Blog Archives

There is an interesting matter that I have been confronted with.

A patient goes to see a Medical Practitioner (who is a Doctor registered with the Australian Medical Board) about obtaining the Doctors written recommendation as to the start date for a treatment program to begin for her son.

In this case there were multiple injections involving 11 different types of medication that would be injected into the body of the 18 month old child. The mother was concerned about a scientific report she read in the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is a weekly medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals[1] as well as the oldest continuously published one.[1]

The Doctor would not give her opportunity to discuss science and shut her down saying “we are not obliged to provide scientific evidence as per legal advice (Citing name of Insurer). So now that science was off the table in things to discuss, the Doctor then discussed the risk versus benefit of the treatment, saying things can go wrong, allergic and other reactions can occur however these risks are accepted by the Australian Government who approved the treatment through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and “mainstream medical literature” says the risks are “vastly outweighed by the potential benefits.”

Whether an administrative decision was ‘biased’ because a person who participated in the making process had been the informant in a related prosecution.

The Commission held it was “abundantly clear” kissing the female colleague was sexual harassment but it lacked the required connection with employment (because it occurred after the function had finished) to establish vicarious liability and reputational damage.

No newer/older posts
%d bloggers like this: