Congrats to me and my blog

I just found out that this Medical Ethics Blog has been put on a list of the Top 25 Healthcare Policy Blogs in the world.

The list is compiled by Medicine 3.0, a blog on a site dedicated to helping nursing students.

Here's what it says:

Are you concerned about health care policies and reform? You can learn more about the direction that health care policies are taking through the blogs listed below. We discovered writers who were doctors, attorneys, journalists and politicians who all lend their perspectives to the volatile and ethical issues surrounding health care reform.

The blogs are listed below in alphabetical order. This method assures our readers that we do not favor one blog over another. All blogs listed, however, are up-to-date and all information is provided by professionals in their fields. ...

Medical Ethics Blog: Stuart Laidlaw has covered faith and ethics for over a decade, and he applies these attributes to a blog that covers health and health policies.

I'm blushing.

Comments

[Sandy Naiman]

Congrats, Stuart.

You deserve this accolade.

Keep up the great posting!

All my best...
Sandy Naiman

[deana]

Hi Stuart,

Can you explain the mechanics of the judging? The sentence above:
"We discovered writers who were doctors, attorneys, journalists and politicians who all lend their perspectives to the volatile and ethical issues surrounding health care reform" sounds rather ominous.

Are these particular blogjudges looking through medical ethics blogs where only hallowed people submit things? Gee, I'd better get packing. You'd probably get first prize if I disappeared. I'm just a nobody with lots of experience in the field, as opposed to the FIELD...

[deana]

Thinking more about your accolade, arbitrarily bestowed by a self-interest group, I see a really disturbing trend. Because I can't say for sure, I must turn to corollary, or as sychiatrists call it now in the interests of mass management, "paranoia."

IMO, the bright idea has been hatched somewhere to discourage the view of the patient and the patient's family in the push to heave ethics to the sidelines, and portray this pesky issue as an impediment to medical wonders.

I am a frequent commentator on your blog and someone who very much would like the public to be told everything about everything medical before they succumb to medical help. Doctors are the leading killer of people more than plane crashes, car accidents and illness combined. People are getting murdered in hospitals.

My son, for one, was falsely imprisoned by staff at the Toronto Western Hospital because he looked like someone whose family might donate his organs if he were made to suddenly and inexplicably deteriorate. He had tumefactive MS, a condition which can be easily treated. Conversely, it can be made to worsen very quickly with malevolent medical will and doctors who have a mind to kill helpless people as trophies or on commission. There are a lot of race, cultural and financial incentive issues in Canadian hospitals.

So, my son was denied his usual treatment and subjected to horrendous pain and death. His family was only informed after he was given a lethal dose of morphine, made comatose, and couldn't squeal on the doctors. (He made the dreadful mistake of going to the hospital alone, and repeatedly tried to leave the hospital on realizing he was trapped but without success). Imagine what this must have felt like? He was intelligent, educated and aware.

His was a very ugly murder. The only comfort is that his family did not agree to donate his organs. He was killed on a guess, therefore. Legal action was taken, and a settlement reached. Criminal investigations are now underway.

So you have won an accolade because you have more professional people gracing your site than most other blogs? I guess these other blogs are filled with patients complaining about "things they don't understand..."

With this in mind, I am leaving your site as a protest against the move to muzzle or insult patient input. Please publish my letter of resignation from an otherwise positive experience.
I will abandon you to the comments of more desirable people then; those doctors, lawyers etc who say, "Nice post," and "Thank you for explaining this in lay terms..."

There is nothing more "lay" than me as an ordinary person, warning my peers what I have seen for myself especially since I have writing skills and courage. Oh, and actually I am NOT mentally ill or simply grief-stricken. This is what I always get. It's the fashion now.

So long Stuart. Sorry to go. I was very good about responding to your rhetorical style, wasn't I? Every great anchor needs a sidekick.

[deana]

Would you like the details on the criminal investigation into my son's false imprisonment at the Toronto Western Hospital? He was kept there against his will by virtue of "presumed consent" to donate his organs.

Presumed consent is the process whereby an incoming head-ill or injured patient is targeted for statistically likely donation when bad news is given his family.

The common definition of presumed consent (the once given out for public consumption) is that if a person hasn't as yet given his consent on a driver's license, he is presumed to have done so. This is not true. Presumed consent is race, religion and culture based. The patient's name also comes into the equation as well as his family's attitude and level of politeness and good manners.

If the patient looks and acts a certain way (usually as a white, educated Christian-type) his family will be deemed to wish to be heroes and appear fashionably correct and merciful through saying yes to donation. These people are known in the industry as YESPs.

As a result of the need to conceal this clandestine presumption, hospital staff caused my son to suffer incredible pain and degradation. What he (and others like him) went through far surpasses anything experienced by a Chinese prisoner. My son asked and tried to leave the premises but was held back and sedated in full knowledge of his desperate plight.

This issue is crucial to a journalist like yourself looking at medical ethics and the reduction of harm. My son was not a donor but suffered and died as a result of the hospital's wait to "tastefully" ask and find out.

A presumed donor will be treated only insofar as his organs need to be optimal for transplant. The treatment to prepare organs conflicts with the treatment to save his life. If he is presumed to be the kind of person (race, culture, education, religion) whose family will donate his organs, NO ONE in the hospital will save his life. He will usually be relegated to doctors and nurses who are of a different race to him so that any guilt or unwillingness to kill him will be mitigated. Doctors and nurses of his own race or culture will step aside from the cruel act.

Treatment to optimize the quality of harvestable organs is given prior to the family being told about deterioration or being asked if they wish to donate. The question "would you like to donate your son's organs?" comes only when much harm has been done by organ preparation procedures. Often these procedures are what has harmed the patient most.

The ethics of this issue are vital since it contains many serious criminal elements. This is the kind of issue that calls for an emergency evaluation of human values and a good one for this site. Please contact me at the email provided in the posting form. Thank you.

[Dave]

Congratulations. Your blog does keep up with the broad issues. I would also like to see more discussion of the day-to-day problems that arise during doctor-patient consultations:

1) Doctors should show less disrespect and should concentrate on communicating well, rather than assuming that their patients are stupid.

2) Doctors should try to further eliminate errors from medical records.

(Artificial sperm does not affect me, but medical arrogance certainly can ruin or complicate my life. And neither the Pope nor President Obama are likely to save me.)