Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Tinnitus / September 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

OT:  Email and Ethics

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
terri231@knowspam.mam - 13 Sep 2003 23:06 GMT
Today an article appeared on Fox news about a NC judge that sent
emails to his friends and colleagues that contained jokes about ethnic
groups that may appear in his courtroom in the course of his duties as
a judge.  A case will be filed against him at the Judicial Standards
Division and he expects to be asked to step down by the Chief Justice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97254,00.html

This raises the question, if a professional covered by a code of
ethics breaks that code through email, is that sufficient to warrant a
complaint at his/her licensing/monitoring agency?  In this case, no
individual person was actually harmed, yet the passing of jokes was
viewed as worthy of a complaint.  If he had made such comments about
someone that appeared in his court, would that not be even more of a
breach of ethics (if there are degrees to such a thing)?

My own view is that he should not have been sending ethnic or any
other jokes on judicial time with judicial resources but that while
some sanction is warranted, dismissal would too extreme on the first
offense.  If, on the other hand, he had joked about a particular
individual whose case he heard and sent emails about that to others, I
would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
complained previously of something similar and he had been warned,
that would be worthy of dismissal.

Anyone?  Anyone?

Terri

http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport
Martin - 14 Sep 2003 04:45 GMT
> I
>would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
>complained previously of something similar and he had been warned,
>that would be worthy of dismissal.
>
>Anyone?  Anyone?

Yes...it is the GA Medical Licensing Board. Apparently someone has
already written countless letter and made countless phone calls
according to the resident "professional."

"Paranoia strike deep
   Into your mind it will creep."

Martin Stills
Gym Bob - 15 Sep 2003 03:30 GMT
More complaints from more people need to be voiced for more effective
treatment,   at least above placebo effect.

> > I
> >would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Martin Stills
Ian Cessant - 15 Sep 2003 06:47 GMT
> > I
> >would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Martin Stills

LOL!!!

This is how it turned out as found in the archives:

"June 7th, 2002

Dear Capt. Yoli

This board has concluded its review of your complaint.  After careful
consideration, the board has determined that there was no violation of the
Georgia Medical Practice Act and has consequently determined to close this
matter.

The board must follow the State's Administrative Procedure Act in order to
sanction the license of a physician for violation of the Medical Practice
Act or Board Rules. This requires the investigation of facts and production
of evidence in an environment that is similar to a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, the Board has a burden of proof and must meet this burden in
order to proceed.

This is simply to explain that the decision not to prosecute is based on
legal considerations of meeting this burden of proof, not necessarily
whether the complaint is legitimate or whether there has been a bad result.

Enclosed is a pamphlet explaining in greater detail the functions of this
Office.

Thank You for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely Yours

Karen Mason
Executive Director"

Martin, have them send you a pamphlet too.
LOL!!
terri231@knowspam.mam - 15 Sep 2003 11:47 GMT
>> > I
>> >would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>Martin, have them send you a pamphlet too.
>LOL!!

You forgot to add that he closed his clinic right after this after
perpetuating a hoax on the members of the newsgroup.    

This most recent "final post" can only be appreciated reading the week
or so worth of posts that led up to it.

Terri

http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport
Stephen Nagler - 15 Sep 2003 17:42 GMT
You are such a cutie pie, terri.

smn
terri231@knowspam.mam - 15 Sep 2003 21:49 GMT
>You are such a cutie pie, terri.
>
>smn

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Terri

http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport
Ian Cessant - 15 Sep 2003 18:14 GMT
> >> > I
> >> >would say that worthy of dismissal.  I would also say if someone had
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> You forgot to add that he closed his clinic right after this after
> perpetuating a hoax on the members of the newsgroup.    

I think you should get a pamphlet as well, Terri-llilly.

You mean because he was closing his clinic anyway and because Simpson
was leaving the newsgroup anyway because of his online business?

> This most recent "final post" can only be appreciated reading the week
> or so worth of posts that led up to it.
>
> Terri
> http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport

Why don't you and Martin post it another 750 times this week?
terri231@knowspam.mam - 15 Sep 2003 21:48 GMT
>Why don't you and Martin post it another 750 times this week?

I think you will have one of your spells and save me the trouble.

Terri
http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport
ENTconsult - 15 Sep 2003 23:58 GMT
Anyone can pick up a pen and write to the board and lodge a complaint. And a
paranoid can write dozens of letters too.
This has nothing to do with someone being found to have done something wrong.
Should the rumor that he took a pecan from a poor farmer be added to the other
rumors?
Murray Grossan, M.D.
http://www.ent-consult.com
http://www.hydromedonline.com/presentingthehydropulse/
terri231@knowspam.mam - 16 Sep 2003 01:05 GMT
>Anyone can pick up a pen and write to the board and lodge a complaint. And a
>paranoid can write dozens of letters too.
>This has nothing to do with someone being found to have done something wrong.
>Should the rumor that he took a pecan from a poor farmer be added to the other
>rumors?
>Murray Grossan, M.D.

The problem, Murray, is that rumors aren't necessary to follow up on
because the facts are gruesome enough.

Terri

http://pub219.ezboard.com/btinnitusactivismandsupport
Martin - 16 Sep 2003 01:38 GMT
>Murray Grossan, M.D.
>http://www.ent-consult.com
>http://www.hydromedonline.com/presentingthehydropulse/

Murray, since everyone is fawning all over you [although your birthday
is weeks away] as a birthday present I will not question your
advertizing leading up to your birthday.

Now, you are free to include in your ads your tinnitus course. I have
written you a blank check.

Mozeltoff.

Martin Aquinas
Howard N. Gutnick - 16 Sep 2003 03:42 GMT
Martin,

Just for future reference. A more correct phonetic spelling would be mazel
tov.

Howard N. Gutnick

> >Murray Grossan, M.D.
> >http://www.ent-consult.com
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Martin Aquinas
Martin - 16 Sep 2003 18:38 GMT
>Just for future reference. A more correct phonetic spelling would be mazel
>tov.

Thanks Howard. Oh, and you missed a word the other day. Kelly used the
word "shitstain." I believe that would be two words. But never being
called one and not being one, I won't bet the farm on that.

Martin Aquinas - dictionaries? We don't need no stinking dictionary.
Howard Gutnick - 16 Sep 2003 18:55 GMT
You're probably correct about that.  Kelly's writing is in a world of its
own eloquence.

HNG

> >Just for future reference. A more correct phonetic spelling would be mazel
> >tov.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Martin Aquinas - dictionaries? We don't need no stinking dictionary.
Martin - 16 Sep 2003 01:38 GMT
>This is simply to explain that the decision not to prosecute is based on
>legal considerations of meeting this burden of proof, not necessarily
>whether the complaint is legitimate or whether there has been a bad result.

So, the state could strenuously not approve of someone they
investigated, but given the burden of proof they could, much like a
District Attorney, decide not to prosecute.

However, one has to wonder if in any investigation if they could look
at what they consider to be very poor ethics and place requirements on
the doctor that would effectively place him/her out of business.

There are many ways of accomplishing a desired result when you know
what is right but the trial lawyer get in the way.

Martin Aquinas
ENTconsult - 16 Sep 2003 05:35 GMT
There are many ways of accomplishing a desired result when you know
what is right but the trial lawyer get in the way.

trial lawyers have nothing to do with a hearing about baseless complaints.

But you are right, there should be a complete investigation if the rumor that
he took a pecan from a poor farmer with out paying is true.
Murray Grossan, M.D.
http://www.ent-consult.com
http://www.hydromedonline.com/presentingthehydropulse/
Martin - 16 Sep 2003 18:39 GMT
>But you are right, there should be a complete investigation if the rumor that
>he took a pecan from a poor farmer with out paying is true.

Murray, I think you have me confused with Billy Carter.

Martin Ford
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.