Hospital Liason Committee - a question?

by waiting 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  Hospital Liason Committee (HLC)

  Pertinent Background: My b-i-l is devout jw elder. Was in accident years ago - his neck bones have deterioriated to the point that after many tests,it has been determined he must have 7.5 hr surgery to stabilize his head and neck within one month.

  He has spoken with at least one practicing neurologist and one practicing neurosurgeon (another non-practicing). He has contacted the HLC and they have recommended a neurosurgeon in our area who "has successfully operated on jw's and complied with the blood doctrine." The elder wants this surgeon to do surgery.

  My daughter works for good attorney who does some medical malpractice. I called her asking if she knew anything about this neurosurgeon. She said their firm had a major lawsuit against him. He did the surgery fine, but ignored the patient afterwards. Afterwards, patient had complications and is an invalid now.

  The neurosurgeon has two associates - my daughter named them saying one has been successfully sued and the other should have been but they couldn't nail the details down. "But that won't matter unless the operating surgeon needs assistance in a long surgery." I told her 7.5 hours - she said "It matters."

  I gave phone numbers received from my daughter to elder's wife for further checking (State Board, etc.) Elder's wife believes that husband will still go with HLC recommended surgeon because he was HLC recommended.

  Finally, my question:

  1. A surgeon agrees to go along with the jw blood issue, knowing he's going to be recommended by "medically knowledgable" HLC members in his state area.

  2. The surgeon might also surmise since he's being recommended by that church to the patient, if something does go wrong in the surgery (his fault or not) - it's less likely he's going to be sued since the patient's church might be called into the suit also because of medical recommentations.

  How feasible is this scenario?

  Btw, my other child (law student) brought out the point that since the elder now knows that the neurosurgeon has been/is being sued for medical malpractice and still chooses to let the surgeon cut on him....if the surgeon does something wrong, an impending lawsuit would most likely be very low in dollars for the patient.

  The reason? The patient knew that the surgeon was suspect to begin with - and the patient let him cut anyway. Assuming a known risk and going ahead anyway. And one of the reasons that the patient is going to let the suspect surgeon cut on him is because the HLC "highly recommended" that particular surgeon because he wouldn't give blood.

  Sounds like a circular argument of sorts, doesn't it?

  waiting
• 

  hawkaw

  My friend,

  I'm on holidays till the 13th. Let me think about this with everything else.

  The key to me is does the surgeon & his buddies really know all about the HLC policy.

  And I assure you, if the surgeon and his lawyer & insurance co. ever found out about the stuff at AJWRB or Dr. Muramoto's stuff at bmj.com, they may think twice about what they do.

  hawk
• 

  Sam Beli

  Hi Waiting,

  Some things to consider:

  A lawyer’s opinion about a physician is always suspect.

  Poorly performing physicians may have a tendancy to “work with” the HLC in order to prop-up their otherwise sagging business volume. The HLC may sincerely (there is an oxymoron for you) believe that this surgeon is a great guy because he gives them the time of day (he has the time since patients in the know flee from him).

  Really good surgeons do not have to give-in to JW demands to have plenty of work, though some do because they are compassionate and do not want to see any go without proper care.

  Another reputable physician in the same area is in the best position to recommend a particular physician/surgeon. They know each other, who has the best (least) infection rate, the least blood loss (fastest hands), the fastest recovery period, the least complication rate, and so on.

  The pathologists (the guys who run the labs, examine tissue samples (biopsy) and do the post mortems) also have keen insight into who the best physicians are.

  Sam Beli

  I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted. Eccl 1:14, 15
• 

  patio34

  Hi Waiting!!

  Interesting story, if not very frustrating! What a bind the WTS puts people into and it involves their very lives!

  It seems the HLC would not really want to unnecessarily endanger their members, but get locked into it supporting their untenable position. It's as Sam Bell stated, really busy surgeons do not have to give into JW demands (what a good point!).

  From the HLC's perspective, it reminds me of 'oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we start to deceive . . .'

  Warmly,

  Pat
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  What a complicated situation. When my mother needed hip surgery years ago, there was no HLC to get involved. She checked around on her own, and received several recommendations from her general physician about doctors who were willing to perform this surgery without blood. Fortunately, the recommendations she received were very good...in fact, one of the surgeons had the reputation in the medical community of being one of the best. Her surgery went very well.

  Can you possibly suggest something like this to your brother-in-law? Even if he has to travel farther (as did my mother), he might be able to find another surgeon to do the operation who has a good reputation. It would certainly be worth checking into. It sounds as if the only concern of the HLC is that the operation is done without blood, regardless of the reputation of the surgeon, regardless of the danger of possible severe repercussions to your brother-in-law.
• 

  waiting

  Hey Hawk

  Thanks for the response - enjoy your 'holiday'!

  Hey Sam

  I appreciate your insight. I've never had contact with the HLC personally. My daughter has worked for this attorney for 8 yrs - his track record is pretty good. She hasn't got a high opinion of doctors' ethics - or their friendships for each other.

  A lawyer's opinion about a physician is always suspect.

  Fair enough - but then the physician's the one holding the knife - and most people hold them of high value, and imho - don't check enough. A lawyer is always suspect right up front - and people pay for protection from them by hiring another lawyer. Perhaps it would be better if patients/clients held both up to the same dubious scrutiny?

  The lawyer I'm speaking of has caught doctors and nurses lying for each other, covering over meetings with girlfriends instead of seeing patients, etc. Obviously, not all - surely not even the majority. They're business men in the final analysis - and money talks.

  However, a doctor would not necessarily know about another doctors' lawsuits - particularily if they haven't gone to court yet. And, according to her, doctors aren't wont to discuss or disclose another doctors errors to potential patients. Just not good ethics.

  I guess my b-i-l will have to make his own choices, and it'll probably turn out ok. I've heard that head/neck surgery doesn't need a lot of blood. As for the surgeon - perhaps he'll actually be there for his patient.

  Thanks for the suggestions on who to ask for more information - I'll pass them on to his wife and him. I won't tell them it came from apostate sources.

  waiting