Erection&Scrotal problems–Who
respected my wishes
I have made
many comments about the type of examinations some Urologists
are doing on people. And with my complaints
against Urologists, you must thinkI make a complaint against every Urologist. ... Not so ....
I have seen
many Urologists in my quest to find justice against those that didn’t
respect my
wishes & abused me. But one has to be fair. Whereas one out of 3 Urologists abused me; 2 out of 3 did not. 66% respected my wishes.
In respect
to those that do respect the patients wishes, I am informing you of
those who
respected my wishes & of those who did not. There are of course, many Urologists who I have not seen.
What does a patient want when they visit a medical
specialist –
1) Our
wishes to be respected
2) To
be informed
3) Seek permission if they intend to do anything.
3) Seek permission if they intend to do anything.
Urologists who respected my wishes (No particular order)
1) Mr Mark Fraundorfer , Tauranga - showed a great deal of respect.
Acted in my best interests. I can’t
recommend him highly enough.
2) Mr
John Tuckey – Auckland
3) Mr
Dirk Drent - Auckland
4) Mr
David Merrilees – Auckland
5) Mr
Mischel Neill – Auckland
6) Mr
Michael Mackay – Auckland
7) Mr
Glen Devcich – Hamilton
8) Mr
Michael Cresswell – Rotorua (1988). I really appreciated
the value of this appointment.
.....Plus others.....
Urologists who did not respect my wishes
1) Urologist (deceased) – from 1987
2) Mr N, Whangarei
- Despite advising him how things were
improving following Dr R’s examination,
pulled up & under my
scrotum rather vigoursly resulting in a
bleed, bruising & a
haemorrhage in the perinneal area.
Health Disabilities Commission (HDC) response – a normal examination
carried out. No comment on the haemorrhage.
So we can assume that for the HDC this
examination was acceptable.
3) Urologist , Hamilton – Out of all the Urologists I
have seen, he was one
of
the most informative, yet he suddenly turned around & twisted the
top of my left testicle causing it to fall
on its side. Considering our
discussion, it is hard to fathom this
turnaround of events.
The HDC’s reponse. A normal examination. No comment on the
twisting of the testicle. So one must ask, if the HDC feels that the
twisting of ones testicle causing it to fall on its side is acceptable
to them . How many other patients are being
compromised. Is this
normal practice. Is it widespread, this
abusing of patients.
As far as I am concerned, It is :
unacceptable
practice by this Urologist.
BUT acceptable by the HDC
4) Dr M, Hastings – When I clearly advise a
Urologist of the dangers
of doing a certain type of examination
& he does it anyway, what is
his reason.
a) Revenge
b) He
believes he’s God & can do anything he wants
c) Hes
trying to cover-up the results of the previous examinations
Once again The HDC feel this is a normal and acceptable examination .
This Urologist has changed everything, he
has changed the direction.
Lastly,
Urologists who produce fraudulent reports from
their consultations
1) Urologist,
Auckland - After a referral from Dr R,
produced a
fraudulent report, which in many
aspects mirrored Dr R’s
fraudulent report.