(now grab your barf bag)

You say you know and respect one of the physicians involved (presumably a defendant physician). In Rangel’s blog, he claims to know and respect the plaintiff physician.

Surely both are correct. I’m sure the docs involved are technically good.

I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts this is a case of personal animosity and politics between the docs.

For all we say about lawyers……when it comes to ethical behaviour between fellow professionals, lawyers treat each other far, far better than we treat each other as physicians.

Let me stick my neck out on this one. Assuming, as it appears, the doctors failed to get outside review of cases before suspending the targeted doctor. The only reason for failure to get outside review prior to suspension of privileges is such blatant prima facie malpractice or criminal behaviour that there is an immediate obvious clear and present danger to the public.

Obviously, based on the judgement, that was not the case here.

I will make a distinction between the doc who fails to get a female chaperone for a pelvic exam, and a group of docs who fail to get outside review in a case like this.

There are docs who do female examinations without chaperones in good faith. They really don’t think it is necessary. I think they’re crazy, but they only place themselves at risk.

From what I have seen, docs who fail to get outside peer review before suspending a targeted doc are almost always doing so in bad faith. It is not that they think it un-necessary to have the review, they know the outside reviewer will contradict them.

When I see peer-review cases go to this level without outside peer review, in my mind I assume bad faith on the part of the accuser.

Yes, transparency is a good idea. However, every law on peer-review passed since the Patrick case has resulted in less transparency, not more.

If I wanted to remove a physician I didn’t like (or someone wanted to do the same to me), about all it would take is another physician on my side, and an administrator who agrees, and I could remove Marcus Welby or Doctor Kildare.

If you don’t believe it, see http://www.peerreview.org for real-life examples.