Ongoing debates about conscientious objections in medicine should take account of the complex relationships among sex, religious commitments, and physicians' approaches to morally controversial clinical practices. In the meantime, physicians and patients might engage in a respectful dialogue to anticipate areas of moral disagreement and to negotiate acceptable accommodations(Including the termination of the physician-patient relationship) before crises develop.
The Boston Globe article, of course, states the AMA's perfectly reasonable position that: Doctors can decline to give a treatment sought by an individual that is "incompatible with the physician's personal, religious, or moral beliefs. But the physician should try to ensure the patient has "access to adequate healthcare.
But here's where it gets ridiculous: A Standford bioethicist (David Magnus) then "chimes in" with his opinion . . . putting what is fairly obviously a pseudo-socialist/political slant on the study's results: "That means that there are a lot of physicians out there who are not, in fact, doing the right thing."
Oh really? But the study did not examine if doctors acted on their beliefs. And those who act on those beliefs believe they are doing the "right thing".
Our champion of ethics continues: "Conscientious objection is fine . . . as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of the patient," Magnus said. "You can't abandon the patient or essentially coerce the patient by saying you won't do the procedure or refer them to someone else."
So. Taking that "argument" (that I don't buy) to the next level, it's not "coercion" to force a physician to do or contribute to something that he/she finds morally repugnant?
If no one else gets it by now, what the Stanford bioethicist is really gunning for here are doctors who refuse to perform (or refer patients for) abortions. Then it becomes a "woman's health" issue, and Sue can jump on the bandwagon: ARGHHHHHHH!!! Doctors are withholding care!!!
Being a lowly local doctor, and knowing a little bit about the subject, I cast aside my better judgment and went a few rounds with Sue. The simple fact of the matter is that the physician-patient relationship is a contract . . . doctors can decide who they see, just like patients can choose doctors. The relationship can be ended by either party . . . for pretty much any reason.
But, as the comments progressed, Sue contorted my position (clearly stated in previous comments and completely in line with both AMA policy and NCMB position statements) to paint it in an ugly light: "Your explanation and position seem to be in conflict with the AMA’s position and that of medical ethicists."
Nothing respectful . . . or correct . . . about that.
In other words, same old same old . . . what usually happens when you try to have a "dialogue" on these blogs with someone who isn't really listening (because I once dared criticize Converge South).
I thought about the exchange some more last night, and decided to "top-level" (that's blog-talk for the uninitiated) the comments. So here are some more thoughts for Sue:
First, practicing medicine is a quandary of complex realities and practicalities that often elludes the lay person (especially the lay person who feels entitled). Second the AMA is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of medical ethics . . . it doesn't license or privilege or discipline anybody . . . it does not police or sanction . . . it is a lobbying organization that, (1) does not advocate for individual physicians, (2) like so many industrial unions, has grown top-heavy with fat cats only too happy to continue the status quo in return for some power and an easy ride, and (3) is about 15 years behind in that it has blatantly ignored one of the biggest ethical dilemas (and dirtiest medical secrets) of our corporatized day & age . . . the problem of bad-faith medical peer review and the profession's abject failure to protect medical whistle-blowers (you know, the doctors and nurses who make those ethical stands).
Plus, Sue, you're whining. And you're whining about something that, in most realities, amounts to a scheduling inconvenience. If you have any questions about the North Carolina Medical Board's position on the physician-patient relationship, please check out the Board's "position statements" on their website (look under "For Physicians"). In North Carolina, if a doctor tells a patient that he/she is withdrawing care (for whatever reason - including a difference of opinion about what is "best" for the patient . . . or right/ethical/moral), he/she is REQUIRED to give adequate notice and make a reasonable attempt to ensure continuity of care (i.e. send the patient in another direction where they can get the service/information/referral/whatever they want). If the doctor doesn't do that, they can be sanctioned or sued for abandonment. It has been my experience in this state (having worked all over it) that North Carolina doctors are generally very careful to adhere to the Board's guidelines in this regard. The AMA's position is mute. If you want to keep a medical license in NC, these are the rules you play by.
Of course, this is anecdotal evidence. I have not conducted a study.
Performing elective abortions and prescribing birth control to teenagers (without parental knowledge/consent) are NOT emergencies (although there is a certain sense of urgency with getting a sexually-active teenager on something that might prevent an unwanted pregnancy). As I have pointed out, many physicians consider performing abortions incompatible with the Oath and the concept of "First Do No Harm". It was fairly clear at the beginning of your thread (and the reason I commented) that your "Southern Rant" is actually not really about a "patients rights", but the agenda-serving pseudo-socialist notion that every doctor everywhere must bend his or her will and practice to the state, regardless of their personal moral convictions.
But in this free society (and pseudo-free market) doctors still have the right to say, "No, I am not going to do that . . . I am not going to prescribe that . . . I am not going to recommend that . . . I am not going to refer for that."
Just like lawyers and businesses have the right to pick and choose clients. It's a free country.
There is the matter of pharmacists not filling prescriptions (like for Plan B) . . . prescribed by the doctor who actually has the relationship with the patient . . . that I take issue with. If you're not going to fill everyone's prescriptions, don't go to pharmacy school. But that's a whole nuther ethical quandary for another topic/post.
I said this (in the Plan B post) here on my blog (a blog which discusses medical ethics on occasion, but which you do not read): While I give physicians who perform elective abortions their due (for acting on the strength of their convictions that women have the right to choose), I also deeply respect the strong convictions of those doctors who say, "No way."
In this multi-faith/multi-cultural society I think we really don't have a lot of choice but to find a way for those views to co-exist. For in the end, we can control our own actions, but not the actions of others. If you were truly "pro-choice", I submit you would think that way too . . . and respect the individual doctor's rights in this equation.
Now, here's the other BIG blogger-problem I have with your "rant". In stark contrast to a scheduling inconvenience, I have lived a nine-year-nightmare because (1) I put ethics and a newborn's (who was not even my own patient) life before personal considerations AND (2) the North Carolina Medical Board did not stand to protect or defend the duties it requires. Legally now, I have little "standing" except as a victim of perjury & contempt and only then if a District Attorney grows a conscience and some cahoones and exercises his discretion to prosecute. I am determined to do something to change that.
Meanwhile, as a well-establsihed and influential local blogger (who has the ear of other "important" bloggers . . . and John & Elizabeth Edwards no less), you could care less (as you wait on "the other side" to defend the indefensible). Therefore I find your pontifications on matters of medical ethics hollow and hypocrytical.
Whew. I feel better now.
And if it's not obvious by now, the thing I hate about studies is that their results are oftentimes twisted and warped to suit someone's agenda.
Because, you see, she doesn't read this blog. And I don't read hers. I used to. Not anymore.
For the record, I do not subscribe to the NEJM. It's too expensive. I read other (Pediatric) journals. Besides, the newspapers will always tell me when something important get published in the NEJM. Like now.
The University of Chicago's study method was as follows: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a stratified, random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties by mail. The primary criterion variables were physicians' judgments about their ethical rights and obligations when patients request a legal medical procedure to which the physician objects for religious or moral reasons. These procedures included administering terminal sedation in dying patients, providing abortion for failed contraception, and prescribing birth control to adolescents without parental approval.
In other words, this was a broad opinon survey (conducted not face-to-face but by US Mail) of physicians who may or may not be involved in providing the services mentioned, but who may have strong opinons about those particular services.
For instance, here's mine: "Terminal sedation", for some doctors, has been just a hop/skip/jump from a murder or conspiracy rap (or a lawsuit from an angry out-of-the-loop family member who did not agree with the sedation) . . . (especially in Pediatrics) it belongs in a specialist's hands . . . and is not something to do (or refer) lightly. I've published my thoughts on abortion & Plan B just once before, and that's all I'm going to say on the matter. And (the "rights" of twelve and thirteen year olds to make "autonomous" medical decisions aside) as a Pediatrician, I'm not too keen on prescribing or recommending any medical intervention for an adolescent or teenager that at least one parent doesn't know about.
Call me old-fashioned.
Anyway, the publication of the results of the study becames a "News Flash" (Not!) for the Boston Globe: "Doctor's Moral Beliefs May Affect Care".
Well, duh.
Buried in the article is the important tidbit: The survey did not examine whether these doctors act on their beliefs -- that is, whether they actually withhold information or refuse to refer patients. But the researchers calculated that tens of millions of Americans might be going to such doctors.
Hello? The researchers took that leap . . . for the headline . . . and to get funding for the next study/set of mailings.
The study ends with a fairly innocuous conclusion: Ongoing debates about conscientious objections in medicine should take account of the complex relationships among sex, religious commitments, and physicians' approaches to morally controversial clinical practices. In the meantime, physicians and patients might engage in a respectful dialogue to anticipate areas of moral disagreement and to negotiate acceptable accommodations(Including the termination of the physician-patient relationship) before crises develop.
The Boston Globe article, of course, states the AMA's perfectly reasonable position that: Doctors can decline to give a treatment sought by an individual that is "incompatible with the physician's personal, religious, or moral beliefs. But the physician should try to ensure the patient has "access to adequate healthcare.
But here's where it gets ridiculous: A Standford bioethicist (David Magnus) then "chimes in" with his opinion . . . putting what is fairly obviously a pseudo-socialist/political slant on the study's results: "That means that there are a lot of physicians out there who are not, in fact, doing the right thing."
Oh really? But the study did not examine if doctors acted on their beliefs. And those who act on those beliefs believe they are doing the "right thing".
Our champion of ethics continues: "Conscientious objection is fine . . . as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of the patient," Magnus said. "You can't abandon the patient or essentially coerce the patient by saying you won't do the procedure or refer them to someone else."
So. Taking that "argument" (that I don't buy) to the next level, it's not "coercion" to force a physician to do or contribute to something that he/she finds morally repugnant?
If no one else gets it by now, what the Stanford bioethicist is really gunning for here are doctors who refuse to perform (or refer patients for) abortions. Then it becomes a "woman's health" issue, and Sue can jump on the bandwagon: ARGHHHHHHH!!! Doctors are withholding care!!!
Being a lowly local doctor, and knowing a little bit about the subject, I cast aside my better judgment and went a few rounds with Sue. The simple fact of the matter is that the physician-patient relationship is a contract . . . doctors can decide who they see, just like patients can choose doctors. The relationship can be ended by either party . . . for pretty much any reason.
But, as the comments progressed, Sue contorted my position (clearly stated in previous comments and completely in line with both AMA policy and NCMB position statements) to paint it in an ugly light: "Your explanation and position seem to be in conflict with the AMA’s position and that of medical ethicists."
Nothing respectful . . . or correct . . . about that.
In other words, same old same old . . . what usually happens when you try to have a "dialogue" on these blogs with someone who isn't really listening (because I once dared criticize Converge South).
I thought about the exchange some more last night, and decided to "top-level" (that's blog-talk for the uninitiated) the comments. So here are some more thoughts for Sue:
First, practicing medicine is a quandary of complex realities and practicalities that often elludes the lay person (especially the lay person who feels entitled). Second the AMA is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of medical ethics . . . it doesn't license or privilege or discipline anybody . . . it does not police or sanction . . . it is a lobbying organization that, (1) does not advocate for individual physicians, (2) like so many industrial unions, has grown top-heavy with fat cats only too happy to continue the status quo in return for some power and an easy ride, and (3) is about 15 years behind in that it has blatantly ignored one of the biggest ethical dilemas (and dirtiest medical secrets) of our corporatized day & age . . . the problem of bad-faith medical peer review and the profession's abject failure to protect medical whistle-blowers (you know, the doctors and nurses who make those ethical stands).
Plus, Sue, you're whining. And you're whining about something that, in most realities, amounts to a scheduling inconvenience. If you have any questions about the North Carolina Medical Board's position on the physician-patient relationship, please check out the Board's "position statements" on their website (look under "For Physicians"). In North Carolina, if a doctor tells a patient that he/she is withdrawing care (for whatever reason - including a difference of opinion about what is "best" for the patient . . . or right/ethical/moral), he/she is REQUIRED to give adequate notice and make a reasonable attempt to ensure continuity of care (i.e. send the patient in another direction where they can get the service/information/referral/whatever they want). If the doctor doesn't do that, they can be sanctioned or sued for abandonment. It has been my experience in this state (having worked all over it) that North Carolina doctors are generally very careful to adhere to the Board's guidelines in this regard. The AMA's position is mute. If you want to keep a medical license in NC, these are the rules you play by.
Of course, this is anecdotal evidence. I have not conducted a study.
Performing elective abortions and prescribing birth control to teenagers (without parental knowledge/consent) are NOT emergencies (although there is a certain sense of urgency with getting a sexually-active teenager on something that might prevent an unwanted pregnancy). As I have pointed out, many physicians consider performing abortions incompatible with the Oath and the concept of "First Do No Harm". It was fairly clear at the beginning of your thread (and the reason I commented) that your "Southern Rant" is actually not really about a "patients rights", but the agenda-serving pseudo-socialist notion that every doctor everywhere must bend his or her will and practice to the state, regardless of their personal moral convictions.
But in this free society (and pseudo-free market) doctors still have the right to say, "No, I am not going to do that . . . I am not going to prescribe that . . . I am not going to recommend that . . . I am not going to refer for that."
Just like lawyers and businesses have the right to pick and choose clients. It's a free country.
There is the matter of pharmacists not filling prescriptions (like for Plan B) . . . prescribed by the doctor who actually has the relationship with the patient . . . that I take issue with. If you're not going to fill everyone's prescriptions, don't go to pharmacy school. But that's a whole nuther ethical quandary for another topic/post.
I said this (in the Plan B post) here on my blog (a blog which discusses medical ethics on occasion, but which you do not read): While I give physicians who perform elective abortions their due (for acting on the strength of their convictions that women have the right to choose), I also deeply respect the strong convictions of those doctors who say, "No way."
In this multi-faith/multi-cultural society I think we really don't have a lot of choice but to find a way for those views to co-exist. For in the end, we can control our own actions, but not the actions of others. If you were truly "pro-choice", I submit you would think that way too . . . and respect the individual doctor's rights in this equation.
Now, here's the other BIG blogger-problem I have with your "rant". In stark contrast to a scheduling inconvenience, I have lived a nine-year-nightmare because (1) I put ethics and a newborn's (who was not even my own patient) life before personal considerations AND (2) the North Carolina Medical Board did not stand to protect or defend the duties it requires. Legally now, I have little "standing" except as a victim of perjury & contempt and only then if a District Attorney grows a conscience and some cahoones and exercises his discretion to prosecute. I am determined to do something to change that.
Meanwhile, as a well-establsihed and influential local blogger (who has the ear of other "important" bloggers . . . and John & Elizabeth Edwards no less), you could care less (as you wait on "the other side" to defend the indefensible). Therefore I find your pontifications on matters of medical ethics hollow and hypocrytical.
Whew. I feel better now.
And if it's not obvious by now, the thing I hate about studies is that their results are oftentimes twisted and warped to suit someone's agenda.
Friday, February 09, 2007
General Statute 7A-66: So This Is How It's Done
The N&O reports today that a former political foe filed an affidavit (ala North Carolina General Statue 7A-66) to remove Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, from office.
It really does figure that, with all of the good-ole-boys (at the State Bar and in the Governor's & AG's offices) chasing their tails over what to do with Nifong, only a woman would have the cahoones to cut to the chase (and through the youknowwhat) and do something like this.
Food for thought as I consider my own options.
Saturday AM Update: More from the N&O.
"I'm looking forward to having the case heard and having the opportunity to have my side told publicly," Nifong told the Associated Press. "I would really hope that everybody would be willing to withhold judgment until that procedure that is already in place had been given an opportunity to work."
The "procedure already in place" referring, of course, to those fine upstanding champions of legal ethics (NOT) at the NC State Bar. Nifong's statment is just a tad too confident considering all of the evidence against him. Does anybody else sense a smooth face-saving (for the lawyers) under-the-table move about to take place?
(Nifong's) attorney, David Freedman of Winston-Salem, noted that Brewer's efforts to beat Nifong at the ballot box failed last year.
"Now she's attempting to use a collateral move to remove him from office when she couldn't do it through the democratic process," Freedman said Friday afternoon.
I dunno Dave. I read over the affidavit in great detail last night.
The lady has certainly crossed her t's and dotted her i's.
It really does figure that, with all of the good-ole-boys (at the State Bar and in the Governor's & AG's offices) chasing their tails over what to do with Nifong, only a woman would have the cahoones to cut to the chase (and through the youknowwhat) and do something like this.
Food for thought as I consider my own options.
Saturday AM Update: More from the N&O.
"I'm looking forward to having the case heard and having the opportunity to have my side told publicly," Nifong told the Associated Press. "I would really hope that everybody would be willing to withhold judgment until that procedure that is already in place had been given an opportunity to work."
The "procedure already in place" referring, of course, to those fine upstanding champions of legal ethics (NOT) at the NC State Bar. Nifong's statment is just a tad too confident considering all of the evidence against him. Does anybody else sense a smooth face-saving (for the lawyers) under-the-table move about to take place?
(Nifong's) attorney, David Freedman of Winston-Salem, noted that Brewer's efforts to beat Nifong at the ballot box failed last year.
"Now she's attempting to use a collateral move to remove him from office when she couldn't do it through the democratic process," Freedman said Friday afternoon.
I dunno Dave. I read over the affidavit in great detail last night.
The lady has certainly crossed her t's and dotted her i's.
Distractions
I had several topics to blog on today, but got distracted by (1) a spontaneous lunch with the Yas at the new Chili's in Asheboro, (2) negoatiating the coarse details of a future Locums assignment, (3) trimming the cats' claws (always traumatic for TJ), (4) vacuuming the fur and claw remnants up after the trauma and (5) conversing with Sue about medical ethics . . . in this case, we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes "coercion".
(Lord help me) she got me started on the AMA.
(Lord help me) she got me started on the AMA.
On Anna Nicole
Whatever the Medical Examiner decides about the way Anna Nicole Smith died, it will not change the fact that I always felt very sorry for that girl.
She was a small town chick desperate to "get the hell out of town" and make a name for herself . . . to get away as fast as she could. Part of her charm & appeal (apart from the Marilynesque vavavoom) was that the desire to get out and move up is a universal theme that resonates for so many people.
Anna Nicole made every bad choice there was to make. She was, in fact, only "savy" enough to be objectified and used and abused by every man she ever met or relied upon . . . from Hugh Hefner . . . to that warped and evil Marshall clan . . . to the lawyers who dogged her and billed for every waking moment . . . to the paparazzi who stalked her until they could sell that last $500,000 photograph. Who would stay sane in a world like that?
She was a "beautiful train wreck". "Watchable yet hard to watch". "With Anna Nicole, she was pathetic but at the same time you thought, 'Gosh, if I could just scoop you up and fix things, it would be OK,"' said Jerry Herron, a professor of American culture at Wayne State University. "You wouldn't want to scoop up Paris Hilton."
With Paris you might catch something.
She was a small town chick desperate to "get the hell out of town" and make a name for herself . . . to get away as fast as she could. Part of her charm & appeal (apart from the Marilynesque vavavoom) was that the desire to get out and move up is a universal theme that resonates for so many people.
Anna Nicole made every bad choice there was to make. She was, in fact, only "savy" enough to be objectified and used and abused by every man she ever met or relied upon . . . from Hugh Hefner . . . to that warped and evil Marshall clan . . . to the lawyers who dogged her and billed for every waking moment . . . to the paparazzi who stalked her until they could sell that last $500,000 photograph. Who would stay sane in a world like that?
She was a "beautiful train wreck". "Watchable yet hard to watch". "With Anna Nicole, she was pathetic but at the same time you thought, 'Gosh, if I could just scoop you up and fix things, it would be OK,"' said Jerry Herron, a professor of American culture at Wayne State University. "You wouldn't want to scoop up Paris Hilton."
With Paris you might catch something.
When Anna lost her son last year, I thought that would kill her. No matter what the autopsy says, I think I got that one right.
Now her poor baby girl will become cannon fodder for the lawyers and potential daddies and gadzillionaires. It is very sad.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Another Reason Not To Vote For John Edwards
The N&R reports that John Edwards will be keeping bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, on the campaign payroll. He admitted that their writings prior to being hired (sight unseen apparently) were "personally offensive" ("free speech" that was so offensive to me, as I've explored what the uproar was about, that I won't directly link or repeat the speech here), but that everyone deserves a "fair shake".
It appears to be a not-so-smooth move to prevent left-wing bloggers from abandoning ship.
The "fair shake" thing was interesting to me. Obviously that applies only to bloggers, not physicians wronged in public service (the kind of programs he advocates) who take their grievances to court . . . get screwed by perjury & contempt . . . and ask their Senator for help.
Late Evening Addendum: Overlawyered is all over this one.
2/10/06 Update: Missed this one. Ouch.
It appears to be a not-so-smooth move to prevent left-wing bloggers from abandoning ship.
The "fair shake" thing was interesting to me. Obviously that applies only to bloggers, not physicians wronged in public service (the kind of programs he advocates) who take their grievances to court . . . get screwed by perjury & contempt . . . and ask their Senator for help.
Late Evening Addendum: Overlawyered is all over this one.
2/10/06 Update: Missed this one. Ouch.
Attention Mental Health Advocates: Here's An Opportunity To Put Your Compassion Where Your Mouth Is
When I first heard the bizarre story about Astronaut Lisa Nowak's fairly obvious personal meltdown, I've got to admit, I was incredulous.
A friend told me about it. And I laughed.
Almost immediately after I laughed, I felt tremendously guilty. I know all too well that kind of desperate pain . . . where the soul is lost in a love for someone who uses and abuses that love . . . someone who does not deserve it . . . a place where the darkness really is visible. It's a long and ugly story from a very-long-time . . . a lifetime . . . ago. The details are really no one's business and it serves no useful purpose to reiterate them here. At the time, I was fortunate in that I had friends & mentors who saw and heard and cared and acted . . . and gently pulled me back from the abyss.
Of course, in matters of a sick heart & mind . . . in order to be pulled back, one has to want to come.
I hope Lisa Nowak is lucky enough to have the help & support she needs . . . and the desire/will to come back. I hope our so-called system of "justice" will let her do it without destroying her. I hope NASA won't abandon her . . . or feed her to the wolves.
I looked at the news footage of Nowak being humiliated and paraded all over the place . . . in front of the merciless cameras, shackled in courtrooms, her face covered by a coat on airport tarmacs . . . and I thought to myself, there but for the extraordinary grace of a merciful God . . .
Curious, I went to NASA's website and checked out Nowak's bio. One line caught my eye: "Nowak has logged over 1,500 flight hours in more than 30 different aircraft."
That includes the flaming-death-wish-on-a-launch-pad called our space shuttle.
*Late afternoon addendum: According to MSNBC, Nowak lost three of her classmates from NASA's astronaut class of 1996 (David Brown, Laurel Clark and William McCool) when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry in 2003. She served as a "grief counselor" to the families involved (if I lost three of my Yas at the same time, I doubt I would be serving as anyone's grief counselor).
What tremendous strength of character and courage this woman must have to have accomplished and endured so much!
Lisa Nowak will be made fun of (one local blogger who shall remain nameless was very quick to yank out his phaser gun). NASA will do all kinds of contortions to prove its psychological screening is adequate (in this case, it appears that it is not . . . that there were signs of trouble . . . including Nowak's recent separation from her husband . . . that were ignored). Fraternization between astronauts will come under scrutiny (and with it, I hope, the behavior of the apparent two-timing flyboy in this spaced-out "love triangle").
In a show of solidarity with a woman scorned and hurting, I've decided to get personal. I had really not planned to talk about this on my blog, but I have not planned to do a lot of things . . . and have wound up doing them anyway. Just call me "implusive". As I have blogged before, there is a strong history of mental illness in my family. I, myself, was diagnosed with Adult ADD in 1997. Ironically (and to me, incredibly) the diagnosis was not made until AFTER I got through college, medical school, and a Pediatric residency. It is a diagnosis for which I do need or take medication (unless you count the expensive coffee & exotic teas that are my biggest vice). But it was a relief to be diagnosed. The knowledge was power. And it explained a lot.
I would have been nice to know sooner. School (specifically testing) might not have been the nightmare it was.
Prior to that, while still in Pediatric residency, I sought treatment for depression and a long-time eating disorder (a "dark night of the soul" precipitated by the disintegration of the relationship cited at the beginning of this post). I know I did the right thing. I did the therapist's chair and the "Vitamin P" and I got better . . . and was, within two years, pronounced cured.
I've learned to embrace my ADD. It makes me what I am. And I consider myself in good company. Although the diagnosis was not officially in the DSM-III until 1980, Einstein and Edison are thought to have "suffered" from the "disorder". I'm fairly certain it's the reason my Father was considered "colorful". The character quirks associated with the "disorder" actuallly greatly enhance aspects of my performance in high-stress situations . . . particularly resuscitations. I "hyper-focus" on the problem at hand and I get the job done. The ability to intensely focus also makes me a formidable child advocate. Certain traits contribute to my flexibility & adaptability to new situations (something that has served me well as a Locum Tenens). I think my creativity and writing ability stems, in part, from the ADD.
I also think my distant-past battles with depression and bulimia/anorexia . . . battles I survived . . . have actually made me a better Pediatrician. I've taken great personal comfort & satisfaction from telling a struggling child/frazzled parent that I too have ADD . . . and that if I could cope with it . . . if I could "hang in" and stay in school all the time it took to become a physician . . . they can do and be whatever they want to be. I've watched little faces light up after getting that message . . . desperate parents brighten with hope.
I somtimes pick up on the more subtle signs of depression that others miss. And I can spot a bulimic a mile away.
I know all the tricks;-)
But, even though I haven't required a therapy session or a "happy-pill" in well over a decade, I still can't get disability insurance. Honesty is not the best policy there.
And then there's the battle with Randolph Hospital. It has been a tactic of those whose amoral/unethical/illegal actions I challenge . . . as well as an easy excuse for the state & federal officials I ask for help . . . to write me off as just another "female whack-job". I was "disruptive" when I answered the nurses' call to go in and help a dying baby. My efforts to get some kind of "justice" are "obsessive". I should just "let it go" and get on with my life.
First, the name-calling is the despicable tactic of a coward. And second the "reasoning" is total horse-hockey. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And perjury is perjury.
I guess my point is this. As much as our society likes to pat itself on the back for the enlightened way we treat the mentally ill, it is quite simply a lie and a joke . . . a sad illusion. One look at the fiasco that is the mental health system in North Carolina is evidence enough of that.
Those who are severely mentally ill are falling through gigantic cracks in this state . . . and when they fall, the results can be horrifically tragic.
But I've got news for the general public. People who suffer from mental illness are all around you. The majority of them are fine, upstanding, productive members of society. Some need formal medical intervention and medication (please note that psychological intevention IS medical . . . no matter what some insurers and lawyers think). Others do not. Many don't ask for help because they fear the stigma and/or the label (or not being able to get insurance). Sometimes people slip and fall (sometimes badly and hard . . . as Lisa Nowak did this week), but more often than not, you would not about their illness unless they were brave enough to risk the stigma and tell you.
Where Lisa Nowak is concerned this is a fine opportunity for our society to can the "she's so spacey" jokes and show some compassion . . .
. . . for a woman of extraordinary gifts who has been to the stars and back.
I will not laugh again.
A friend told me about it. And I laughed.
Almost immediately after I laughed, I felt tremendously guilty. I know all too well that kind of desperate pain . . . where the soul is lost in a love for someone who uses and abuses that love . . . someone who does not deserve it . . . a place where the darkness really is visible. It's a long and ugly story from a very-long-time . . . a lifetime . . . ago. The details are really no one's business and it serves no useful purpose to reiterate them here. At the time, I was fortunate in that I had friends & mentors who saw and heard and cared and acted . . . and gently pulled me back from the abyss.
Of course, in matters of a sick heart & mind . . . in order to be pulled back, one has to want to come.
I hope Lisa Nowak is lucky enough to have the help & support she needs . . . and the desire/will to come back. I hope our so-called system of "justice" will let her do it without destroying her. I hope NASA won't abandon her . . . or feed her to the wolves.
I looked at the news footage of Nowak being humiliated and paraded all over the place . . . in front of the merciless cameras, shackled in courtrooms, her face covered by a coat on airport tarmacs . . . and I thought to myself, there but for the extraordinary grace of a merciful God . . .
Curious, I went to NASA's website and checked out Nowak's bio. One line caught my eye: "Nowak has logged over 1,500 flight hours in more than 30 different aircraft."
That includes the flaming-death-wish-on-a-launch-pad called our space shuttle.
*Late afternoon addendum: According to MSNBC, Nowak lost three of her classmates from NASA's astronaut class of 1996 (David Brown, Laurel Clark and William McCool) when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry in 2003. She served as a "grief counselor" to the families involved (if I lost three of my Yas at the same time, I doubt I would be serving as anyone's grief counselor).
What tremendous strength of character and courage this woman must have to have accomplished and endured so much!
Lisa Nowak will be made fun of (one local blogger who shall remain nameless was very quick to yank out his phaser gun). NASA will do all kinds of contortions to prove its psychological screening is adequate (in this case, it appears that it is not . . . that there were signs of trouble . . . including Nowak's recent separation from her husband . . . that were ignored). Fraternization between astronauts will come under scrutiny (and with it, I hope, the behavior of the apparent two-timing flyboy in this spaced-out "love triangle").
In a show of solidarity with a woman scorned and hurting, I've decided to get personal. I had really not planned to talk about this on my blog, but I have not planned to do a lot of things . . . and have wound up doing them anyway. Just call me "implusive". As I have blogged before, there is a strong history of mental illness in my family. I, myself, was diagnosed with Adult ADD in 1997. Ironically (and to me, incredibly) the diagnosis was not made until AFTER I got through college, medical school, and a Pediatric residency. It is a diagnosis for which I do need or take medication (unless you count the expensive coffee & exotic teas that are my biggest vice). But it was a relief to be diagnosed. The knowledge was power. And it explained a lot.
I would have been nice to know sooner. School (specifically testing) might not have been the nightmare it was.
Prior to that, while still in Pediatric residency, I sought treatment for depression and a long-time eating disorder (a "dark night of the soul" precipitated by the disintegration of the relationship cited at the beginning of this post). I know I did the right thing. I did the therapist's chair and the "Vitamin P" and I got better . . . and was, within two years, pronounced cured.
I've learned to embrace my ADD. It makes me what I am. And I consider myself in good company. Although the diagnosis was not officially in the DSM-III until 1980, Einstein and Edison are thought to have "suffered" from the "disorder". I'm fairly certain it's the reason my Father was considered "colorful". The character quirks associated with the "disorder" actuallly greatly enhance aspects of my performance in high-stress situations . . . particularly resuscitations. I "hyper-focus" on the problem at hand and I get the job done. The ability to intensely focus also makes me a formidable child advocate. Certain traits contribute to my flexibility & adaptability to new situations (something that has served me well as a Locum Tenens). I think my creativity and writing ability stems, in part, from the ADD.
I also think my distant-past battles with depression and bulimia/anorexia . . . battles I survived . . . have actually made me a better Pediatrician. I've taken great personal comfort & satisfaction from telling a struggling child/frazzled parent that I too have ADD . . . and that if I could cope with it . . . if I could "hang in" and stay in school all the time it took to become a physician . . . they can do and be whatever they want to be. I've watched little faces light up after getting that message . . . desperate parents brighten with hope.
I somtimes pick up on the more subtle signs of depression that others miss. And I can spot a bulimic a mile away.
I know all the tricks;-)
But, even though I haven't required a therapy session or a "happy-pill" in well over a decade, I still can't get disability insurance. Honesty is not the best policy there.
And then there's the battle with Randolph Hospital. It has been a tactic of those whose amoral/unethical/illegal actions I challenge . . . as well as an easy excuse for the state & federal officials I ask for help . . . to write me off as just another "female whack-job". I was "disruptive" when I answered the nurses' call to go in and help a dying baby. My efforts to get some kind of "justice" are "obsessive". I should just "let it go" and get on with my life.
First, the name-calling is the despicable tactic of a coward. And second the "reasoning" is total horse-hockey. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And perjury is perjury.
I guess my point is this. As much as our society likes to pat itself on the back for the enlightened way we treat the mentally ill, it is quite simply a lie and a joke . . . a sad illusion. One look at the fiasco that is the mental health system in North Carolina is evidence enough of that.
Those who are severely mentally ill are falling through gigantic cracks in this state . . . and when they fall, the results can be horrifically tragic.
But I've got news for the general public. People who suffer from mental illness are all around you. The majority of them are fine, upstanding, productive members of society. Some need formal medical intervention and medication (please note that psychological intevention IS medical . . . no matter what some insurers and lawyers think). Others do not. Many don't ask for help because they fear the stigma and/or the label (or not being able to get insurance). Sometimes people slip and fall (sometimes badly and hard . . . as Lisa Nowak did this week), but more often than not, you would not about their illness unless they were brave enough to risk the stigma and tell you.
Where Lisa Nowak is concerned this is a fine opportunity for our society to can the "she's so spacey" jokes and show some compassion . . .
. . . for a woman of extraordinary gifts who has been to the stars and back.
I will not laugh again.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Perjury Fuels Corruption
More on the perjury trial (of a Jim Black political crony) averted by an obstruction of justice plea:
In striking a plea deal, M. Scott Edwards, 55, of Murfreesboro, entered an Alford plea, which allows him to enter a guilty plea without admitting the crime. He was accused of collecting checks in 2002 and 2003 from fellow optometrists who purposefully left the payee lines blank . . . Edwards, who was treasurer of the state optometric society's political arm, distributed those blank checks to political candidates without disclosing them on campaign finance reports, as required by law, according to his plea agreement . . . Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said the scheme by Edwards "fueled corruption within our government."
No kidding. Are you listening, Garland Yates? Kingsley Dozier? Andy Gregson?
I expect not. Law and order in Randolph County is about doing what "the big boys" tell you to do.
In striking a plea deal, M. Scott Edwards, 55, of Murfreesboro, entered an Alford plea, which allows him to enter a guilty plea without admitting the crime. He was accused of collecting checks in 2002 and 2003 from fellow optometrists who purposefully left the payee lines blank . . . Edwards, who was treasurer of the state optometric society's political arm, distributed those blank checks to political candidates without disclosing them on campaign finance reports, as required by law, according to his plea agreement . . . Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said the scheme by Edwards "fueled corruption within our government."
No kidding. Are you listening, Garland Yates? Kingsley Dozier? Andy Gregson?
I expect not. Law and order in Randolph County is about doing what "the big boys" tell you to do.
Negotiating Medical Ethics
Andrea Weigl continues the N&O's coverage of the mess North Carolina has made of its execution protocols . . . as it falls all over itself to make sure death "doesn't hurt" one little bit.
Governor Easley concedes there is a moratorium in place: He says, "How long that will last will depend on how long it takes to untangle this Gordian knot."
Man, that was deep! But (as a fellow blogger reminded me yesterday), the vexing problem of the Gordian knot was solved by one whack of Alexander the Great's sword.
Alexander made a leadership decision. It's what made him "Great".
Too bad our leaders today are incapable of making decision without a consensus or a poll.
Most conceded the legislature is going to have to intervene at some point. But this is where it gets entertaining: N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose office represents the prison system, said Tuesday that he wanted the council to act before his staff talks with the N.C. Medical Board about its ethics policy.
Question: The Medical Board is a state entity too. The AG doens't represent them?
"The purpose of bringing this today was to bring something to them," Cooper said.
Medical Board officials declined to comment (par for the course). The board's next scheduled meeting is Feb. 21.
In the "What's Next" section of the second page, it gets even better:
Prison system lawyers plan to talk to the N.C. Medical Board to see whether negotiation can settle this dispute.
Otherwise, prison officials may have to sue the Medical Board, making the board a party to the inmates' pending lawsuits.
This is rich. Under threat of litigation, the state of North Carolina is going to "negotiate" cannons of medical ethics (which are absolute) with the North Carolina Medical Board.
I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall!
It's not quite like being jarred out of a sound sleep and being asked to choose between keeping your job and letting a newborn baby die . . . or watching your career become a "slow-moving train wreck" because you chose to adhere to the Medical Board's cannons.
But this "negotiation" should give the North Carolina Medical Board a small taste of their own bad medicine.
Governor Easley concedes there is a moratorium in place: He says, "How long that will last will depend on how long it takes to untangle this Gordian knot."
Man, that was deep! But (as a fellow blogger reminded me yesterday), the vexing problem of the Gordian knot was solved by one whack of Alexander the Great's sword.
Alexander made a leadership decision. It's what made him "Great".
Too bad our leaders today are incapable of making decision without a consensus or a poll.
Most conceded the legislature is going to have to intervene at some point. But this is where it gets entertaining: N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose office represents the prison system, said Tuesday that he wanted the council to act before his staff talks with the N.C. Medical Board about its ethics policy.
Question: The Medical Board is a state entity too. The AG doens't represent them?
"The purpose of bringing this today was to bring something to them," Cooper said.
Medical Board officials declined to comment (par for the course). The board's next scheduled meeting is Feb. 21.
In the "What's Next" section of the second page, it gets even better:
Prison system lawyers plan to talk to the N.C. Medical Board to see whether negotiation can settle this dispute.
Otherwise, prison officials may have to sue the Medical Board, making the board a party to the inmates' pending lawsuits.
This is rich. Under threat of litigation, the state of North Carolina is going to "negotiate" cannons of medical ethics (which are absolute) with the North Carolina Medical Board.
I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall!
It's not quite like being jarred out of a sound sleep and being asked to choose between keeping your job and letting a newborn baby die . . . or watching your career become a "slow-moving train wreck" because you chose to adhere to the Medical Board's cannons.
But this "negotiation" should give the North Carolina Medical Board a small taste of their own bad medicine.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Obstruction Of Justice
According to the N&O, M. Scott Edwards, a friend and longtime political supporter of former House Speaker Jim Black, pleaded guilty today to one count of obstruction of justice in exchange for four perjury charges being tossed out.
Edwards was sentenced to 6-8 months in prison, with the time suspended, supervised probation for two years and court costs. He also has to complete 100 hours of community service within six months . . . Edwards also has to repay the State Board of Elections $10,000 toward the cost of an investigation that led to the charges against him.
Interesting resolution.
A variation of which would work for me. So WHERE is the Randolph County DA?
As an aside, the Courier Tribune sure is giving the DA's office a lot of front page attention lately . . . for a trial where Kingsley Dozier could only delivered a manslaughter conviction. But hey, they're "tough on crime".
Alas, my bad guys wear expensive suits and only only kill dreams.
Edwards was sentenced to 6-8 months in prison, with the time suspended, supervised probation for two years and court costs. He also has to complete 100 hours of community service within six months . . . Edwards also has to repay the State Board of Elections $10,000 toward the cost of an investigation that led to the charges against him.
Interesting resolution.
A variation of which would work for me. So WHERE is the Randolph County DA?
As an aside, the Courier Tribune sure is giving the DA's office a lot of front page attention lately . . . for a trial where Kingsley Dozier could only delivered a manslaughter conviction. But hey, they're "tough on crime".
Alas, my bad guys wear expensive suits and only only kill dreams.
My Reply To NC Senator Marc Basnight
Referencing the previous post, here is my response to Marc Basnight (President of the NC Senate). I am so disgusted with state officials. The politicians have forgotten why they're in Raleigh, and who they're really supposed to serve.
Ms. Williams,
I appreciate your response on behalf of Senator Basnight.
But respectfully, my primary reason for contacting the entire state legislature was not to express my opinion on the participation of physicians in executions, but to relate my experience as a physician in public service in North Carolina . . . and get some help.
I saw everything I worked for destroyed because I did my duty . . . duties required but not protected by the North Carolina Medical Board. I was fired because I defied Randolph Hospital administrators and saved a newborn's life.
In what twisted world is that okay?
Then I was raped again by the legal system . . . where "non-profit" officials can lie under Oath and get away with it . . . and where District Attorneys can bury legitimate cases to serve their political agendas (the flip side of the Duke case).
Why is it that doctors are prosecuted for perjury, but hospital administrators are immune from any scrutiny?: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/02/north-carolina-justice-they-prosecute.html#links
Who do Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin know in state government that are helping them cover their tracks? Non-profits are licensed by the state . . . much of their funding is through NCDHHS. So WHY can't the Attorney General intervene in my case?
Further thoughts are now published on my blog: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/02/todays-decision-on-executions.html#links
Mary H. Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Asheboro, N.C.
Ms. Williams,
I appreciate your response on behalf of Senator Basnight.
But respectfully, my primary reason for contacting the entire state legislature was not to express my opinion on the participation of physicians in executions, but to relate my experience as a physician in public service in North Carolina . . . and get some help.
I saw everything I worked for destroyed because I did my duty . . . duties required but not protected by the North Carolina Medical Board. I was fired because I defied Randolph Hospital administrators and saved a newborn's life.
In what twisted world is that okay?
Then I was raped again by the legal system . . . where "non-profit" officials can lie under Oath and get away with it . . . and where District Attorneys can bury legitimate cases to serve their political agendas (the flip side of the Duke case).
Why is it that doctors are prosecuted for perjury, but hospital administrators are immune from any scrutiny?: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/02/north-carolina-justice-they-prosecute.html#links
Who do Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin know in state government that are helping them cover their tracks? Non-profits are licensed by the state . . . much of their funding is through NCDHHS. So WHY can't the Attorney General intervene in my case?
Further thoughts are now published on my blog: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/02/todays-decision-on-executions.html#links
Mary H. Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Asheboro, N.C.
Today's Decision On Executions: "Collegialtiy" Strikes Again
I gotta tell you. I've about had it with the "collegiality" of state officials and lawmakers. No matter how stupidly ridiculous things are, what really matters is being "nice".
On January 23, I sent a link to a blog post (detailing my experience as a physician in public service in North Carolina) to the entire NC Legislature. The e-mail text (entitled: Ethics Reform in North Carolina: A Cautionary Tale for Medical Students and Residents) was as follows:
Honorable ladies and gentlemen,
Respectfully, with regards to "ethics reform", the North Carolina Legislature has a whole lot more work to do. You might start with the NC Medical Board and NC State Bar. And then there's the little matter of policing the District Attorneys who pander to one special interest or another . . . and answer to no one.
What happened to me . . . in public service to the state of North Carolina . . . is just WRONG. What happened when I sought help from the "justice" and regulatory systems is even worse. I am going to keep telling this story to anyone who will listen . . . particularly the young (employed/public service) doctors that the business & political leaders of this state treat like dirt under a mill-owner's shoe . . . while our so-called "advocates" wheel & deal with the people doing the stomping. As things stand now, I don't really care anymore how bad it makes you-all look:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-duke-boys-and-asheboro-nc.html#links
Rest assured, you ALL look bad. But none more so than the legislators and advocacy organizations who "represented" me.
Mary Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Asheboro, N.C.
I've e-mailed the Legislature en-masse before. And based on that past experience, I sent a back-up individual e-mails to every NC legislator (in bunches of ten to twenty) . . . it took quite a while to get all of those addresses loaded into my address book.
Since the debate over a physician's role in executions is raging (I support capital punishment, I oppose physicians participating in any way), I attached an addendum to the individual e-mails. The text is as follows:
This e-mail is being sent directly to your e-mail Inbox as a back-up. Based on past experience, I do not trust the General Assembly's e-mail delivery system. I apologize for any inconvenience.
In the wake of the NC Medical Board's recent "non-decision" regarding the NC law that requires physicians to "attend" executions, I would like legislators to consider the following post as well:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-a-doctor-in-execution-chamber.html#links
Thank you for your attention,
Mary Johnson, M.D., FAAP
I got a few responses . . . mostly from legislative assistants.
Pricey Harrison seems to be paying attention . . . she e-mailed to ask a few questions . . . and mentioned my participation in the local blogs (which, to her credit, she participates in and reads).
As per usual, I've heard not one word out of my own Randolph County representatives, Harold "I have to live in this town" Brubaker (my only memorable exchange with him being after I called him on his failure to address me as "Dr." in correspondence. He countered that I did not address him as "Speaker" . . even though he wasn't the Speaker anymore), or newbie Pat Hurley (who lives just down the street from my Mom). Ms. Hurley, in particular, is probably too vulnerable to the local political machine.
You see, in Asheboro, the first rule of citizenship is that you have to go along to get along.
;-) Nod.
Yesterday, I got this from Marc Basnight, President of the NC Senate:
Dear Dr. Johnson:
Thank you so much for your recent letter regarding the participation of physicians in the performance of lethal injections. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write and for informing of your concerns.
Please be assured that your views and concerns will be given serious consideration. It is my sincere desire to serve the people of our great State to the best of my ability, and to do so, I must be kept informed. You have contributed greatly in that regard, and I do appreciate the information. Your interest and input is very important in order for those of us in the General Assembly to know and be aware of what North Carolina’s citizens are thinking and feeling.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time and effort to write and share your views with me. Please feel free to write to me whenever any issue of interest to you is brought before the North Carolina General Assembly.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Marc Basnight
On January 23, I sent a link to a blog post (detailing my experience as a physician in public service in North Carolina) to the entire NC Legislature. The e-mail text (entitled: Ethics Reform in North Carolina: A Cautionary Tale for Medical Students and Residents) was as follows:
Honorable ladies and gentlemen,
Respectfully, with regards to "ethics reform", the North Carolina Legislature has a whole lot more work to do. You might start with the NC Medical Board and NC State Bar. And then there's the little matter of policing the District Attorneys who pander to one special interest or another . . . and answer to no one.
What happened to me . . . in public service to the state of North Carolina . . . is just WRONG. What happened when I sought help from the "justice" and regulatory systems is even worse. I am going to keep telling this story to anyone who will listen . . . particularly the young (employed/public service) doctors that the business & political leaders of this state treat like dirt under a mill-owner's shoe . . . while our so-called "advocates" wheel & deal with the people doing the stomping. As things stand now, I don't really care anymore how bad it makes you-all look:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-duke-boys-and-asheboro-nc.html#links
Rest assured, you ALL look bad. But none more so than the legislators and advocacy organizations who "represented" me.
Mary Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Asheboro, N.C.
I've e-mailed the Legislature en-masse before. And based on that past experience, I sent a back-up individual e-mails to every NC legislator (in bunches of ten to twenty) . . . it took quite a while to get all of those addresses loaded into my address book.
Since the debate over a physician's role in executions is raging (I support capital punishment, I oppose physicians participating in any way), I attached an addendum to the individual e-mails. The text is as follows:
This e-mail is being sent directly to your e-mail Inbox as a back-up. Based on past experience, I do not trust the General Assembly's e-mail delivery system. I apologize for any inconvenience.
In the wake of the NC Medical Board's recent "non-decision" regarding the NC law that requires physicians to "attend" executions, I would like legislators to consider the following post as well:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-a-doctor-in-execution-chamber.html#links
Thank you for your attention,
Mary Johnson, M.D., FAAP
I got a few responses . . . mostly from legislative assistants.
Pricey Harrison seems to be paying attention . . . she e-mailed to ask a few questions . . . and mentioned my participation in the local blogs (which, to her credit, she participates in and reads).
As per usual, I've heard not one word out of my own Randolph County representatives, Harold "I have to live in this town" Brubaker (my only memorable exchange with him being after I called him on his failure to address me as "Dr." in correspondence. He countered that I did not address him as "Speaker" . . even though he wasn't the Speaker anymore), or newbie Pat Hurley (who lives just down the street from my Mom). Ms. Hurley, in particular, is probably too vulnerable to the local political machine.
You see, in Asheboro, the first rule of citizenship is that you have to go along to get along.
;-) Nod.
Yesterday, I got this from Marc Basnight, President of the NC Senate:
Dear Dr. Johnson:
Thank you so much for your recent letter regarding the participation of physicians in the performance of lethal injections. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write and for informing of your concerns.
Please be assured that your views and concerns will be given serious consideration. It is my sincere desire to serve the people of our great State to the best of my ability, and to do so, I must be kept informed. You have contributed greatly in that regard, and I do appreciate the information. Your interest and input is very important in order for those of us in the General Assembly to know and be aware of what North Carolina’s citizens are thinking and feeling.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time and effort to write and share your views with me. Please feel free to write to me whenever any issue of interest to you is brought before the North Carolina General Assembly.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Marc Basnight
Please note, that my position on how executions are done in this state was a secondary consideration to the heart of the reason I spent so much time on e-mailing the entire NC legislature. But Basnight did not say one word about the primary reason I e-mailed NC legislators . . that being my experience as a public service physician in North Carolina. He just ignored it.
It's very similar to the responses I used to get from former (please God may it stay that way) Senator John Edwards . . . he who has so many great new ideas for healthcare (not).
Over at Capital Beat, Mark Binker has offered thorough coverage of the death penalty dance that "the honorables" are doing this week. Everyone (including the Medical Board) seems determined to be collegially sidestep the issue, and is working very hard to dump the details (where the devil is found) it on someone else . . . without resolving anything.
This morning, the N&R reported that the Council of State approved a new execution protocol by voice vote. Never mind that the protocol still violates cannons of medical ethics (by putting a doctor in the middle), and actually appears to increase the participation of the doctor in the lethal injection procedure. From the N&R article:
The execution procedure approved by the council on Tuesday appears to increase the role of a doctor. Instead of tasking a nurse and medical technician with monitoring an inmate's vital signs, the revised protocol requires a physician to monitor "the essential body functions of the condemned inmate" and notify the warden if the inmate shows signs of "undue pain and suffering."
For his part, "no opinion" Governor Mike Easley said he expected the overall question of what role doctors should play will be litigated for some time before ending up before the Legislature.
Like I said, the law that put doctors in the middle of executions is a bad law. Fix the law. It's not rocket science.
At least one legislator is flustered: "I have never seen legislators run as fast away from taking on their legislative responsibilities as I have today," said Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, after the panel decided to wait for Tuesday's council meeting before discussing a proposal for an execution moratorium."I don't understand ... why the General Assembly would not want to clarify the statute if we have the medical board saying a doctor can't participate even if the needle is put in improperly."
I feel for Representative Luebke, I really do. You see, I've had nine years of the jurisdictional dodge . . . of state officials and legislators ducking their responsibilities . . . or of flat out ignoring my case . . . a case borne of seeing everything I had worked for destroyed because I did my duty as a licensed physician . . . a case borne of so-called public servants ignoring and breaking . . . or failing to enfore the laws that the legislature makes.
I'm also one of the 20,000 people who filed complaints with the Attorney General's office last year (many of those complaints being about healthcare) . . . only to be told that the state of North Carolina couldn't do anything about "non-profit" hospital executives lying under Oath (even when the state licenses and helps fund the "non-profit").
It's total horse-hockey.
But it's the way that the laws "the honorables" make really work in this state.
And it's far from "honorable".
Monday, February 05, 2007
North Carolina Justice: They Prosecute Doctors Who Lie, Just Not Hospital Executives
The N&O reports today that M. Scott Edwards, a Murfreesboro optometrist and political crony of former House Speaker, Jim Black, will go on trial today for perjury in Wake County.
Edwards is accused of lying on four campaign finance reports in 2002 and 2003 as treasurer of the North Carolina State Optometric Society Political Action Committee.
The charges stem from evidence presented almost one year ago at the State Board of Elections in which individual optometrists testified they had sent checks with blank payee lines to the political action committee, run by Edwards.
According to evidence at the hearing, the payee lines were filled in later on at least $14,000 in checks, which went to individual candidates, including Black, a Charlotte-area optometrist.
The elections board said the procedure allowed the political group to get around campaign donation limits.
According to his attorney, he plans to proclaim his innocence: Edwards made mistakes in reporting "but it was not his intention to deceive or defraud, and it wasn't his intention to make false statements about important information."
Yawn. I've heard that one before. It's called the "unintentional oversight" defense.
Prosecutors are making the same argument against Edwards that I've made for over three years against Randolph Hospital executives Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin: The indictments alleged that Edwards knew that "the information provided in the report was untrue and the omissions and inaccuracies were material."
Just like when Morrison and Eblin, as "non-profit" executives, repeatedly and knowlingly LIED under Oath about the "confidenitality" of financial records that were (IN FACT) public record and actually posted on the Internet (on www.Guidestar.com) . . . not to mention VERY "MATERIAL" to my damages claim. Just like they failed to provide the information (or how/where to get it) after a judge ordered them to cough it up.
You see, they did not intend for their lies to screw me at settlement . . . and save them hundreds of thousands of dollars (that I would have used to rebuild the practice they absorbed/destroyed). That was not their intention at all.
Let's review where I've gotten with my perjury complaint:
The NC State Bar says the state of North Carolina won't hold hospital lawyers accountable for filing the false answers on behalf of their clients (even though the lawyers are supposedly "experts" on "non-profits and it was their job to know better). Likewise the Bar won't hold my attorney accountable for his gross negligence in his fiduciary obligations to me . . . by failing to catch the "unintentional oversight" (and lying to me about punitive damages not being taxable).
Just like the state of North Carolina won't do a ^%$# thing to sanction a "non-profit" hospital that pulls these kinds of stunts. Just like North Carolina will do NOTHING about the local District Attorney (Garland Yates) simply refusing to do his job . . . burying the case rather than sending it to the Attorney General for a proper investigation.
Just like the NC Medical Board will not protect or defend the duties it requires . . . and is quite content to leave doctors hanging in the middle of ethical quandaries and bad situations.
You see, Randolph Hospital is an important economic lynchpin of the community. It therefore cannot be held to the same standards of law and order as the rest of us. Likewise, our local
"non-profit" hospital cannot stand the "embarrassing" scrutiny that this case will present for the Board of Directors and senior medical staff . . . who both actively and passively allowed executives to wage their vendettas unchecked. You see, the people I accuse are very important people . . . very big fish in this small town pond. They do not have to obey the same laws the rest of us do.
And I am a nobody.
Herein lies the lesson: Justice in North Carolina is ONLY for those who have the right last name/know the right people . . . or have all the money (or access to the public's) . . . or to serve a political end.
Oh, and the local press is a JOKE. The Courier's publisher is in bed with Bob and Steve, and the Greensboro N&R can't see past "Black and White".
Moral of the story: In North Carolina, it's more important for doctors and lawyers to be "collegial" than honest. And in that equation, patients & taxpayers come in a distant second.
My life in my hometown was destroyed by these people . . . who lied and cheated and stole . . . who abused the public's trust . . . who got rich on the public's dime . . . and I'm not supposed to be nail-spitting mad about any of it.
I'm supposed to "just go away".
Late Evening Addendum: This morning I sent an e-mail request directly to Robert Morrison, asking for copies of last year's IRS 990 returns for both RMA and Randolph Hospital as soon as they become available. In stark contrast to Mr. Morrison's obfuscative behavior during litigation & settlement negotiation, he provided a sussinct, same day response: "OK".
Why was it so hard before?
Edwards is accused of lying on four campaign finance reports in 2002 and 2003 as treasurer of the North Carolina State Optometric Society Political Action Committee.
The charges stem from evidence presented almost one year ago at the State Board of Elections in which individual optometrists testified they had sent checks with blank payee lines to the political action committee, run by Edwards.
According to evidence at the hearing, the payee lines were filled in later on at least $14,000 in checks, which went to individual candidates, including Black, a Charlotte-area optometrist.
The elections board said the procedure allowed the political group to get around campaign donation limits.
According to his attorney, he plans to proclaim his innocence: Edwards made mistakes in reporting "but it was not his intention to deceive or defraud, and it wasn't his intention to make false statements about important information."
Yawn. I've heard that one before. It's called the "unintentional oversight" defense.
Prosecutors are making the same argument against Edwards that I've made for over three years against Randolph Hospital executives Robert Morrison and Steven Eblin: The indictments alleged that Edwards knew that "the information provided in the report was untrue and the omissions and inaccuracies were material."
Just like when Morrison and Eblin, as "non-profit" executives, repeatedly and knowlingly LIED under Oath about the "confidenitality" of financial records that were (IN FACT) public record and actually posted on the Internet (on www.Guidestar.com) . . . not to mention VERY "MATERIAL" to my damages claim. Just like they failed to provide the information (or how/where to get it) after a judge ordered them to cough it up.
You see, they did not intend for their lies to screw me at settlement . . . and save them hundreds of thousands of dollars (that I would have used to rebuild the practice they absorbed/destroyed). That was not their intention at all.
Let's review where I've gotten with my perjury complaint:
The NC State Bar says the state of North Carolina won't hold hospital lawyers accountable for filing the false answers on behalf of their clients (even though the lawyers are supposedly "experts" on "non-profits and it was their job to know better). Likewise the Bar won't hold my attorney accountable for his gross negligence in his fiduciary obligations to me . . . by failing to catch the "unintentional oversight" (and lying to me about punitive damages not being taxable).
Just like the state of North Carolina won't do a ^%$# thing to sanction a "non-profit" hospital that pulls these kinds of stunts. Just like North Carolina will do NOTHING about the local District Attorney (Garland Yates) simply refusing to do his job . . . burying the case rather than sending it to the Attorney General for a proper investigation.
Just like the NC Medical Board will not protect or defend the duties it requires . . . and is quite content to leave doctors hanging in the middle of ethical quandaries and bad situations.
You see, Randolph Hospital is an important economic lynchpin of the community. It therefore cannot be held to the same standards of law and order as the rest of us. Likewise, our local
"non-profit" hospital cannot stand the "embarrassing" scrutiny that this case will present for the Board of Directors and senior medical staff . . . who both actively and passively allowed executives to wage their vendettas unchecked. You see, the people I accuse are very important people . . . very big fish in this small town pond. They do not have to obey the same laws the rest of us do.
And I am a nobody.
Herein lies the lesson: Justice in North Carolina is ONLY for those who have the right last name/know the right people . . . or have all the money (or access to the public's) . . . or to serve a political end.
Oh, and the local press is a JOKE. The Courier's publisher is in bed with Bob and Steve, and the Greensboro N&R can't see past "Black and White".
Moral of the story: In North Carolina, it's more important for doctors and lawyers to be "collegial" than honest. And in that equation, patients & taxpayers come in a distant second.
My life in my hometown was destroyed by these people . . . who lied and cheated and stole . . . who abused the public's trust . . . who got rich on the public's dime . . . and I'm not supposed to be nail-spitting mad about any of it.
I'm supposed to "just go away".
Late Evening Addendum: This morning I sent an e-mail request directly to Robert Morrison, asking for copies of last year's IRS 990 returns for both RMA and Randolph Hospital as soon as they become available. In stark contrast to Mr. Morrison's obfuscative behavior during litigation & settlement negotiation, he provided a sussinct, same day response: "OK".
Why was it so hard before?
Edwards: Perpetuating The Healthcare Illusion
He who does not need healthcare insurance has now "unveiled" his plan for the rest of us. John Edwards is proposing a patchwork system of government programs, private insurance, tax credits and insurance pools. The plan relies heavily upon the government & "non-profits" . . . expanding upon or creating more glorified "entitlement programs".
On a thread last week, Guarino pointed out, "It is very necessary, with any of these proposals, to consider the many ways in which the programs will spiral out of control beyond initial projections, which tends to happen with entitlement programs. And then there is the small matter of corruption and lack of accountability in the government programs we already have.
Newsweek actually had a good Robert Samuelson commentary this week . . . musing over all of the "revolutionary" proposals coming out of the woodwork: . . . the Bush proposal does have one huge virtue: it exposes health-care costs to the broad public . . . by contrast, some other proposals disguise their costs. Schwarzenegger's plan shifts costs to the federal government, doctors and hospitals. It's clever, but it perpetuates the illusion that health care is cheap—or even free.
On a thread last week, Guarino pointed out, "It is very necessary, with any of these proposals, to consider the many ways in which the programs will spiral out of control beyond initial projections, which tends to happen with entitlement programs. And then there is the small matter of corruption and lack of accountability in the government programs we already have.
Newsweek actually had a good Robert Samuelson commentary this week . . . musing over all of the "revolutionary" proposals coming out of the woodwork: . . . the Bush proposal does have one huge virtue: it exposes health-care costs to the broad public . . . by contrast, some other proposals disguise their costs. Schwarzenegger's plan shifts costs to the federal government, doctors and hospitals. It's clever, but it perpetuates the illusion that health care is cheap—or even free.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Overbloggered John Edwards
More from Overlawyered on John Edwards' new "Chief Blogger", Amanda Marcotte.
From comments (Gregory) under the post that birthed this one: This man is expected to pick the next Vice President of the United States, the next Secretary of State, the rest of his cabinet, a person to fill any vacancy in the United States Supreme Court, and people to fill every vacancy in the remaining federal judiciary as well as other bureaucratic positions.
It can be fairly said that in this instance, Mr. Edwards "chose poorly."
From comments (Gregory) under the post that birthed this one: This man is expected to pick the next Vice President of the United States, the next Secretary of State, the rest of his cabinet, a person to fill any vacancy in the United States Supreme Court, and people to fill every vacancy in the remaining federal judiciary as well as other bureaucratic positions.
It can be fairly said that in this instance, Mr. Edwards "chose poorly."
Testimony Of Two Men: And A New Friend Across The Pond
Testimony Of Two Men is the title of an "ambitious" 1977 miniseries based on the Taylor Caldwell novel of the same name. It starred David Birney as Jonathan Ferrier, a gifted and idealistic young surgeon of the post-Civil War era who came home to practice medicine in the town where he grew up. He is falsely accused of a heinous crime (aborting his wife's unborn child . . . the child of another man . . . the abortion resulting in her death from septicemia). He is acquited of the crime at trial, but the townspeople still revile him. After years of shame/torment he is ultimately exonerated (through an elaborate set of back-room deals worthy of today's medical boards) and learns to forgive. The last scene in the book places him in a confessional after years of rejecting the Church . . . and his redemption is complete.
At the time, the dark and gorgeous David Birney would have been quite enough to keep teenaged me glued to the TV set, but the drama also featured several other very dreamy and pseudo-dreamy fellows . . . Randolph Mantooth (of Emergency! fame), Barry Brown (a gifted, albeit tormented actor who commited suicide shortly after completing the series), John de Lancie ("Q" of Star Trek), Steve Forrest and William Shatner (in a rare, uncharacteristically unhamish performance).
As good as the miniseries was, the novel was an amazing bit of writing . . . part romance novel . . . part morality play . . . part historical drama . . . part philosophy lesson.
Taylor Caldwell knew well what went on behind the closed doors of medicine. And she had small towns down.
There is an excerpt from the novel that had a profound effect on me . . . even in high school. I will share it here. The exchange is a conversation between Jonathan (as a boy) and his Mother, Marjorie . . . after, on a class field trip, he witnesses the deaths of several children in a freakish landslide. While Jonathan and his classmates (who helped dig the children out of the bloodly muck and mud) watched, parents of the children who survived gleefully paraded their living children before the parents of those who died.
"What's the matter with people? asked Jonathan, after a long silence. "What the hell is the matter with people?"
(Marjorie replies), "Most people, you see are involved with no one but themselves. It is a kind of wickedness . . . . but it is understandably human."
"And forgivable?" Jon's face had become taut and derisive. "No," she said. "Never forgivable. Never to be condoned. Never to be smoothed over and explained away in mawkish words. We must look at our fellows starkly, accepting them for the appalling creatures they are . . . we have no choice. We few who see without syrup in our eyes and without tremulous throbs in our hearts and without being liars."
Jonathan sighed, and to Marjorie it was the most sorrowful sound. The boy said, "Horace Mann proclaims that children can be taught goodness and pity and mercy and kindness."
"The poor man was really a dangerous fool," said Marjorie. I haven't any hope for mankind. I haven't had any since I was fourteen. You see, my Father was a very intelligent man and refused to lie to me, and he told me all he knew about humanity." (Jon asked) "Was it painful for you?" (Marjorie replies) "Very. I never got over it. You can never get over a mortal wound you know. You have to live with it, and there, I'm afraid I have made a contradiction in terms. But there it is. You have to live with your knowledge all of the days of your life. That does NOT exempt you from feeling pity, though, even for the creature that is man. His very terribleness should inspire compassion." "From whom?" (Jon asked). "From God, perhaps. From the few of us who refuse to accept sweet lies and fantasies. We very few."
Then Jonathan said the most pathetic thing he had ever said in his young life, and the most pathetic thing he would ever say: "How can a person go on living, knowing what people are?"
Majorie sighed with sadness and tried to smile. "What else can we do? You cannot escape from the formidable truth except through drink, perhaps, or in moments of rare personal happiness, or in music or poetry, or in the sights of nature . . . far from men. I've read some of your books concerning the saints of the Church. Many of them 'fled the world' it is written, in order that they might contemplate God more clearly and live lives of chastity and austerity. I suspect those poor men just could not stand their fellowmen any longer. They had to leave them and the world they made if they were to save their souls and their sanity."
Jonathan stood up. But he looked long and hard at the floor between his feet.
"There's another thing, dear," said Marjorie aching for him and his introduction to reality. "We few who know what men are must rarely let others know that we know. They have a way of going for . . . for . . . "
"The jugular," said Jonathan. "Yes. I can see that. They will try to kill you, one way or another, if they know you've caught on to them and know all about them."
"Yes. That is the unpardonable sin you can commit against your brother: Letting him know that you know exactly what he is. He'll hate you forever."
There are a number of passages like that thoughout this marvelous book. A priest-to-be wrestles with a crisis of faith . . . prompted by profound disappointment in his Father. And a doctor-friend of Jonathan's takes great delight in flustering his prim and proper and bigoted Mother (referencing the destruction civilization wrecks upon nature) in what I think is (alas) the second truest statment in the book (see the preceding excerpt in red for what comes in first):
"I believe the Bible mentions that only man is corrupt, full of sin, vicious, murdering for murder's sake, and practically irredeemable. Not even the serpent or the tiger . . . and not even the mosquito or housefly . . . is condemned in such vicious language. 'Man is wicked from his birth and evil from his youth.' I don't recall that being said about tadpoles or the lowly louse, or bedbug. Just about men."
And we're only saved by the grace of a Higher Power. I guess we've just established that I think Anne Frank was tragically mistaken about the innate goodness of people.
Anyway, while I was surfing YouTube for George Jones clips to use on this post, I came across two clips from the miniseries. I was dumbstruck, because I have been looking for a video or DVD of this miniseries for years. Universal Studios has simply not put this one out. I contacted the person who put the clip up (she lives in Scotland) and asked her how she got it.
To make a long story short, she is sending me a copy of her copy of the entire mini-series, for simply the cost of postage (i.e. no profit to be made) . . . simply because I am a fan. It's an incredibly generous gesture and I would have gladly paid much more. But all she asked for in return was that if I enjoyed the series to please sign the guestbook at the website she runs dedicated to Barry Brown (the late actor who co-starred in the series and died by his own hand).
Happily, there appear to be exceptions to my theory on Anne Frank's theory on the innate goodness of man&womankind. Or maybe not. I still think it takes at least a little grace from a Higher Power.
But here's the reason for this post. My new friend across the pond picked a particularly interesting clip from the miniseries to put up. It's a scene where Jonathan is called before his hospital board because he has filed a complaint against another surgeon. The hosptial brass (including one of his medical mentors) completely whitewashes the complaint.
I watched the clip transfixed.
I dedicate the scene and this post to my former colleagues and mentors at Randolph Hospital in my hometown of Asheboro, North Carolina . . . as well as the North Carolina Medical Board that knows this kind of garbage goes on every day, but has let me swing for nine years doing the right thing.
Just consider me "at war with a world I was taught to heal".
At the time, the dark and gorgeous David Birney would have been quite enough to keep teenaged me glued to the TV set, but the drama also featured several other very dreamy and pseudo-dreamy fellows . . . Randolph Mantooth (of Emergency! fame), Barry Brown (a gifted, albeit tormented actor who commited suicide shortly after completing the series), John de Lancie ("Q" of Star Trek), Steve Forrest and William Shatner (in a rare, uncharacteristically unhamish performance).
As good as the miniseries was, the novel was an amazing bit of writing . . . part romance novel . . . part morality play . . . part historical drama . . . part philosophy lesson.
Taylor Caldwell knew well what went on behind the closed doors of medicine. And she had small towns down.
There is an excerpt from the novel that had a profound effect on me . . . even in high school. I will share it here. The exchange is a conversation between Jonathan (as a boy) and his Mother, Marjorie . . . after, on a class field trip, he witnesses the deaths of several children in a freakish landslide. While Jonathan and his classmates (who helped dig the children out of the bloodly muck and mud) watched, parents of the children who survived gleefully paraded their living children before the parents of those who died.
"What's the matter with people? asked Jonathan, after a long silence. "What the hell is the matter with people?"
(Marjorie replies), "Most people, you see are involved with no one but themselves. It is a kind of wickedness . . . . but it is understandably human."
"And forgivable?" Jon's face had become taut and derisive. "No," she said. "Never forgivable. Never to be condoned. Never to be smoothed over and explained away in mawkish words. We must look at our fellows starkly, accepting them for the appalling creatures they are . . . we have no choice. We few who see without syrup in our eyes and without tremulous throbs in our hearts and without being liars."
Jonathan sighed, and to Marjorie it was the most sorrowful sound. The boy said, "Horace Mann proclaims that children can be taught goodness and pity and mercy and kindness."
"The poor man was really a dangerous fool," said Marjorie. I haven't any hope for mankind. I haven't had any since I was fourteen. You see, my Father was a very intelligent man and refused to lie to me, and he told me all he knew about humanity." (Jon asked) "Was it painful for you?" (Marjorie replies) "Very. I never got over it. You can never get over a mortal wound you know. You have to live with it, and there, I'm afraid I have made a contradiction in terms. But there it is. You have to live with your knowledge all of the days of your life. That does NOT exempt you from feeling pity, though, even for the creature that is man. His very terribleness should inspire compassion." "From whom?" (Jon asked). "From God, perhaps. From the few of us who refuse to accept sweet lies and fantasies. We very few."
Then Jonathan said the most pathetic thing he had ever said in his young life, and the most pathetic thing he would ever say: "How can a person go on living, knowing what people are?"
Majorie sighed with sadness and tried to smile. "What else can we do? You cannot escape from the formidable truth except through drink, perhaps, or in moments of rare personal happiness, or in music or poetry, or in the sights of nature . . . far from men. I've read some of your books concerning the saints of the Church. Many of them 'fled the world' it is written, in order that they might contemplate God more clearly and live lives of chastity and austerity. I suspect those poor men just could not stand their fellowmen any longer. They had to leave them and the world they made if they were to save their souls and their sanity."
Jonathan stood up. But he looked long and hard at the floor between his feet.
"There's another thing, dear," said Marjorie aching for him and his introduction to reality. "We few who know what men are must rarely let others know that we know. They have a way of going for . . . for . . . "
"The jugular," said Jonathan. "Yes. I can see that. They will try to kill you, one way or another, if they know you've caught on to them and know all about them."
"Yes. That is the unpardonable sin you can commit against your brother: Letting him know that you know exactly what he is. He'll hate you forever."
There are a number of passages like that thoughout this marvelous book. A priest-to-be wrestles with a crisis of faith . . . prompted by profound disappointment in his Father. And a doctor-friend of Jonathan's takes great delight in flustering his prim and proper and bigoted Mother (referencing the destruction civilization wrecks upon nature) in what I think is (alas) the second truest statment in the book (see the preceding excerpt in red for what comes in first):
"I believe the Bible mentions that only man is corrupt, full of sin, vicious, murdering for murder's sake, and practically irredeemable. Not even the serpent or the tiger . . . and not even the mosquito or housefly . . . is condemned in such vicious language. 'Man is wicked from his birth and evil from his youth.' I don't recall that being said about tadpoles or the lowly louse, or bedbug. Just about men."
And we're only saved by the grace of a Higher Power. I guess we've just established that I think Anne Frank was tragically mistaken about the innate goodness of people.
Anyway, while I was surfing YouTube for George Jones clips to use on this post, I came across two clips from the miniseries. I was dumbstruck, because I have been looking for a video or DVD of this miniseries for years. Universal Studios has simply not put this one out. I contacted the person who put the clip up (she lives in Scotland) and asked her how she got it.
To make a long story short, she is sending me a copy of her copy of the entire mini-series, for simply the cost of postage (i.e. no profit to be made) . . . simply because I am a fan. It's an incredibly generous gesture and I would have gladly paid much more. But all she asked for in return was that if I enjoyed the series to please sign the guestbook at the website she runs dedicated to Barry Brown (the late actor who co-starred in the series and died by his own hand).
Happily, there appear to be exceptions to my theory on Anne Frank's theory on the innate goodness of man&womankind. Or maybe not. I still think it takes at least a little grace from a Higher Power.
But here's the reason for this post. My new friend across the pond picked a particularly interesting clip from the miniseries to put up. It's a scene where Jonathan is called before his hospital board because he has filed a complaint against another surgeon. The hosptial brass (including one of his medical mentors) completely whitewashes the complaint.
I watched the clip transfixed.
I dedicate the scene and this post to my former colleagues and mentors at Randolph Hospital in my hometown of Asheboro, North Carolina . . . as well as the North Carolina Medical Board that knows this kind of garbage goes on every day, but has let me swing for nine years doing the right thing.
Just consider me "at war with a world I was taught to heal".
Knowing Your Mind Before You Speak It
I lifted this from Brenda Fay Bowers' blog: "Implicit Association Tests" from Harvard's "Project Implicit". I generally hate these kinds of psych tests . . . and don't put a lot of stock in the results because the ones I've taken myself through the years have either (1) stated the obvious or (2) been totally off-base.
The teaser: "It is well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', and it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology."
As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating".
The teaser: "It is well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', and it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology."
As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating".
Someone Else In Asheboro Is Learning The Hard Way
This morning's Courier Tribune features a story on local businessman, Wally Thompson, of Fox Apparel. Wally made the mistake of contracting with the government to produce high-quality military apparel. The government, it seems, has renigged on the deal . . . to the considerable detriment of Wally and his company/employees. It appears the apparel is being made in China (in violation of Defense Department policy to buy American) . . . and may be of substandard quality.
Wally can't get any answers from the government he served. He's been bounced all over the place trying to get help.
I empathize with his plight . . . having been there and done that myself. But at least he's getting local newspaper coverage.
Wally can't get any answers from the government he served. He's been bounced all over the place trying to get help.
I empathize with his plight . . . having been there and done that myself. But at least he's getting local newspaper coverage.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Capital Beat Follows Capital Punishment
Excellent post at Mark Binker's Capital Beat regarding the Council of State meeting scheduled for Tuesday . . . where the "thorny" matter of a physician's role in executions will be discussed.
Mark includes the protocol the Council will be asked to approve or reject.
My thoughts are posted there.
Mark includes the protocol the Council will be asked to approve or reject.
My thoughts are posted there.
It Was Just A Matter Of Time: Easley Jumps On The "Pound Nifong" Bandwagon
As I have observed in a comment at Guraino's this week, NC Governor Mike Easley, the lamest of ducks and constitutionally all but done with North Carolina, has stars (fifty of them) in his eyes. He wants a place on the national stage.
How do you do that? Well first (as Joe pointed out), you suddenly get "progressive" and announce to the world that you want NCDHHS to "explore" options for a universal healthcare plan. Of course, as I pointed out at Joe's, the "disproportionate share" fiasco proved that NCDHHS could not explore its way out of an open shoebox.
Then (speaking to law students at New York University on "public service"), you jump on the "Get (Durham DA) Mike Nifong" bandwagon. Never mind that you're the nimnul who appointed him to the job in the first place. Never mind that, as a former prosecutor and state Attorney General, you kept your mouth shut about what he was doing when he was doing it.
Referencing the mess Nifong made of the Duke case, the Governor-also-known-as-Sleazley said, "It's chaotic. It looks bad for North Carolina. It looks bad for the DA's office. It looks bad for the criminal justice system in general."
Yep. But Governor, you're WAY TOO LATE to that station.
And I love the way the N&O article nails Easley on hypocrisy at its end . . . about his "support" for full disclosure of evidence in criminal cases.
How do you do that? Well first (as Joe pointed out), you suddenly get "progressive" and announce to the world that you want NCDHHS to "explore" options for a universal healthcare plan. Of course, as I pointed out at Joe's, the "disproportionate share" fiasco proved that NCDHHS could not explore its way out of an open shoebox.
Then (speaking to law students at New York University on "public service"), you jump on the "Get (Durham DA) Mike Nifong" bandwagon. Never mind that you're the nimnul who appointed him to the job in the first place. Never mind that, as a former prosecutor and state Attorney General, you kept your mouth shut about what he was doing when he was doing it.
Referencing the mess Nifong made of the Duke case, the Governor-also-known-as-Sleazley said, "It's chaotic. It looks bad for North Carolina. It looks bad for the DA's office. It looks bad for the criminal justice system in general."
Yep. But Governor, you're WAY TOO LATE to that station.
And I love the way the N&O article nails Easley on hypocrisy at its end . . . about his "support" for full disclosure of evidence in criminal cases.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Home Now
An e-mail from a friend sent me here. Whatever your position on the war, it breaks the heart.
John Edwards: Overbloggered
As Ed Cone noted this morning, the Raleigh N&O had an article on "Bloggers Changing Politics".
I'll say. Overlawyered invites us all to meet John Edwards' blogger-in-chief.
Follow the links for boatloads of entertainment. I daresay it's a bad day at the compound.
I'll say. Overlawyered invites us all to meet John Edwards' blogger-in-chief.
Follow the links for boatloads of entertainment. I daresay it's a bad day at the compound.
Every Single I Love You
Two years ago today . . . in the wee hours of the morning . . . on the seventh anniversary of the day Randolph Medical Associates fired me . . . my Father died unexpectedly in his sleep, just six days short of his 70th birthday. His Father had died at 69. I know Dad had a strong sense that his number would be up at the same age, and he lived his life accordingly.
Bad memories all jumble together: Packing up an office . . . loading your things onto the back of your Father's pick-up truck . . . as people who don't speak (and cannot look you in the eye) watch. Taking a phone call that kicks you in the stomach. Racing down a foggy mountain from Boone to get home . . . knowing it was already too late.
Needless to say, February 2 is always a bad day.
"He Stopped Loving Her Today" by George Jones (the world's greatest country singer) is, quite simply, the world's greatest country song. Every time I hear it, I tear up. This post was actually born on Wednesday, when, while at Borders, I found a new "tribute" album to Jones ("God's Country) which includes an admirable Sammy Kershaw cover of the song.
Since Pops died, whenever I hear "The Possum" mournfully wail out that song, I think of my parents. My Pops was far from the perfect husband . . . as I have alluded before, he was a man who was drawn to the rails and the road . . . he loved to "play train" (a vice that affected every aspect of his life) . . . and he often behaved like a petulant little boy who did not want to grow up.
Where my sainted Mother was concerned, he took much for granted. It made for a bumpy marital ride. But unlike the protagonists of The Possum's sad story, they both decided, "We're Gonna Hold On".
Daddy loved Mama deeply in his way. I know it. I saw it. I felt it. He would have been absolutely lost without her and he was smart enough to know it.
So I think the song ultimately gets it wrong. You can get all dressed up to go away . . . but it doesn't mean you're "over her for good".
I love you Daddy. Did you know it snowed this week? You used to love bad weather.
I miss you something awful.
Mama does too.
Bad memories all jumble together: Packing up an office . . . loading your things onto the back of your Father's pick-up truck . . . as people who don't speak (and cannot look you in the eye) watch. Taking a phone call that kicks you in the stomach. Racing down a foggy mountain from Boone to get home . . . knowing it was already too late.
Needless to say, February 2 is always a bad day.
"He Stopped Loving Her Today" by George Jones (the world's greatest country singer) is, quite simply, the world's greatest country song. Every time I hear it, I tear up. This post was actually born on Wednesday, when, while at Borders, I found a new "tribute" album to Jones ("God's Country) which includes an admirable Sammy Kershaw cover of the song.
Since Pops died, whenever I hear "The Possum" mournfully wail out that song, I think of my parents. My Pops was far from the perfect husband . . . as I have alluded before, he was a man who was drawn to the rails and the road . . . he loved to "play train" (a vice that affected every aspect of his life) . . . and he often behaved like a petulant little boy who did not want to grow up.
Where my sainted Mother was concerned, he took much for granted. It made for a bumpy marital ride. But unlike the protagonists of The Possum's sad story, they both decided, "We're Gonna Hold On".
Daddy loved Mama deeply in his way. I know it. I saw it. I felt it. He would have been absolutely lost without her and he was smart enough to know it.
So I think the song ultimately gets it wrong. You can get all dressed up to go away . . . but it doesn't mean you're "over her for good".
I love you Daddy. Did you know it snowed this week? You used to love bad weather.
I miss you something awful.
Mama does too.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Velveteen Rabbit Of Pediatrics.
Recently, I have been following the musings of "Dr. Scott" on"Just Practicing". He is a newbie Pediatrician-blogger (we're also known as "fleas") from the Mississippi Gulf Coast who has been putting up some very good stuff on his Katrina experience.
Today, in a post entitled "The Secret Lives of Pediatricians", he addressed the first big decision a doctor-blogger has to make . . . to blog under your own name or not? In my opinion, those who don't use their own names have a great deal more freedom to speak their mind . . . and, because they don't have to worry about offending anybody, can converse more openly on a wider variety of topics.
I envy them that freedom. Because believe me, as "blunt" as I've been on this blog . . . particularly about the medical and legal institutions (on both the state and federal levels) that I believe have sold out an entire generation of young physicians . . . I could be MUCH blunter.
From "Dr. Scott": Some medical bloggers, such as Flea or Dr. Dork, prefer to stay secretive. Their nom de plumes write passionate about controversial issues, or reveal much about the men behind the facade. Others, such as Dr. Bryan Vartabedian at Parenting Solved, proudly post as their professional personae (yes, much like Dork, I like alliteration), preferring to speak with a calm, informative voice to the layperson. And some, such as Dr. Mary Johnson at Dr. J's HouseCalls, disregard these rules entirely, with blogs so personal and pointed they simply wouldn't work anonymously.
I have my own category. My blog "works". They like me? They really like me?
I posted a response in his comments section. I'd like to share it here:
Wow. I'm honored to lead a category. I would like to thank the Academy . . .
I posted my thoughts & reasonings on this subject not long ago so I won't reiterate it all here. I'm fairly certain I'm unique in the doctor-blogosphere in that I'm in it to extract "justice" from a corrupt legal system (as current headlines demonstrate, we in NC have corner on the market) that allowed me to be pounded into the ground for doing the right thing. It's unacceptable.
I suppose that my primary motivation for "going bare" into the ether is that I am so disgusted with the profession that I am thisclose to leaving it.
That's a real shame because I'm very, very good at what I do, and at one point I lived and breathed for Pediatrics.
If my experience . . . and whatever may evolve from it . . . puts some heat under some seats . . . wakes people up . . . and changes the environment for the better . . . if it prevents even one Ped from getting to the point that they would leave, then I've accomplished something for the kids:)
I realize I push the envelope sometimes . . . especially in some of my more cantankerous exchanges with local "citizen journalist" bloggers (we have a whole subculture in the Greensboro NC area). I fret about it. But I am not perfect, the world is not a wholesome place, and I've always felt that the best example for a child was to first and foremost be honest.
The irony is that when I write a book (and tell the stories I can't when I blog), I will probably change the names (including my own) to protect the guilty.
There's one more thing I forgot to say. While practicing in Asheboro and elsewhere afterwards, I've had many, many parents tell me that they appreciated my forthright manner . . . and inclination to "tell it like it is". They appreciated the honesty.
They crave it. Of course, it's what got me into trouble at Randolph Hospital. Honesty was not the best policy if I wanted to keep my job. (Of course, later on, honesty under Oath was not the policy Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin practiced in litigation).
One Mother told me that I was "The Velveteen Rabbit" of Pediatrics.
I was "real";-)
Today, in a post entitled "The Secret Lives of Pediatricians", he addressed the first big decision a doctor-blogger has to make . . . to blog under your own name or not? In my opinion, those who don't use their own names have a great deal more freedom to speak their mind . . . and, because they don't have to worry about offending anybody, can converse more openly on a wider variety of topics.
I envy them that freedom. Because believe me, as "blunt" as I've been on this blog . . . particularly about the medical and legal institutions (on both the state and federal levels) that I believe have sold out an entire generation of young physicians . . . I could be MUCH blunter.
From "Dr. Scott": Some medical bloggers, such as Flea or Dr. Dork, prefer to stay secretive. Their nom de plumes write passionate about controversial issues, or reveal much about the men behind the facade. Others, such as Dr. Bryan Vartabedian at Parenting Solved, proudly post as their professional personae (yes, much like Dork, I like alliteration), preferring to speak with a calm, informative voice to the layperson. And some, such as Dr. Mary Johnson at Dr. J's HouseCalls, disregard these rules entirely, with blogs so personal and pointed they simply wouldn't work anonymously.
I have my own category. My blog "works". They like me? They really like me?
I posted a response in his comments section. I'd like to share it here:
Wow. I'm honored to lead a category. I would like to thank the Academy . . .
I posted my thoughts & reasonings on this subject not long ago so I won't reiterate it all here. I'm fairly certain I'm unique in the doctor-blogosphere in that I'm in it to extract "justice" from a corrupt legal system (as current headlines demonstrate, we in NC have corner on the market) that allowed me to be pounded into the ground for doing the right thing. It's unacceptable.
I suppose that my primary motivation for "going bare" into the ether is that I am so disgusted with the profession that I am thisclose to leaving it.
That's a real shame because I'm very, very good at what I do, and at one point I lived and breathed for Pediatrics.
If my experience . . . and whatever may evolve from it . . . puts some heat under some seats . . . wakes people up . . . and changes the environment for the better . . . if it prevents even one Ped from getting to the point that they would leave, then I've accomplished something for the kids:)
I realize I push the envelope sometimes . . . especially in some of my more cantankerous exchanges with local "citizen journalist" bloggers (we have a whole subculture in the Greensboro NC area). I fret about it. But I am not perfect, the world is not a wholesome place, and I've always felt that the best example for a child was to first and foremost be honest.
The irony is that when I write a book (and tell the stories I can't when I blog), I will probably change the names (including my own) to protect the guilty.
There's one more thing I forgot to say. While practicing in Asheboro and elsewhere afterwards, I've had many, many parents tell me that they appreciated my forthright manner . . . and inclination to "tell it like it is". They appreciated the honesty.
They crave it. Of course, it's what got me into trouble at Randolph Hospital. Honesty was not the best policy if I wanted to keep my job. (Of course, later on, honesty under Oath was not the policy Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin practiced in litigation).
One Mother told me that I was "The Velveteen Rabbit" of Pediatrics.
I was "real";-)
Does He Get Paid Too Much?
It's time to work a theme that sometimes pops up on Bubba's blog: executive salaries. From Kevin, M.D., the CEO of a large non-profit hospital in Boston (who makes a million dollars a year running a billion-dollar operation) justifies his salary. He asks the question, "Do I get paid too much?"
He says, "CEOs do not set their own salaries. Each hospital has a public board of trustees who determine the compensation for their chief executives and who also hold that CEO accountable for running the organization."
Yes, I know. The Board of Directors of Randolph Hospital fairly obviously thinks that it's just fine for their executives to LIE REPEATEDLY in court proceedings (litigation instigated by their arrogance, greed, malice and negligence) . . . if it saves the hospital money at settlement. The end justifies the means.
What's more, these lying executives get raises for stomping a young doctor into the ground. That's this particular Board's idea of "accountability". Small town values and all that.
So far, the state of North Carolina agrees. Perjury, contempt and fraud (AFTER threatening - then firing a physician for doing her job the way it's supposed to be done) is no big deal.
I digress. The Boston CEO couldn't resist comparing himself to a professional athlete, " . . . the average tenure of a hospital CEO is under six years."
Oh puhlease. And not in Asheboro.
Although some comments were lauditory for this CEO's "transparency", others brought him down to earth.
A pediatric subspecialist conceded the economic value of the CEO's contributions, yet pondered his actual worth to society: "I am a third-year fellow in a pediatric subspecialty program. I'm nearly 40 years old and I have two doctoral degrees. My salary is about $60,000 per year, for I work far more than 60 hours a week. This is not a gripe or complaint in any way - just the facts . . . while I can't sink a free-throw 90% of the time, I can perform a perfect lumbar puncture or bone marrow biopsy 99% of the time. However, only a handful of people are willing to pay for my lumbar puncture skills, while tens of thousands are willing to pay large sums to watch someone throw a perfect spiral pass . . . While I'd love to earn a million dollars a year, I know that I don't need that much to survive. I've learned to live well with a lot less."
Another commenter said, "It is interesting how framing a question changes it so radically. You have incredible responsibilities, and are in a position that most people can't maintain for the long term. For this you deserve to be well compensated, and your income seems fair.However framed another way it seems less fair. For instance, you could be paid only $0.5 mil (certainly a livable salary) with the other $0.5 mil used to pay for additional 10 or so nurses on the floor. How many more errors could 10 additional nurses help avoid? How many more patients could have their suffering treated faster and better? How much stress could 10 extra nurses alleviate from current nursing staff, making them happier, less distracted and more effective?Does that $500,000 deliver more value to the hospital and its patients being paid to you, or to 10 additional nurses, or to something else? I think is the question to ask, not how your salary compares relative to others."
Another doctor offered the following: "I am a physician practicing in a large academic hospital. Frankly, I believe the compensations for CEOs, whether for non-profits or profits, etc., are as high as they are primarily because BOD members, CEOs, CFOs and the like are all essentially members of the same high-net worth club and simply see themselves in a different light than the rest of the workers in an organization. They have the capacity to give themselves nice compensation packages, so why not? BOD members are probably considering future reciprocation, or are reciprocating for favors bestowed on them by others in a similar situation in the past. It's the fox guarding the chicken coop essentially. I don't blame such persons for taking such actions, anybody would. Kudos on the dedication to the job and the extremely hard work to get into that position, btw. However, it's really hard to believe that anyone who is responsible for the terrible state that our hospitals and healthcare system are in "deserves" such pay. The self-congratulatory brochures and reports that are generated in the executive suite attempt to put a nice flashy veneer on the massive, atrocious, and pervasive problems, but anyone working in the trenches knows how poorly hospitals are run, how disorganized things are, and how many errors occur over and over and over, etc. etc. etc. I spend more than half my clinical time apologizing to patients for one hospital or system-generated problem or another. Btw, us doctors don't do so great as a group either; we are just as much to blame for how bad things are. Perhaps we need to spend more money (by way of CEO salaries) to attract the talent to fix these problems, but, call me cynical, my gut feeling is that many CEOs are careerists, who take a job to post a few favorable metrics, massaging some data if they have to, and building up their case for the next big job with even more eye-popping compensation figures."
An anonymous poster nailed it: "(What) bothers me about high executive salaries in nonprofit healthcare is that these organizations tend to portray themselves to the public and patients as selfless charities. This is a constant theme in the advertising done by religously-affiliated hospitals.But then when it comes to compensation for executives, they suddenly become complex billion-dollar organizations that need to act like for-profits to recruit competent managers. That mentality can seep across the organization and the mission starts to fall down the list of priorities. It becomes much easier to focus on opening a unit that provides concierge care to wealthy patients instead of pushing to provide more charity care. It gets easier to leave nursing aides and housekeepers without affordable health insurance for their own families."
But the best comment, I thought, was this one: "Relative to other CEOs, professional athletes, entertainers and the like, you are not paid nearly enough. Relative to the doctors, nurses, janitors and technicians who do the work of your fine organization, you are paid too much."
So. My answer (to Bob and Steve and the fellow in Boston) is YES, you are paid too much for what you do. In Bob and Steve's case, what they did was malicious and vindictive . . . ultimately illegal . . . and very, Very, VERY destructive. What they deserve is a pink slip.
I must thank Kevin for reminding me to e-mail Bob Morrison and ask to be copied on a new batch of tax returns. The Asheboro Pediatrics website needs an update of its salaries page.
These days, when I ask for the returns, I get a quick response . . . and a lot less obfuscation.
After all, the information is public record.
No matter what "the twins" said under Oath.
He says, "CEOs do not set their own salaries. Each hospital has a public board of trustees who determine the compensation for their chief executives and who also hold that CEO accountable for running the organization."
Yes, I know. The Board of Directors of Randolph Hospital fairly obviously thinks that it's just fine for their executives to LIE REPEATEDLY in court proceedings (litigation instigated by their arrogance, greed, malice and negligence) . . . if it saves the hospital money at settlement. The end justifies the means.
What's more, these lying executives get raises for stomping a young doctor into the ground. That's this particular Board's idea of "accountability". Small town values and all that.
So far, the state of North Carolina agrees. Perjury, contempt and fraud (AFTER threatening - then firing a physician for doing her job the way it's supposed to be done) is no big deal.
I digress. The Boston CEO couldn't resist comparing himself to a professional athlete, " . . . the average tenure of a hospital CEO is under six years."
Oh puhlease. And not in Asheboro.
Although some comments were lauditory for this CEO's "transparency", others brought him down to earth.
A pediatric subspecialist conceded the economic value of the CEO's contributions, yet pondered his actual worth to society: "I am a third-year fellow in a pediatric subspecialty program. I'm nearly 40 years old and I have two doctoral degrees. My salary is about $60,000 per year, for I work far more than 60 hours a week. This is not a gripe or complaint in any way - just the facts . . . while I can't sink a free-throw 90% of the time, I can perform a perfect lumbar puncture or bone marrow biopsy 99% of the time. However, only a handful of people are willing to pay for my lumbar puncture skills, while tens of thousands are willing to pay large sums to watch someone throw a perfect spiral pass . . . While I'd love to earn a million dollars a year, I know that I don't need that much to survive. I've learned to live well with a lot less."
Another commenter said, "It is interesting how framing a question changes it so radically. You have incredible responsibilities, and are in a position that most people can't maintain for the long term. For this you deserve to be well compensated, and your income seems fair.However framed another way it seems less fair. For instance, you could be paid only $0.5 mil (certainly a livable salary) with the other $0.5 mil used to pay for additional 10 or so nurses on the floor. How many more errors could 10 additional nurses help avoid? How many more patients could have their suffering treated faster and better? How much stress could 10 extra nurses alleviate from current nursing staff, making them happier, less distracted and more effective?Does that $500,000 deliver more value to the hospital and its patients being paid to you, or to 10 additional nurses, or to something else? I think is the question to ask, not how your salary compares relative to others."
Another doctor offered the following: "I am a physician practicing in a large academic hospital. Frankly, I believe the compensations for CEOs, whether for non-profits or profits, etc., are as high as they are primarily because BOD members, CEOs, CFOs and the like are all essentially members of the same high-net worth club and simply see themselves in a different light than the rest of the workers in an organization. They have the capacity to give themselves nice compensation packages, so why not? BOD members are probably considering future reciprocation, or are reciprocating for favors bestowed on them by others in a similar situation in the past. It's the fox guarding the chicken coop essentially. I don't blame such persons for taking such actions, anybody would. Kudos on the dedication to the job and the extremely hard work to get into that position, btw. However, it's really hard to believe that anyone who is responsible for the terrible state that our hospitals and healthcare system are in "deserves" such pay. The self-congratulatory brochures and reports that are generated in the executive suite attempt to put a nice flashy veneer on the massive, atrocious, and pervasive problems, but anyone working in the trenches knows how poorly hospitals are run, how disorganized things are, and how many errors occur over and over and over, etc. etc. etc. I spend more than half my clinical time apologizing to patients for one hospital or system-generated problem or another. Btw, us doctors don't do so great as a group either; we are just as much to blame for how bad things are. Perhaps we need to spend more money (by way of CEO salaries) to attract the talent to fix these problems, but, call me cynical, my gut feeling is that many CEOs are careerists, who take a job to post a few favorable metrics, massaging some data if they have to, and building up their case for the next big job with even more eye-popping compensation figures."
An anonymous poster nailed it: "(What) bothers me about high executive salaries in nonprofit healthcare is that these organizations tend to portray themselves to the public and patients as selfless charities. This is a constant theme in the advertising done by religously-affiliated hospitals.But then when it comes to compensation for executives, they suddenly become complex billion-dollar organizations that need to act like for-profits to recruit competent managers. That mentality can seep across the organization and the mission starts to fall down the list of priorities. It becomes much easier to focus on opening a unit that provides concierge care to wealthy patients instead of pushing to provide more charity care. It gets easier to leave nursing aides and housekeepers without affordable health insurance for their own families."
But the best comment, I thought, was this one: "Relative to other CEOs, professional athletes, entertainers and the like, you are not paid nearly enough. Relative to the doctors, nurses, janitors and technicians who do the work of your fine organization, you are paid too much."
So. My answer (to Bob and Steve and the fellow in Boston) is YES, you are paid too much for what you do. In Bob and Steve's case, what they did was malicious and vindictive . . . ultimately illegal . . . and very, Very, VERY destructive. What they deserve is a pink slip.
I must thank Kevin for reminding me to e-mail Bob Morrison and ask to be copied on a new batch of tax returns. The Asheboro Pediatrics website needs an update of its salaries page.
These days, when I ask for the returns, I get a quick response . . . and a lot less obfuscation.
After all, the information is public record.
No matter what "the twins" said under Oath.
To Bubba With Love
A friend sent me an e-mail this morning:
A group of North Carolina friends went deer hunting . . . pairing off in twos for the day.
That night, one of the hunters returned alone . . . staggering under the weight of an eight-point buck.
"Where's Bubba?", the others asked.
"Bubba had a stroke of some kind. He's a couple of miles back up the trail," the successful hunter replied.
"You left Bubba laying out there and carried the deer back?", his companions inquired.
"A tough call," nodded the hunter. "But I figured no one is going to steal Bubba."
They would not dare;-)
A group of North Carolina friends went deer hunting . . . pairing off in twos for the day.
That night, one of the hunters returned alone . . . staggering under the weight of an eight-point buck.
"Where's Bubba?", the others asked.
"Bubba had a stroke of some kind. He's a couple of miles back up the trail," the successful hunter replied.
"You left Bubba laying out there and carried the deer back?", his companions inquired.
"A tough call," nodded the hunter. "But I figured no one is going to steal Bubba."
They would not dare;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
