 |
 |
One can agree with Mike Collins’s position. I have got another example that would support his position. Here in France, apart from those patients who stay in hospitals, all patients are free to choose the clinical laboratory where they want to to have their blood analysis performed. And outpatients do systematically receive their results, except if they prefer not to receive their results, and except for some rare results that could harm them psychologically. Being in close contact with the French patients’ association « hemochromatose France » (the largest hemochromatosis patients’ association), we quite often receive testimonies from patients whom have high serum ferritin or high serum transferrin saturation, but who complain that their usual doctor did nothing about that or told them that they should stop drinking (even if they swore that they did not drink anything). In their testimonies, these patients tell us that they had to search for themselves what means having a high serum level of ferritin and/or a high serum transferrin saturation, and were thus finally able to find out that they suffered from hemochromatosis (with the help of clinical chemists sometimes). When the patients finally found out their own disgnosis, it was then possible for them to be treated, even if some months or years were often lost for them because of their bad doctors. But if the patients had never received their results, it is clear that they would either never have had their correct diagnosis, or have had it much later, and hemochromatosis could have killed them quietly… without any possibility for the patients’ families to blame the bad doctors… This is why I think that not only outpatients, but also hospitalized patients should be free to reveive their laboratory results if they want to. Joseph Watine, Hôpital de Rodez, France >From: Mike Collins <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Mike Collins <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: English Path Mod Debate >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:50:15 +0100 > >Robert Forrest wrote:> > > Let's see what the Court of appeal makes of the alleged non > > disclosure of this "new" pathology report relating to one of the > > deceased, before saying she was jailed as a result of the none > > disclosure of a pathology report. > >I don't think this an appropriate forum to discuss the Sally Clark >case. I was using a topical example - the day after the Radio4 >report - to illustrate my strong conviction that labs must allow all >patients (or, in the case of children their parents) access to their >results. We also comment on reports and a comment on a GP >patient report of (say) "borderline TSH, suggest repeat in 6 months" >or "consider a diagnosis of diabetes" should be given to the patient. >The post from David Brown in Valencia shows that this system >works well in Spain. The reputation of Pathology labs in general >has been harmed by the organ retention scandal. We should be as >open as possible and patient access to results will reduce >accusations of cover-up in medical negligence cases. > >Mike Collins >Mike Collins MLSO3 >Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology >[log in to unmask] >[log in to unmask] >2915 >http://www.leedsteachinghospitals.com _________________________________________________________________ Discutez en ligne avec vos amis ! http://messenger.msn.fr ------ACB discussion List Information-------- This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk List Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/