Can We Make U.S. Medicine Safe For
Doctors and Patients?
Medical-Career Conference
in honor of Verner Stuart Waite M.D.,
FACS
Founder, The Semmelweis Society
Incorporated (in California in 1986)
1. HCQIA made medicine unsafe for doctor and patient because the absence of due process in peer review destroys doctors. Until
HCQIA is amended, students should study law instead of medicine. Click here to learn about HCQIA.
2. Patients have died and doctors who tried to prevent dangerous conditions in hospitals have been driven from practice without
help from the legislature or the judiciary despite protective laws. The Honorable Henry Waxman learned of this problem from
Dr. Shaller's case in 1991. He is a lawyer and is invited to comment. (Dr. Shaller was driven from practice after writing
a letter about veterans dying at a VA hospital because of an administrator's decision. Click.)
3. U.S. medicine is not safe for whistleblowers. Click here for video.
4. Doctors need protection from the hospital's lawyer, if they are to concentrate on safety for patients instead of safety
for profits. More generally, we are all patients who need to stop this attempt by administrators in Medicare hospitals to
use lawyers to control doctors. When someone is hurt, nobody shouts, "Is there a hospital administrator in the house?" Click
here for Charles Bond J.D.'s solution.
| Answering the Call |
|
| Click here. |
Congress and U.S. Medicine are under corporate lawyers' control.
When Congress withheld due process from medical peer review, Congress warned doctors to retire and advised American students
to study law before studying medicine.
To understand contracts in corporate medicine and undemocratic
by-laws in corporate hospitals, become a lawyer first. Then, if the contract and the by-laws permit, become a physician.
As we now know, when someone is hurt, it is the intent of Congress that in an emergency, someone shall, under penalty of law, provided
they have signed a liability-release and provided they shall have duly obtained written permission from the appropriate judicial
authority permitting them to act, in a duly-declared emergency provided 2/3 of the hospital board approves after its
next routinely scheduled monthly meeting with a quorum documented to be present in a recorded and vetted fo accuracy
confirmed by approval of the medical executive committee at its next quarterly meeting, and after confirmation that Medicare
will reimburse any expenses incurred by the treatment of the potential patient who may require emergency treatment after the
clinically essential delay for administrative confirmation of governmental financial and administrative involvement, duly
shout, "Is there a hospital attorney in the house?"
Embassy
Suites, Phoenix, Arizona
4415
E. Paradise Valley Road South; Tel. 602-765-5800
Free Registration: Contact Blake H. Moore M.D., FACS
| If you speak up for safety in a corporate |
|
| hospital, you may lose your career. Corporate control of medicine is unsafe for doctor and patient. |
Embassy Suites: Site of a
concurrent AAPS Annual Meeting
To Recognize Safe Places To
Practice Medicine, Earn A J.D. Before M.D.
If your career-choices
are White Coat, Black Robe, and Gray Flannel Suit, and with no guarantee of fair peer-review (due process), U.S. medicine
is a risky choice compared to law or business.
In 1986 Congress decided to deny doctors
due process of law, and favored a career in a the Black Robe or a Gray Flannel Suit over a career in a White Coat. If
you intend to be a physician under the corporate control of the Health Care Quaity Improvement Act
of 1986 (HCQIA), earn a J.D. or M.B.A. before medical school, rather than on the job after medical school.
In the absence of Medical Peer
Review With 'Clean Hands', our Land of the Free is not free, because, as in Animal Farm, "Some animals
are equal. Some animals are more equal than others." Congress, under corporate control, is not
likely to amend its law: Henry Waxman remains in office and the supreme court is unlikely to hear a challenge to
HCQIA which the corporations oppose.
"There is no federal statute that requires peer review committees to observe due process, which the Supreme Court has defined
as (1) giving written notice of the actions contemplated, (2) convening a hearing, (3) allowing both sides to present evidence
at the hearing, and (4) having an independent adjudicator. Prior to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA),
the effects of an adverse peer review finding were restricted to the hospital involved. Because the HCQIA mandates the reporting
of disciplinary actions of peer review committees to the National Practitioner Data Bank, such a report could harm a physician's
career throughout the nation." Scott Segall J.D., William Pearl M.D. Southern Medical Journal, March, 1993. Click here.
| Dr. Waite at American College of Surgeons' |
|
|
| Clinical Congress, ~1986. Click picture. |
"Six of my cases were brought up for review by a tissue committee
controlled by competitors. A nurse (sic), employed by the Saint Francis Hospital,
testified that I had the highest rate of complication. Why such testimony was admitted is a matter of some interest, in itself.
Liability for bearing false witness is an important related matter, in itself, and falls under the topic of immunity. Under
our gracious new laws, I would not be able to win $500,000 today were a nurse
again caught committing libel."
Verner S. Waite M.D., FACS
Click here for Mr. Bond's article: "The War Is On: Why Your Medical Staff Needs to Incorporate and Obtain Its Own Independent
Counsel."
When medical students, interns, residents, and
attendings encounter risks to patients in our hospitals, whom will Joint Commission Standard MS 1.20 protect, if not doctors
who protect patients? Why deny doctors due process and permit hospital administrators to label them "disruptive" for
citing safety concerns when safety-expenditures affect hospital profit? Medicare is public money. Medicare must
require due-process peer-review as a condition for hospital-reimbursement, if hospitals are to be safe. We need peer review
with 'Clean Hands.' If the Joint Commission will not protect public safety, it is time for a choice among hospital commissions
in the "Land of the Free." Choice is the American way. The guards cannot be trusted to guard themselves:
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Let's audit where the Medicare money for graduate medical education goes,
to be sure there has been no "creative financing." How much of that money reaches the interns and residents who work
80+ hours per week, who know what goes down in our hospitals? How publicly-accountable was the decision as to how it
should be spent? Who decided? Did the money pass through the local university for accreditation of the residency,
for example; if so, don't the rules of the AAUP apply? How much does the hospital administrator take, and for which
purpose? How much reaches the residents? Let's follow the money: How is it possible that a whistle-blower
at 2 federally-funded hospitals can lose his career for reporting patient endangerment?
Will the Last Physician in. America Please Turn Off the Lights: Why you should think twice before becoming a physician in
the Land of the Free.
| Verner S. Waite M.D., FACS 1928-2007. |
|
|
| Founder, The Semmelweis Society, Incorporated, in 1986 in California. |
For safety,
patients and doctors must choose hospitals with 'clean hands' in peer review:
"Let us raise a Standard to which the Wise and Honest can repair." George Washington
Mail this video/documentary to friends: Click here.
Peer-review without due process destroys doctors through summary suspension for 'disruption.'
Just as airline pilots should not be fined for reporting problems before the plane takes off, doctors should
not be attacked for reporting unsafe conditions in hospitals accepting Medicare funds from the federal government: Even
hospitals 'accredited' by the Joint Commission are unsafe for patients if
there is no due process in peer review. Specifically, Joint Commission paragraph MS 120 should specify that due
process shall apply in all matters in Accredited Hospitals: We are all patients at risk whenever reprisal gags doctors trying to correct
unsafe conditions in our hospitals. These are our hospitals: We pay taxes
to support them--that tax is Medicare. For public health, as taxpayers we must demand Medicare set peer review with "Clean
Hands" as a Condition of Reimbursement, and that the Joint Commission require due process in peer review before accrediting
a hospital to accept Medicare payments. Withheld-funds can be released from Escrow for delayed reimbursement
only after the errant hospital's lawyer has been persuaded to support due process. Lawyers, as officers of the Court, are required to follow professional
ethics. Like doctors, hospital lawyers take public money (they are in part paid with Medicare taxes), they are
in-part public servants, like doctors. Both professions are controlled by the State: They are licensed. Lawyers
have a fiduciary duty to Medicare taxpayers, just as they are themselves Medicare taxpayers. They also become patients.
When somebody is
hurt, nobody ever shouts, 'Is there a hospital-lawyer in the house?' We face a doctor-shortage, and American
students understand that when their elected government fails to protect physicians, they can practice
medicine outside the 'Land of the Free' in other English-speaking countries, they can become lawyers as well as doctors, or
they can leave medicine. As a patient, choose only hospitals with due process in all administrative matters.
You can reduce the chance of a further doctor-shortage by emailing the video-link above to your friends.
Medical bylaws are a contract and a law overriding them is unconstitutional. One day we will have sample By-Laws to use as
the basis for choosing which hospital-administrators patients and doctors can trust when they select a hospital.
| "Napoleonic Law In Medicine" |
|
| by Verner Stuart Waite M.D., FACS. Click picture. |
"Six of my cases were brought up for review by a tissue committee controlled
by competitors. A nurse (sic), employed by the Saint Francis Hospital,
testified that I had the highest rate of complication. Why such testimony was admitted is a matter of some interest, in itself.
Liability for bearing false witness is an important related matter, in itself, and falls under the topic of immunity. Under
our gracious new laws, I would not be able to win $500,000 today were a nurse again caught committing libel."
From the Southern Medical Journal (March,1993):
SHOULD DUE PROCESS BE PART OF HOSPITAL PEER
REVIEW?
Medical peer review is the process by which a committee of physicians investigates the medical care rendered
by a colleague in order to determine whether accepted standards of care have been met. The professional or personal conduct
of a physician may also be investigated. If the committee finds that the physician departed from accepted standards, it may
recommend limiting or terminating the physician's privileges at that institution. If the physician's privileges are restricted
for more than 30 days, federal law requires the peer review committee to report that fact to the National Practitioner Data
Bank (1).
There is no federal statute that requires peer review committees to observe due process, which the Supreme
Court has defined as (1) giving written notice of the actions contemplated, (2) convening a hearing, (3) allowing both sides
to present evidence at the hearing, and (4) having an independent adjudicator (2). Prior to the Health Care Quality Improvement
Act of 1986 (HCQIA) (3), the effects of an adverse peer review finding were restricted to the hospital involved. Because the
HCQIA mandates the reporting of disciplinary actions of peer review committees to the National Practitioner Data Bank, such
a report could harm a physician's career throughout the nation (1-4).
Medical peer review is usually based on the
screening of medical records, which places physicians with poor record-keeping skills at a disadvantage, and ignores the fact
that medical records are often a poor indicator of the quality of care (5). Additionally, there is no requirement that the
physician be given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and there is no requirement that members of the peer review committee
be unbiased. The HCQIA recommends that the physician should get notice of the allegations, time to prepare for a hearing,
a list of witnesses, the right to legal counsel, and an impartial fact finder. However, the act concludes "A professional
review body's failure to meet the conditions described in this subsection shall not, in itself, constitute failure to meet
the standards of this act)." This failure of the HCQIA to require due process calls into question the fundamental fairness
of the medical peer review system.
The reason that due process should be a part of any fact-finding endeavor was stated
by Justice Goldberg in SILVER v NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE:
'Experience teaches...that the affording of procedural safeguards,
which by their nature serve to illuminate the underlying facts, in itself often operates to prevent erroneous decisions on
the merits from occurring (7).'
The purpose of requiring due process is to ensure that the actions taken are not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. Where there is no due process, the system invites abuse (8).
Peer review in its current
form fails to protect an investigated physician from committee members having an economic or personal bias. Economic bias
occurs when a committee member has a financial interest in the outcome. If the challenged physician is a partner or associate,
any error that he may have made is likely to be considered to have been unavoidable. On the other hand, peer review has already
been used to force a competing physician out of practice (9). Such economic bias denies due process (10). The United States
Supreme Court struck down a decision from Ohio's municipal court system in which the judge was partly paid from the fines
he assessed. The Court found that the system gave an incentive to rule one way rather than the other (10).
Personal
bias is inevitable when coworkers judge each other. Some people are very likable, and others illuminate the room by their
absence.
Federal law prohibits a federal judge from hearing cases in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned
or in which he has a financial interest (11). The same standards should apply to member of a peer review committee. The potential
for abuse when these suggested procedures are not followed would indicate the need for mandatory due process.
Due
process, which is designed to limit these abuses, is not required by the Constitution of the United States unless there is
government action that affects a liberty or property right (12,13). The case of PAUL v DAVIS illustrates the legal meaning
of property rights as applied to employment (14). The police labeled the plaintiff as a shoplifter and advised local businesses
to watch him carefully. The plaintiff sued, claiming that the government was injuring his reputation without due process.
The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff, but stated that should there be an effect on employment, then such injury would
invoke the constitutional protection (14).
The sole reason for reporting the results of peer reviews is to restrict
the practices of incompetent physicians. Congress cited the following as the very reason for the act: 'There is a national
need to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move from state to state without disclosure or discovery of the
physicians'...incompetent performance (15).'
The right to practice medicine without a governmental agency erroneously
reporting that a physician has been deficient in his actions is a constitutional property right. Rights, even constitutional
rights, can be waived by express agreement, or by the failure to assert those rights. State institutions, however, may not
make waiver of a constitutional right a condition for employment (16).
In 1986, New York State enacted a system of
physician discipline that includes a hearing presided over by an administrative law judge, to ensure due process (17,18).
Although this system provides due process, it has the glaring problem of giving control of hospital privileges to lawyers.
A far better solution is for peer review committees to be required to observe due process. Lawyers and other non-physicians
may have a role as consultants, but should not be voting committee members.
The effects of an adverse peer review
decision are no longer limited to the relationship between a physician and a hospital. The decision becomes part of the National
Practitioner Data Bank. Medical peer review must provide physicians the protections of due process.
Scott
E. Segall, JD
Judge, El Paso Criminal Law Magistrate Court
William Pearl, MD
William Beaumont
Army Medical Center
Box 70614
El Paso, Texas 79920
From the Southern Medical Journal (March,1993)
The opinions or assertions herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or
as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
References
1. Health Care
Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 USC &11133
2. VITEK v JONES, 445 US 480 (1980)
3. Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986, 42 USC &11101
4. Iglehart JK: Congress moves to bolster peer review: the health care
quality improvement act of 1986. N Eng J Med 1987; 316:960-964
5. Steffen GE: Quality medical care, a definition.
JAMA 1988; 260:56-61
6. Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42USC &11112(b)
7. SILVER v NEW YORK
STOCK EXCHANGE, 373 US 341(1963)
8. BOARD OF REGENTS v ROTH, 408 US 564 (1972)
9. Green R: Hospital peer review
in a hostile environment. J Med Assoc Ga 1987; 76:138-140
10. TUMEY v OHIO, 273 US510 (1927)
11. 28 USC $455
12. US Constitution, Amend XIV
13. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972)
14. Paul v Davis, 424
US 693 (1976)
15. 42 USC $11101(2)
16. Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois, 110 SC: 2729 (1990)
17.
New York State Laws of 1986, Chapter 266
18. O'Keefe DE, Conway GL: Physician discipline and professional conduct.
NY State J Med 1988; 88:146-148
"The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good
or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies
the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution." Justice
Louis D. Brandeis
By disregarding doctors' Constitutional
rights, the government (the congress) has 'become a lawbreaker.' Through Medicare, Congress funds biased peer-review which
deprives doctors of property--their reputation. Congressman Waxman knows this. Congress enjoys superb medical insurance
and choice. Congress sits atop the social scheme in our country; how long shall citizens allow this unwarranted privilege,
when it is so easy to persuade sitting congressmen than they must include everyone in an identical plan or lose their sinecure
at the next election?
| Who Killed U.S. Medicine? |
|
| Click picture. |
Only impartial peer-review permits doctors to protect patients,
but Medicare supports biased peer review. In 2007 Medicare stopped paying for 'preventable errors.' In 2008 Medicare should
stop paying hospitals which gag doctors. Peer-review without due process gags whistle-blowers and destroys doctors (via libel-for-profit
and summary suspension for 'disruption'). For public health, citizens must force Medicare to require peer review with "Clean
Hands" as a Condition of Reimbursement. Otherwise, biased peer-review will continue to conceal preventable error by gagging
doctors froourm reporting hospital-risk and by driving them from practice. American students understand that if a federal
program like Medicare fails to protect doctors, students should choose a safe profession or practice medicine outside our
'Land of the Free.' Withheld-funds can be placed into an Escrow Account until the errant hospital's lawyer has been persuaded
to support due process, or until enough doctors have become lawyers themselves to turn this situation around. When somebody
is hurt, no one ever shouts, 'Is there a lawyer in the house?' Res ipsa loquitur.
| Dr. Waite won $554,000 in 1986. |
|
| Click picture to read his case. |
"Six of my cases were brought up for review by a tissue committee
controlled by competitors. A nurse (sic), employed by the Saint Francis Hospital, testified that I had the highest rate of
complication. Why such testimony was admitted is a matter of some interest, in itself. Liability for bearing false witness
is an important related matter, in itself, and falls under the topic of immunity. Under our gracious new laws, I would not
be able to win $500,000 today were a nurse again caught committing libel." Verner S. Waite M.D.
y
| L. Huntoon M.D., Ph.D., FAAN |
|
| Click picture for his editorial. |
Doctors who cite safety-concerns are destroyed
as 'disruptive.' (cf. 'Cases'). Honest peer-review protects patient and physician, but Congress (under Henry
Waxman J.D.) refuses to require "peer review committees to observe due process." Collusive defamation is racketeering; we
face a de facto "medical Mafia." Absent due process, U.S. medicine, however scientific, stands to lose talent to law or business.
Whistleblowing doctors are destructive only to corporate profit. Students should choose a profession respecting legal protections
enjoyed by all other citizens--freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights.
Click to Dr. Chalifoux's artcle on HCQA.
| Click picture to presentation, |
|
| "The Dark Side of Peer Review" |
| Career-Loss: The Cost of Courage |
|
| by Stephen Twedt. Tel. 412-263-1963. Click here. |
| Dr. Semmelweis |
|
| Click here. |
"We, the Sheeple" allow our FAA to tolerate unsafe airlines, and we let administration consume 31.4% of hospital expenditures,
according to Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein and Mr. Campbell in the New England Journal of Medicine. Other countries refuse
to divert so much medical money away from patients to administrators: "When someone is hurt, no one shouts, 'Is there a hospital
administrator in the house?'" Public funds support hospitals: A hospital supported by public funds (Medicare, Medicaid) should
not be allowed to hire a 'Public Relations' person. Click here.
In 1986 Congress did not protect doctors who protect patients: It omitted due process from the Health Care Quality Improvement
Act ("Waxman Law"), rendering whistleblowing unsafe for doctor and patient, and encouraging libel in hospitals, most of which
are tax-supported! Patients are endangered; doctors are destroyed by a law depriving them of due process. Congressional (SHALLER,
GLUCK) and judicial inaction (SHALLER, MILEIKOWSKY) illustrate that patients have died, whistleblowers have lost careers,
while government does nothing. The Court refuses to "get involved" (See Cases)--this situation is reminiscent of the Kitty
Genovese case (1964). Students, choose your career with these riks in mind.
y
| Alan J. Dershowitz J.D. |
|
| Click to Amicus brief. |
| Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis |
|
| Wikipedia history. |
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School
"Physicians who are entrusted with the care of their patients can see their professional careers destroyed if they dare to
challenge a hospital's practices. When a 'whistleblowing' physician is retaliated against, it threatens not only the physician's
livelihood, but the care of all patients. This ... affects every patient and potential patient in America."
U.S. medicine is an
unsafe career because HCQIA denies doctors due process. Why risk your career in medicine when law, business, and dentistry
all offer legal protections denied to doctors?
| "Doctors Who Hurt Doctors |
|
| by Jeff Chu, TIME. Click here. |
| Dr. Gil Mileikowsky |
|
| Click picture. |
| Verner S. Waite M.D., FACS |
|
| Click to "A Fabricated Review." |
"Six of my cases were brought up for review by a tissue committee controlled by competitors. A nurse (sic), employed by the
Saint Francis Hospital, testified that I had the highest rate of complication. Why such testimony was admitted is a matter
of some interest, in itself. Liability for bearing false witness is an important related matter, in itself, and falls under
the topic of immunity. Under our gracious new laws, I would not be able to win $500,000 today were a nurse again caught committing
libel." V. Waite M.D. Please click this text.
| Dr. Waite, Founder, Semmelweis Society |
|
| Inc., 1986, California. Click. |
| Click to The Alliance For Patient Safety |
|
| {Dr. Mileikowsky.} |
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow,
and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until
the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln
i
i
k
k
k
| Expect more physician-shortages if due process |
|
| is not part of hospital peer review. Click here. |
"The Classic scenario..."
o
"Healthcare" lawyers for the corporations cited here
by the press are paid in part with money from the public Treasury to pursue private profit, even though their hospitals are
nominally "non profit." Nonetheless, we--"the Voice of Polite Dissent of The Inequitably Taxed"--who pay Medicare
tax on their behalf to support their--and our--"non-profit hospitals", welcome their signed, written replies here.
Perhaps these "healthcare" lawyers can explain why we should let them waste our tax money defaming our doctors while
denying them due process of law at our expense.
| Click here to www.Semmelweis.org: |
|
|
| Semmelweis Society International, Inc. |
Semmelweis Society International, Incorporated is the successor to The Semmelweis Society, Incorporated, and was formed in
2005 with Dr. Waite's approval and participation at 3 annual meetings. Please click here.
| V.S. Waite M.D., FACS 1928-2007, Founder |
|
|
| "To live in the hearts of those we love is not to die." |
"I think it would be an excellent idea."
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948),
asked what he thought of Western civilization.
Laws protect no whistleblower. For safety, patients & doctors must choose hospitals with fair review.
Whistle-Blowing Reprisal. Jo Ann Hertford M.D., J.D., F.A.A.P.
| Patrick vs. Burget. Index case. |
|
|
| Dr. Waite supported Dr. Patrick |
Rush to judgment: Denial of due process at Duke is an example of what we do in medicine--place politics before principle,
as 88 Duke Faculty and District Attorney Nifong departed from withholding judgment until the evidence was complete. Where
are the apologies, faculty members? High school students, will you risk your career on recommendations from these 88 professors,
whether they stay at Duke or go elsewhere? Some have left. Where did they go?
If you are a college student: Will you choose law over medicine? Both are corporate positions in a corporate America. Is there
a safer career choice than US medicine? Remember, "The business of America is business." Click here.
Hospital Lawyers Gag Doctors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety requires due process...but there is no due process.
Army-Navy Whistleblower Reprisal Game: Tied At The Half
"Our
government...teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes
the lawbreaker,
it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;
it invites anarchy." Brandeis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we assumed the
Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." George
Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria M. Voge M.D., Commander, USNR, was confined on a Navy psychiatry ward (San Diego) after she reported causes of pilot
error. What compensation or restitution has Congress offered this whistleblower?
Navy instructors commanded students to sing the national anthem as they drowned Lee Mirecki. Congress approves: It did not
outlaw the Doctrine. Congress has offered nothing to the whistleblower, Lee's mother. It is time to elect a few mothers to
Congress...
For trying to save it from payroll fraud at the Dallas Naval Air Station, the World's Finest Navy locked up Navy Chief Michael
Tufariello for ~3 weeks on an AIR FORCE psych ward. Why didn't Congress compensate him? Should the Air Force psychiatrist
lose his medical credentials for unethical conduct (torture)?
Navy Chief George Gordon Taylor reported 3 rapes of women on a Navy base: To honor his adherence to its "core values", the
navy confined him on the psychiatry ward at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center (Virginia). Click here for NPR's Daniel Zwerdling
reporting this case. What compensation or restitution has Congress offered this whistleblower? Has the psychiatrist who colluded
in this imprisonment, Dr. Russell Hicks, met ethical standards? Or, has he participated in torture?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=joint+commission+physician+whistleblower+reprisal&btnG=Google+Search
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
