Sunday, June 18, 2017

Snowflake Allegation Defence

I keeping thinking what did I do to anger VCHA.  How can frontline medical personnel be snowflakes. Snowflakes are those who thinks they are entitled to special consideration.  They are ultra sensitive (snowflake delicate) to the point that they demand that no emotion or discourse be allowed.  In my case, I am not allowed access to all VCHA properties. Now I have to spend thousands of hours to prove it in a court of law.. But alas, the lawyers are the ones who are going to be $enriched: make work projects are what they excel in.  Their own evidence will prove that their clients are snowflakes. I only need patience with the court process. And that is going to be hard as there are other things I want to do in this my last decade of  life.


Sunday, June 11, 2017

Loose Association of the truth

The purpose of pleadings apparently is to plead a loose association of the truth.  And the job of a judge is to try to bring these together so he can make a fair decision.


Tuesday, June 6, 2017

A time consuming project

I am working on a project so I won't be addressing my blog much.  It is very upsetting what I am doing.  It brings backmemories and tears.  And the haunting words that Randy is afraid. He was afraid to die.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Fake Lawyers

Again I got two rejections today from lawyers who refuse to help me.  I am coming to the conclusion that all lawyers outthere are fake lawyers. They do not want to do real law.

This last lawyer I asked to help with Carolanne and all he did was send back the money I sent him.  At least he did not charge me $200 for opening a file.  I cannot get over what VCHA did to Carolanne.  I got a court order so that we could visit each other and as soon as VCHA found out about it they got to Carolanne and I was told hat she did not want to see me. And I was not allowed on any VCHA properties. So I could not talk to her and convince her not to be afraid.   And they will not let me see her.  I suspect that she does not know what is going on as she is a quad, can't talk, can't move, and the only thing she knows is that I have abandoned her. Who is going to tell her any different.  She is at the end of her life and she will die alone like Randy did.

VCHA won't even give me how to contact her family.  They do not have to do it. VCHA does not have to do anything.  I asked Carolanne on February 26 2017 if her family ever visits her and she said no.

Even though her family has not visited her in years I am sure that they will be furious if they knew how their daughter is being treated. I am sure they believe that their daughter has been looked after legally i.e. her rights are being protected.    VCHA imprisoned her, they lied to her, they coerced her, and she would have a cause of action to sue VCHA.

I saw Carolanne on Februry 26 and 28, 2017 and she said that she wanted to see me both times. We were going to be sisters.And no one could stop us from seeing each other as there was a court order.

When this first happened the lawyers said that Carolanne was incompetent but now that she has been coerced to do what they want, she is competent.

Just like what they did to Randy.  The physician who put a DNR on him said he was competent but the next day he was incompetent. Because if you are incompetent only the instructions given prior to the incompetency are legal.  And then to make it worse, this same doctor assessed him to say he was incompetent. This opened the door to get the PGT involved to make Randy a non-person.

I still do not know how the PGT was able to convince the Designated Health Authority to revoke my power of attorney.  But the lawyer for the PGT said that the PGT does not have to share those reasons.

Note:

Law Society of BC v. Goodwin: When court orders are disobeyed or ignored, the court is demeaned.  If the court is demeaned, respect for the rule of law declines.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Carolanne May 21 2017

I am thinking about Carolanne.  Since I can't see her she just might decide to tell her doctor to withdraw her life suppor.  But that is rather impossible because she cannot speak or write.  So a medical person would have to suggest it.  I have seen it happen at George Pearson before.  Patients are isolated and soon they see no hope, and soon the patient is dead. The only connection they have with the world is a television.  With Bill C-14 there is some safeguards but with withdrawal of treatment; nothing.

I hope that this is not the designated pathway for Carolanne.

On October 20 2016 I sent an email asking Tristin Wayte, Manager of Risk Management, that I wanted to see Carolanne.  She replied that

 "The restriction will remain in place as long as you continue to harass those on VCH sites about the death of Randy Walker. "

None of her allegation of harassment was explainedI have no knowledge of harassing anyone while on VCHA sites.  Dr. Tristin Waye has four advanced degrees but the degrees does not give her any credibility as  she does exactly what she is told by Edgar Hoover.  Am I banned from seeing Carolanne because I dare to speak.
 
In March 2017 VCHA convinced Carolanne that she does not want to see me; thereby neutralizing the court order obtained on February 24 2017. What a smart chess move.  And this was reinforced numerous times by their $800 an hours lawyers in writing.

Everyone who was part of convincing Carolanne that we should not see each other, should be disgraced.

I wonder if VCHA threatened Carolanne with taking away her pain medicine (hydromorphine) if she was not compliant.

I have hired a tracing agency to locate Carolanne's family.  It would be interesting to know what VCHA told them.  Or maybe VCHA never even attempted to communicate with them.  VCHA never even attempted to communicate with Randy's family when he was dying or after he died. 





Sunday, May 14, 2017

Civil Conspiracy (definition)

In a 2012 judgment of Justice K. Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Dale v. Toronto Real Estate Board, offers this description of the two variants of the tort of civil conspiracy, referred to as predominant purpose conspiracy (also known as conspiracy to injure) and unlawful means conspiracy (also known as conspiracy by unlawful means):
"(T)he elements of predominant purpose conspiracy require the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the defendants acted in combination, that is, in concert, by agreement or common design; (2) the predominant purpose of the defendants was to intentionally harm the plaintiff; and (3) the defendants' conduct caused harm to the plaintiff. The elements of unlawful means conspiracy require the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the defendants acted in combination, again that is, in concert, by agreement or common design; (2) the defendants committed some unlawful act such as a crime, a tort, or breached some statute; (3) the defendants conduct was directed towards the plaintiffs; (4) the defendants knew or ought to have known that injury to the plaintiffs was likely to occur from their unlawful act; and (5) the defendants' unlawful conduct in furtherance of their conspiracy caused harm to the plaintiff."

May 15 2017

Memo from Terry Schiavos web page.

To have strangers come in and forcibly tear you from your loved ones, to abduct your person, because that is exactly what this is — an abduction — is terrifying for a person with a brain injury and other such patients,” Yolanda wrote in her petition. “It is terrifying for an incapacitated person who has relied heavily on and whose life, happiness and well-being has depended on a family member.”

----------
I still like to know what egregious thing I did to cause VCHA to demand that I be banned from seeing Randy and also to be banned FOR LIFE from all VCHA properties. 

If anyone knows, let me know.




 
.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Michael Lee, MLA for Langara

I just came back from the Liberal campaign office and I said to Michael that I hope that he becomes the next premier of BC and he said it is a bit close right now. It was 42, 42.  So he is the new designated leader of the Liberal Party.  He is perfect for the job.  And the job is perfect for him. Perfect education; Perfect timing; Perfect profession; Perfect community involvement; Perfect family; Perfect political campaign; Perfect political supporters; Perfect marketing; Perfect Wife; Perfect Win;

10:42pm May 9 2017


Sunday, April 30, 2017

Getting Old

I was at the senior's center this afternoon for the Happy Gang coffee hour.  The discussion went to being old and all of us were of the opinion that were still thinking as we were when we were 25 athough most of us were in our mid 70s. We did not see ourselves as "old" until we looked in a mirror.  This aging is very interesting.  I know I am at the end of my life but the thought of the end is surreal.

I am still being haunted by the memory of Carolanne. .How dare VCHA get to her and coerce her to say that she does not want to see me.  If I cannot see her how can I convince her that she can see me and that no bad things will happen.  But then I do not even know if I can promise her that because her care is in the hands of the health authority.  VCHA even said that Carolanne was incompetent which is not true.  I countered that by communicating with the Public Guardian and Trustee saying that if and when a Certificate of Incapability was to be issued for Carolanne that I wanted to become her committee. This is the kind of power VCHA has over its patients.  It can assess you as being incompetent even if you are not and you will become a non-person hidden from view with no rights.  That is what they did to Randy, so why not Carolanne. Randy was not incompetent, he was depressed or was sick.  Just because he did not want to be interrogated that does not mean he was incompetent. And VCHA did not include me in Randy's incapability assessment although I had Randy's power of attorney and health representation agreement and I should be involved.  And the doctor who said Randy was incompetent was the same doctor who decided to put on an unauthorized DNR on him without telling Randy or me.

I still cannot get over the fact that the VCHA was able to revoke my power of attorney in 2014. The PGT/VCHA decided that I could not be Randy's power of attorney as I was not spending Randy's money.  It was rather hard for me to spend Randy's money when I was not authorized to do so as he was competent to decide on what he was to spend his money on.  When the PGT told me on a complaint submitted by Ro Ang, the manager of George Pearson Centre, that I was abusing Randy, I did not think much about it. Let Ro be Ro. Find nothing. So after they discovered that I was not recklessly spending Randy's money, they created the scenario that I should have been spending Randy's money.  I was not allowed to hoard it.  It did not matter if it was $200 or $20,000. It did not randy's money was in a lawyer's trust account. I was frantically spending money on Randy but it was my money like the $240 I had to spend to apply for a court visitation order. Then I was told that since Randy was incompetent that I had no authority to start a visitation order to see him.  And pray tell me when did he become incompetent.  No one told me. The first I heard of it was on April 4 2014 and Randy died a week later. I remember a wife of a resident/patient in GPC said to me that with VCHA, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. 

The PGT/VCHA remind me of wannabe police officers who are inadequately trained security officers who practice their martial arts training by beating up homeless people targeting the elderly and the disabled.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Brief History of Euthanasia in Germany.

When I read this I could see the similarities of the use of DNRs to hasten the death of those who have a poor quality of life.  Canadian Bill C-14 requires "foreseeable death" but a DNR does not. 

Spicer and his critics are historically off


My Passover holidays were interrupted by the news, shared by friends in the synagogue, that the press secretary to the president of the United States had just said that Syrian President Bashar Assad was worse than Adolf Hitler because Assad gassed his own people.
I was astounded and saddened by the comment referring to an event in the village of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s remark was not, as my distinguished colleague professor Deborah Lipstadt said in The New York Times, “anti-Semitism,” masked or real, but ignorance pure and simple, an ignorance that should disqualify one from so exalted a position.
My mood didn’t lighten as I read critique after critique discussing the murder of German Jews by gas in such “extermination camps,” to use the Nazi term for killing centers, such as Auschwitz and Treblinka.
Their critique overlooked the origin of Germans gassing their own population, which had nothing to do with Jews.
Forgive the history lesson, but permit me to explain.
Mass murder began with the death of a few individuals. In October 1939, Hitler signed an authorization permitting his personal physician and the chief of the Führer Chancellery to put to death those considered unsuited to live. He backdated it to Sept. 1, 1939, the day World War II began, to give it the appearance of a wartime measure. In the directive:
Reich leader Philip Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy killing.
What followed was the so-called euthanasia program, in which men, women and children who were physically disabled, mentally deficient or emotionally disturbed were systematically killed. They were termed “useless eaters” and “life unworthy of living.”
Within a few months, the T-4 program (named for Berlin Chancellery Tiergarten 4, which directed it) involved virtually the entire German psychiatric community. A new bureaucracy, headed by physicians, was established with a mandate to “take executive measures against those defined as ‘life unworthy of living.’ ”
A statistical survey of all psychiatric institutions, hospitals and homes for chronically ill patients was ordered. At Tiergarten 4, three medical experts reviewed the forms returned by institutions throughout Germany but did not examine any patients or read their medical records. Nevertheless, they had the power to decide life or death.
Patients who doctors decided should be killed were transported to six main killing sites: Hartheim, Sonnenstein, Grafeneck, Bernburg, Hadama, and Brandenburg. SS members and other health care personnel in charge of the transports donned white coats to keep up the charade of a medical procedure.
The first killings were by starvation: starvation is passive, simple and natural. Then injections of lethal doses of sedatives were used. Children were easily “put to sleep.” But gassing soon became the preferred method of killing; 15 to 20 people were killed in a chamber disguised as a shower. The lethal gas was provided by chemists, and the process was supervised by physicians. Afterward, black smoke billowed from the chimneys as the bodies were burned in adjacent crematoria. Communities adjacent to these facilities could see that smoke even in the heat of summer and they could smell the burning flesh.
Families of those killed were informed of the transfer. They were assured that their loved ones were being moved in order to receive the best and most modern treatment available. Visits, however, were not permitted. The relatives then received condolence letters, falsified death certificates signed by physicians, and urns containing ashes. There were occasional lapses in bureaucratic efficiency, and some families received more than one urn. They soon realized something was amiss.
A few doctors protested. Karl Bonhoeffer, a leading psychiatrist, worked with his son Dietrich, a pastor who actively opposed the regime, to contact church groups, urging them not to turn patients in church-run institutions over to the SS. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the SS just before the end of the war.) A few physicians refused to fill out the requisite forms. Only one psychiatrist, professor Gottfried Ewald of the University of Göttingen, openly opposed the killing.
Doctors didn’t become killers overnight. The transformation took time and required a veneer of scientific justification. As early as 1895, a widely used German medical textbook made a claim for “the right to death.” In 1920, a physician and a prominent jurist argued that destroying “life unworthy of life” is a therapeutic treatment and a compassionate act completely consistent with medical ethics.
Soon after the Nazis came to power, the Bavarian minister of health proposed that psychopaths, the mentally deficient and other “insane” people be isolated and killed. “This policy has already been initiated at our concentration camps,” he noted. A year later, mental institutions throughout the Reich were instructed to “neglect” their patients by withholding food and medical treatment.
Pseudoscientific rationalizations for the killing of the “unworthy” were bolstered by economic considerations. According to bureaucratic calculations, state funds that went to the care of criminals and physically and mentally disabled persons living in institutions could be put to better use, for example by loans to newly married couples. Incurably sick children were seen as a burden for the healthy body of the Volk, the German people. In a time of war, it was not difficult to lose sight of the absolute value of human life. Hitler understood this. Wartime, he said, “was the best time for the elimination of the incurably ill.”
Historian and Auschwitz survivor Henry Friedlander traces the origins of the Final Solution to the “euthanasia” program. The murder of handicapped people was a prefiguration of the Holocaust. The killing centers to which the disabled were transported were the antecedents of the death camps. The organized transportation of the disabled foreshadowed mass deportation. Some of the physicians and other health care workers and hospital personnel as well as ordinary guards and mechanics who became specialists in the technology of cold-blooded murder in the late 1930s later staffed the death camps. All their moral, professional and ethical inhibitions had long been lost.
Psychiatrists, voluntary participants in the German “euthanasia” program, were able to save patients, at least temporarily, but only if they cooperated by sending others to their death.
Gas chambers were first developed at the “euthanasia” killing centers. The perpetrators cremated the dead bodies. In the death camps, the technology was taken to a new level: thousands could be killed at one time and their bodies burned within hours.
The Roman Catholic Church, which had not taken a stand on the “Jewish question,” protested the “mercy killing.” Count von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, openly challenged the regime, arguing that it was the duty of Christians to oppose the taking of human life even if this were to cost them their own lives. It seemed to have an effect.
On Aug. 24, 1941, almost two years after the “euthanasia” program was initiated, it appeared to cease. In fact, it had gone underground. The total number of people killed in the Nazi “euthanasia” program is estimated to have been between 200,000 and 250,000. The majority were Germans, but Poles and Soviet citizens of various nationalities were also among the victims.
The killing did not end; mass murder was just beginning. Physicians trained in the medical killing centers went on to grander tasks. Irmfried Eberl, a doctor whose career began in the T-4 program, became the commandant of Treblinka, where killing of a magnitude as yet unimagined would take place.
Again, gassing did not begin with the Jews; it began with Germans who found the presence of fellow Germans of special needs an embarrassment to the myth of the “master race” and an economic hardship. Hitler initiative the process but the participation of German society and even its elite psychiatric community was as widespread as is was essential.

MICHAEL BERENBAUM is a professor of Jewish studies and director of the Sigi Ziering Institute at American Jewish University.

Monday, April 3, 2017

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Carol Anne - Response to Petition

The Petition that VCHA filed on March 3 2017 to set aside the Order of Febuary 24th 2017is saying that Carol Anne is incapable of conducting litigation.  Exactly what VCHA did to Randy.  Make Carol Anne a ward of the court and a non-person with no rights.  And all litigation would be suspended.

In the March 6 2017Affidavit of Ro Ang, the manager of GPC, she attached as an exhibit an incident report of 11 November 2010.  This incident was caused by a  nurse who told me that sleeping was not allowed on the premises.  Without my knowledge VGH had transferred Randy and it would not tell me where he was.  I was traumatized.  Apparently, VGH does not tell anyone where a patient is transferred to as that is confidential information.  By a process of elimination I discovered Randy was transferred to GPC and I went to see him.  This was at 8:00 pm well within the posted visiting hours.

I was under stress and exhausted and I laid my head resting on my arms at the side of Randy's bed.  A nurse told me sleeping was not allowed. The nurse deliberately picked on me and with the okay of the head nurse told the nurse to evict me from the premises for resting my head. So that is what he did.  Followed orders.  Apparently, I was non-verbal hostile towards staff. How can someone be non-verbal hostile towards staff. I ws tired.  There was no concern for me or for Randy. 

Apparently in my exhaustion rather than visit Randy I was taking pictures of staff and making disparaging remarks about GPC.  Not true. I was exhausted. All I wanted to do is rest. I did not even own a camera at that time.

The next day Tanu went on and on about her having the power to make sure that I never see Randy again even on his death bed.  I had a witness with me at that time.  So Tanu cannot deny this. Tanu said that she knew about Randy was going to be transferred to GPC three weeks earlier.  So how is it that VGH could not tell me this. My welcome to GPC...

As far as I can tell the 521 pages the binder which Guild Yule submitted to the court on March 14 2017 most of it cannot be used as it is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.  Guild Yule submitted such garbage knowing full well that a judge would not have time to visit each page of the 521 page binder however the judge did say to Skorah for him to summarize the pleadings. Skorah neglected to tell the judge most if not all of the evidence would not be admissible.

It is nauseating to think that a QC would stoop to submitting evidence that is not proper.

Lawyers especially those of Skorah's calibre should not deceive the courts.

.


Thursday, March 16, 2017

Kristin and Carol Anne email October 2016

I was reviewing the materials sent to me by the lawyers for VCHA before me applying for a visitation order to visit Carol Anne so we could visit each other.

What has us wanting to visit each other got to do with my husband who died April 13 2014 and the upset VCHA caused to us then.  VCHA believe their snowflake staff was more important than Randy. They 100% banned me so that I could not see Randy for the months prior to his death.

After it became clear to me that the hospital decided that Carol Ann would not be allowed to see me unless I applied for a court order, so I went out and got a court order on February 24, 2017.  As soon as management found out about it, they coerced Carol Anne to say she does not want to see me. What a brilliant move by VCHA. Now any further litigation would be neutralised.

These are words written by Risk Management VCH in an email October 20 2016 when I asked to visit Carol Anne.: 

I'm sorry I can't do that; I'm aware of the history of your restriction.  The restriction will remain in place as long as you continue to harass those on VCH sites about the death of Randy Walker.  VCH has responded to your allegations and will not engage in that discussion.

This is terrible using a few emails (which emails were not attached, so I do know what harassing she was talking about) to prevent Carol Anne and me from visiting each other.  VCHA is constructively imprisoning Carol Anne for something she had no part of.  I have heard that the medical system is broken, but what is happening is beyond broken.  It is contempt of our Constitution.  Carol Anne has the right to visit who she wants if she is in a hospital or not.  At the very least, it is elder abuse.  What VCHA is doing is unlaw and spiteful. VCHA cannot coerce Carol Anne to say that she did not want to see me.

Court Order in hand on February 26th and 28th, I visited Carol Anne both times she welcomed me and my witness.  So why is it as soon as staff showed up on the 28th, she frantically indicated that she did not want to see me.  Coercion. Duress.

Carol Anne is a full quad.  She cannot communicate, and she is not mobile.  On February 26, 2017, when I saw her, she indicated that her family did not visit her.   Her before boy friend would see her and would tell me how she was doing. We would meet at the mall.  Vince died of a heart attack over a year ago.  She now has no one except the good and carrying staff of George Pearson Centre.  Staff who are imprisoning her.






Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Setting Aside Oder to See Carol Anne

I cannot believe what is happening.  I made a simple application to the court to see Carol Anne who is a resident in George Pearson Centre.  She is a quad and for three years and I have been trying to get VCHA to allow us to visit.  Vancouver refuses as I was violent which is not true and I was being disrespectful/disruptive to staff and management of George Pearson Centre.

There was an incident in 2013 wherein I in self-defence had to push back staff who were unlawfully preventing us from living George Pearson Centre.  Because of the toxicity of George Pearson Centre, I attempted to remove my husband from the premises.  GPC had the mistaken belief that they could detain him unlawfully.  I thought the incident was forgotten until January 29 2014 wherein I was told that I was banned 100% from visiting my husband and that the banning would be for 90 days.  Verbally, I was told that the banning was going to last forever.

My husband was dying and they did this to us.  I protested but I could do nothing.  On March 2014 I filed a Petition to Visit my husband.  The next thing I knew the  Public Guardian and Trustee was involved and I did not understand why and she became Randy's committee. VCHA wanted this.  VCHA had him assessed by a doctor, the same doctor, I accused of attempted culpable homicide by him putting an unauthorized DNR on my husband and then refusing to take it off.  The PGT was designated to protect Randy from me.  The decided that my enduring Power of Attorney should be taken away from me and they were going for Committee of Person as well.  In other words they were making Randy a non-person wherein it was the PGT who would decide everything in his life including putting DNRs on Randy.  VCHA, Dr. Dunne and the PGT conspired to do this.

The physician lorded over me saying on November 18 2017 that he would consider taking off the DNR/DNT when I asked him to do on his return from Prince George.  I took the incident to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and they decided that Randy was incapable due to a high fever caused by an infection.  He was not capable of giving informed consent. In the non-medical world, the physician would have been criminally charged with criminal intent.  But nothing happened to him except he was told that he should have been more careful in deciding if Randy was not well enough to agree to a DNR and his handwriting was illegible

It was after January 29 2014 when I was then accused of being bad for Randy.

On January 29 2014 I was banned citing the November 18 2013 incident.   It is so obvious but at that time it was not obvious to me that the real reason was so that I would not be in a position to question whatever was happening to Randy.  I believed prior to that that GPC were bullies and they were acting as such.  GPC was saying that my behavior caused the staff to be afraid of me and interferred with its ability to do their work. VCHA had to create reasons beyond the truth.  They even got the Workers Compensation Board involved because they said I was bullying staff.   VCHA over the years bullied me making me a basket case and then they turned it around and accused  me of  bullying the snowflakes. Can you imagine wasting manpower of the WCB.   I wonder what the report said.

Anyways that goes too far back in history to be part of what was happening now, so I thought.  It has been over three years. However, VCHA is wanting to continue the ridiculous banning for the rest of my life. This banning has discredited me, demoralised me.  My reputation has been damaged.    And they are intent on continuing to do so.  But now they have gone too far.

They have imprisoned Carol Anne and they need to continue to discredit me.  Carol Anne is severely disabled.  Her family abandoned her decades ago.  She is bedridden and cannot talk except with her eyes and nodding her head. She is on a ventilator and trach.  She is in a private room with only a television to distract her. She is totally isolated.  She can't even watch people activity on her ward as she is in a private isolated room. Isolated from others who could ring for assistance in case Carol Anne was in distress.

They might not want me to talk to Carol Anne if there is a remote possibility that I want to become her advocate.  GPC does not want any patients to have advocates unless they are mute.  With Carol Anne she is a non-functioning quad and her quality of life is that she has none

It is beyond me what they are trying to do to me. I only want to visit Carol Anne.  It is so obvious to me those that the decision makers employed by VCHA are idiots.

The question still outstanding is what did I do.  I asked this of David Bell, lawyer for VCHA, and he said I knew what I did.  Well, tell me again. 












Saturday, March 11, 2017

Proposed Injunction dated April 2014.

I was reading from the pleadings in 2014 when VCHA wanted an Order FOR LIFE that I by herself and or by her agents be barred from visiting any VCHA properties. How stupid.

However, I could see Randy on the sidewalk as that would not upset the staff.  That did not last long, I was able to see him two times on the sidewalk and then Ro said that it was too much work for her and she refused to allow me to see Randy ever again. Think about this, I could see Randy under security on the sidewalk but I could not see him on his death bed inside GPC. I wonder what law firm gave VCHA that piece of legal advice. 

Although I asked VCHA to do an investigation it refused to do so.  They controlled the complaint process Star Chamber Court with no due process just one-sided gossipy evidence.  There was no provision for an independent investigation.

Randy was dying in 2014 and I was banned.  I asked friends to check on him and GPC decided that they could not do this any more. In an email from Risk Management (VGH) I was told to stop such COVERT activities that I organized.

 Even though I was banned, GPC would tell me that Randy was fine those that went to visit him (three of which were retired health professionals) would say differently.

 And most hurtful was when I was told he was crying.

The proposed Order also said that if Randy was terminal I would be able to access him at George Pearson Centre.  The reality would be that GPC had no intention of transferring him to Vancouver General Hospital in the event he needed acute care.  They planned on letting him die at George Pearson Centre and I would only be allowed to visit his dead body.

I remember Tanu telling me in 2010 that I was not allowed to talk to anyone unless they talked to me first.  The "majesty" requirement of George Pearson Centre.

I wish I was not having these flashbacks but I must so I can fight for Carolanne so I can visit her.  It would be so easy just to walk away.


Sunday, February 26, 2017

A snowflake defence.

I had a mistaken belief that I had a fiduciary duty to Randy.  I had history, I had a marriage certificate, I had a power of attorney, I had a representation agreement, I had love but the health authority saw it differently. I was accused of being disrespectful/disruptive to management.  It was a snowflake defence.




Saturday, February 25, 2017

Physicians v. Administration at VGH


I have been reflecting back to the morning of 13 April 2014, Randy was dying in the ICU, and I was forced to stand outside in the hallway.

I had a Supreme Court Order in hand to allow me to see Randy but no one would let me inside the ICU until the Order was verified again.  I stood there for two hours.  Security was watching.

Thinking back, I do not know why the doctor at the ICU just did not let me in the ICU.  He was in charge. He did not need permission from administration.

I remember Dr. James Dunne saying that if it was up to him, he would not allow anyone to be banned.  Dr. Dunne's belief was wrong, it was up to him. His duty was to his patients, not to a bureaucracy run by social workers. Social workers are behind every bad decision in a hospital as physicians rely on them to make their decisions rather than personally witnessing the truth.

Risk Managements used the snowflake defence in that I was disrespectful/disruptive to management.  My presence distracted staff so that they could not do their jobs. The snowflakes had contacted PTSD and it necessitated that VCHA call in the WCB to certify that the workplace was unsafe.  I had to be removed.

Richard Singleton, director of VCHA Risk Management, is a social worker with three degrees.  He decided that I should be banned on 30 January 2014 from all VCHA properties for life.

Prior to 30 January 2014 no one suggested that I was bad for Randy and that Randy needed protection from me.

Richard never spoke or met with Randy.  He set restrictions on me as to visitation without explanation.  He said I knew what I did wrong.  No,  I replied in an email, tell me.


Years later I asked the lawyers for VCHA for good reasons for my banning. Nothing.

Hospitals are for patients, not for ultra-delicate snowflakes. 

----------


I asked the Public Guardian and Trustee for the reasons why she revoked Randy's power of attorney on April 4 2014.  VCHA approved of it by signing a Certificate of Incapability. The PGT said the reasons were sent to me.. I asked them to send them to me again. The PGT refused saying that it was under no obligation to repeat its lawful obligation as to do so would distract from doing its other work. The PGT administers $900,000,000 worth of assets and they cannot afford to resend me at the most, I estimate, to be an email of five pages. And to think the PGT is there to protect the public and yet she does not tell the public or a targetted member of the public why her decisions were made.




Sunday, February 19, 2017

Was I banned for life from all VCHA properties because of media? I really do not know.

I can relate to this on a personal level.  In BC a few years ago a nurse also complained of the care of her mother after the mother died to the Sun newspaper in Vancouver. I tried to contact her to offer support. By then she was under a ban order (I suspect).  Later I read that she had PTSD over her mother's death and took early retirement. Really.  Maybe she was also sanctioned by the BC Registered Nurses Association as what is happening to Nurse Strom.

As for Strom (read below) in Regina the punishment reeks of interference that the Hospital Authority would lobby for.  I wonder if the six nurses that complained to the nursing association were ever named. I speculate if they even existed that they were directed to do so. No group of nurses would ever do this.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/02/18/complaining-about-granddads-care-on-facebook-could-cost-nurse-30gs

"In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle”
Strom. …also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that SHE SHOULD
NOT PUBLICLY CRITICIZE HER PROFESSION [emphasis mine]— plus $25,000 to
help cover costs of the investigation and hearing..."      Oh, of
course not - how could huge fines and publicly disgracing Nurse Strom
possibly be construed as muzzling her? Saskatchewan Registered Nurses'Association might as well have announced a free pass for any of its members inclined to neglect seniors in health facilities.   - Kate

COMPLAINING ABOUT GRANDDAD'S CARE ON FACEBOOK COULD COST NURSE $30Gs
Ashley Martin, Regina Leader-Post
Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:56:45 EST PM


REGINA, Sask. - Registered nurse Carolyn Strom said if she had known
the outcome two years ago, she would not have taken to social media to
criticize her grandfather’s long-term care.

As her drawn-out disciplinary hearing continued Friday in Regina,
Strom’s lawyer Marcus Davies and the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’
Association (SRNA) counsel Roger Lepage put forth their submissions on
penalty — Lepage suggesting $30,000 total.

Strom took to Facebook on Feb. 25, 2015, to comment on the care of her
recently deceased grandfather at a long-term care facility in Macklin.
She suggested a lack of compassion and education among staff.

Her disciplinary hearing began Feb. 10, 2016. In October, the SRNA
discipline committee found Strom guilty of professional misconduct, as
her Facebook post was found to “harm the standing of the profession of
nursing,” under the Registered Nurses Act.

As proceedings wrapped up Friday afternoon, discipline committee
chairman Chris Etcheverry gave Strom an opportunity to speak.

“Thanks for asking me to talk,” Strom said. “It’s been a very
stressful couple of years, and it’s just very surreal … having to sit
and listen to your life and yourself being discussed.”

It has been a “very taxing” time, both financially and health-wise.

“Had I known that this would be the outcome, I wouldn’t have said what
I said, and I’ve definitely learned from what’s gone on,” said Strom.

In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle” Strom.

The discipline committee will render its written decision as soon as possible.

Lepage argued Strom’s penalty should include a formal reprimand placed
on the public register, course work, and a review of professional
standards and the Canadian Nurses’ Association code of ethics.

He also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that she should not
publicly criticize her profession — plus $25,000 to help cover costs
of the investigation and hearing, which so far tallies almost
$143,000.

Davies disputed this, arguing the SRNA should pay all expenses as it
failed to negotiate an agreement in good faith.

As both parties attempted to resolve the case through a consensual
resolution agreement (CRA) between March 25 and Aug. 20, 2015, Lepage
said Davies and Strom would not co-operate within the required four
months, resulting in the hearing.

Davies said the issue was the SRNA’s “accusatory language” and
“inflammatory” claims, including accusing Strom of “professional
incompetence.” The wording didn’t improve after amendments.

Strom had agreed to the investigation committee’s conditions —
education, and reviewing standards and ethics. She had made “every
effort to try to resolve this without coming here,” said Davies.

“She was being punished for actually trying to reach an agreement by consent.”

Any fine should be “nominal in nature,” $1,000 or less, Davies said,
as “she’s already paid an awful lot” in this process: The
investigation has cost her tens of thousands of dollars in travel
expenses and missed work.

This is the SRNA’s first disciplinary hearing related to social media.

Lepage referenced five cases that could inform the penalty — including
one in which a nursing home employee published derogatory posts and
personal information about residents of the home, and one in which a
teacher blasted his employer for alleged homophobia.

Davies said, aside from the use of Facebook, Strom’s case does not
compare, and a $30,000 penalty would be “way out of line.”

Strom’s Facebook post alleged some staff were not “up to speed” on
end-of-life care and could use a refresher.

Strom, a registered nurse in the Prince Albert Parkland Health Region,
often uses social media as a health advocate, but this post was
written as a grieving granddaughter. The Macklin facility is part of
the Heartland Health Region.

As the hearing began a year ago, six registered nurses who cared for
Strom’s grandfather said they felt her Facebook post had tarnished
their reputations.

Strom generally referenced “staff” and did not criticize nurses in her post.

In its verdict, the discipline committee ruled Strom had breached the
CNA code of ethics, which promotes respect, meaningful communication
and collaboration with other health-care workers.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

PGTism in BC

After researching BC Public Guardian and Trustee, I  created a new word to describe it and it is "PGTism."

Later I received a phone call from the BCCLA thanking me for my donation.  I asked how much did I donate.  He said $20.00.  I said I made a mistake as I was only going to give it $10.00.  The BCCLA is frustrating as it seldom answers its phone or replies to emails. 

He also wanted some feedback, and so I said, what is the BCCLA going to do about PGTism?

Of course, the young man, who sounded very well education, did not know what PGTism was, neither did he know what a Public Guardian and Trustee was; however, I did leave him to ponder: how could a regulation, not a law, make an adult a "non-person."  Being named a non-person should be under the purview of the Supreme Court.


Making an adult a non-person is not the same thing as regulating how the Liquor Control Board should do its job.  How insulting of British Columbia to subject any one of us to being regulated. Stripping us of our autonomy by use of a regulation.

Statutory Guardianship Act Regulation (2014).




Sunday, February 12, 2017

the Police

Eleanor Murray : the police are allowed to lie, they are allowed to trick you, and if they believe you are guilty they will focus on anything you say to use against you and develop that into a case against you.

I wonder how many other governmental agencies do this as well.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the serial abortionist in the US, spoke to the media and said that a physician's licence was a licence to lie.  So much for medical ethics.
.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Third leading cause of deaths is medical errors.

According to John Hopkins (2016)\, the third leading cause of death is hospital errors.

This suggests to me that we should not trust doctors when decisions are being made especifically for end-of-life.

The first leading cause of death is heart;
The second leading cause of death is cancer.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Reasons hospitals use to get rid of visitors .

This was taken from an article written by a doctor in the United States.  These concerns parallel what happened to me over Randy and why I was forbidden from visiting Randy.  These reasons are not good enough.  It says to  me  only says that health care professionals do not do their jobs.

My banning was orchestrated by the hospital so I could not speak to anyone, then and forever.  Yes, I was banned forever from all Vancouver Coastal Health properties. Yellow journalism.

The patient does not follow medical advice. In a health care era focused on patient-centered care, patient engagement, and joint decision-making, could this ever be a valid reason?

The patient has a mental health disorder. Should the presence of one serious chronic disease ever deprive a patient of life-preserving care for another chronic disease?

The patient is violent and is a risk to other patients and staff. In reality, reported incidences of serious violence perpetrated by dialysis patients are rare; most ‘violence’ is verbal, precipitated by personality conflict based on cultural differences, low health literacy, and poor communication. These are addressable issues.

The patient is disruptive. When this reason is explored, it often turns out that the patient has expressed quality-of-care concerns; labeling the patient as disruptive and involuntarily discharging him/her, is a form of retaliation. Patients understand the ability of dialysis centers to do this, and many describe feeling intimidated, captive and vulnerable.

Dr. Robert Bear, January 9 2017.

Monday, January 9, 2017

George Soros

Why we need socialized medicine according to George Soro.

Soros thinks more human deaths are good for the planet, which helps to explain his support for socialized medicine, a public policy that is guaranteed to create pressures for fewer persons to need health care.

Only the vulnerables, those that are sick and/or disabled, who are $rich would live. Only the $rich could afford medical care.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Brian Goldman: DNRs, Slow Codes are illegal


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Chatelaine's.  It was written in January 2015. Brian Goldman

I walked into my home in midtown Toronto following a night shift in the ER. It was noon on an autumn Saturday just over a year ago and it had been 31 hours since I’d last slept. I planned on heading straight to bed, but the phone rang.
It was a nurse, calling from the retirement home where my dad, Sam Goldman, had been living for three years. “I’m with your father now,” she said. “He felt tired this morning and didn’t come to the dining room for breakfast.”
Breakfast was one of the few things that could still rouse any sense of pleasure in my dad, who viewed retirement homes as prisons for the elderly. “He’s complaining of chest pain,” the nurse continued, before passing the phone to my father. I flinched. Dad had a heart condition.
“Dad, are you having chest pain now?” I yelled into the phone. My father was quite hard of hearing. “I went to the washroom,” he said, sounding weary. “I just want to rest in bed.” The non sequitur was typical of Dad. He wasn’t cognitively impaired; he’d just always found it difficult to describe his bodily complaints. He was evasive even with his doctors — as if giving a history was a violation of personal privacy. “I think you should call an ambulance,” I told the nurse when she got back on the phone.
As I sped toward the retirement home in the north end of the city, I considered the likely diagnosis of my dad’s symptoms. He could survive a heart attack — provided the damage to his heart was limited. I dealt with this kind of situation every day on the job, but now suddenly it felt different. It was personal.
By 2021, nearly one in five Canadians will be 65 or older. By 2051, that number will be closer to one in four, which means a significant proportion of the population will be battling everything from heart disease to dementia. To the diseases of old age, add mobility problems and psych­ological issues, such as depression and anxiety, and you get a complex assortment of health concerns that most doctors are ill-equipped to deal with. It’s a problem that affects every demographic, too, because those of us who aren’t facing ill health ourselves will soon be supporting those who are.
In most cases, doctors are good at fixing the everyday things that go wrong with people’s bodies. What we’re not so good at is helping patients realize that correcting a problem won’t necessarily improve their quality, or duration, of life. It’s the rare physician who prepares patients to die well, or who will even acknowledge that death is possible, much less imminent. This is a major issue in how doctors interact with their patients — and although I’ve been an ER physician for more than 25 years, it was my father’s illness that made me realize the enormity of the problem.

Dr. Brian Goldman CBC with his father Sam
Dr. Brian Goldman (right) and his father, Sam, in 2001.
For most of my life, my dad was the healthiest guy I knew. Not healthy in an athletic sort of way, but he had a good constitution. Then in 2010, just shy of his 89th birthday, he had his first heart attack, and it robbed him of his vitality. Congestive heart failure took away his breath, and every few months his lungs would fill up with fluid, causing him to nearly suffocate.
The harbingers of a looming heart attack — sudden weight gain caused by retained fluid, swollen ankles and a wheezy sound to his breathing — had been obvious. Still, I could never get my dad to pay attention.
Like many older caregivers, my father had neglected his health while looking after my mother, who was in the end stages of Alzheimer’s disease. The Canadian Community Health Survey shows that more than one-third of Canadians age 45 and older provide informal or unpaid care to a senior. (If they were paid a decent salary, their work would be valued at an astonishing $25 billion a year.) For 15 years, my dad focused on my mother’s needs at the cost of his own health.
On days when Dad’s heart got so bad he could barely breathe, he wouldn’t tell us in so many words. My sister and I learned to stay vigilant, watching for extra orneriness — a subtle yet reliable clue of impending heart failure. We’d drag him to the ER, where doctors would give him powerful diuretics to get the fluid off his lungs.
Dad’s recoveries were only a temporary reprieve, and I knew that his coronary arteries were one pea-sized clot away from triggering the heart attack that would almost certainly kill him.

Secrets and lies

My sister, Joanne, and I arrived at the retirement home simultaneously. The paramedics placed my dad on a stretcher and loaded him into the back of the ambulance. He looked comfortable, as though his chest pain was gone.
When we arrived at the hospital a service assistant was already moving Dad from the hallway of the ER into a cubicle. I noticed that he didn’t look as well as he had earlier. When a nurse asked him to sit up, his heart rate skyrocketed. “How is your chest pain?” she asked. “Not too bad,” he replied.
Then an internist I’ll call Miranda appeared, carrying my dad’s ER chart. “Deep breath, Mr. Goldman,” Miranda said to my father. Like the nurse before her, Miranda quickly gave up trying to get much of a history from my dad. She moved to the physical examination. In my experience, few physicians are completely comfortable treating fellow doctors’ family members — I know I’ve always hated looking after the parents of my colleagues, with all of their questions and doubts about my clinical acumen. I res­olved not to second-guess her.
“Your dad has acute coronary syndrome,” said Miranda as my sister and I sat on chairs in a room not far from our father’s cubicle. Acute coronary syndrome, or ACS, is what we used to call a heart attack. It’s what happens when the blood supply to the heart muscle is blocked suddenly. There’s no good reason for the name change, aside from the fact that doctors like inventing complex terminology that obscures the meaning to outsiders.
In an ACS, there are three ways to unblock the coronary artery: angioplasty, coronary bypass surgery or a clot-busting drug. Miranda mentioned none of them. “I’d like to give your dad blood thinners to prevent more clotting of the coronary arteries,” she told us. “And nitrates to get more oxygen to his heart.”
It felt weird being on the other end of a conversation I’ve had hundreds, if not thousands, of times. I found myself receiving the information while evaluating the young doctor delivering it. Physicians often get little training on how to talk to patients and have astonishingly little insight into how they come across. A growing body of research has concluded that more detailed, straightforward and compassionate explanations from physicians about serious illnesses and end-of-life care mean patients actually have a better quality of life as they near the end.
My sister nodded as Miranda explained the options. Meanwhile, I was trying to process what she wasn’t saying. Doctors are notorious for hinting, a habit that I think comes from a fear of being too certain about a diagnosis or prognosis, and then being proven wrong. Hints allow a bit of wiggle room. Clues a doctor is doing this include unclear language and heavy use of technical jargon. The only way to cut through it is to ask questions like “What does that mean?” until you get either more clarity or an admission of uncertainty, in which case a second opinion might be in order.
While there may have been good clinical reasons for not offering all of the treatment options to my father, I wondered if there was one more thing not put up for discussion: his age. At 92 and in ill health, my dad had seen his best days. Physicians genuinely believe that surgery is just too risky in seniors, but the line between age-appropriate clinical decision making and ageism is often quite blurry.
Ageism is rampant in the culture of medicine, just as it is in society in general. Studies show that seniors with heart attacks are less likely to get angioplasty or coronary bypass, and if they do receive these invasive interventions, they often wait significantly longer than patients half their age. “If I’ve got a 50-year-old and a 92-year-old in the resuscitation room and both need my attention, I help the 50-year-old first,” a colleague once told me. “Sometimes, you’ve got to make choices.”
Geriatrics is still a relatively low priority in medical school, where institutions have done a poor job of recruiting students who like taking care of patients like my dad.
“We’ll admit your father to a telemetry bed on the floor,” Miranda told us. The “floor” refers to the general wards and not to the better-equipped — and better-monitored — coronary care unit (CCU), where acute heart patients usually go. Still, I didn’t question Miranda’s judgment. Like any other family member, I wanted the doctor to be right.
At 7 p.m., Miranda motioned my sister and me out into the corridor by Dad’s room. “Have you thought about what your father would want if he suffered cardiac arrest?” she asked, sounding respectful, yet emotionally detached. As powers of attorney, we were being asked to sign a DNR form giving Miranda permission to do nothing should his heart stop, which is how it’s done at most hospitals. DNR is short for “do not resuscitate.”
I’ve been in Miranda’s shoes hundreds of times. You try to look concerned about the patient and the family while hoping the decision doesn’t turn into hours of anguished hand-wringing. Here I was on the other side, in a hallway of a busy ER, and it felt different — this smart yet inexperienced woman young enough to be my daughter was asking my sister and me to play God.

The DNR dilemma

In 2005, the American Heart Association changed the initials from DNR to DNAR, which stands for “do not attempt resuscitation.” The term is catching on in Canada. In my opinion, adding the word attempt is a useful reminder to everyone involved that it’s not within the powers of health professionals to guarantee a successful resuscitation. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
A study of more than 2,600 people aged 80 and older with cardiac arrest that occurred outside a hospital showed patients had only a 3.3 percent chance of a full recovery. The more conditions you acquire as you age, the lower the chance of successful resuscitation, and most doctors believe it to be completely futile. Often, the only outcome is cracked ribs following an attempt to resuscitate an osteoporotic 90-year-old — a truly horrifying experience that I have both witnessed and caused.
Yet, although health professionals may not want to perform cardiac resuscitation, they have no choice: It’s because resuscitation is the default option. If you want a new hip or cancer chemo, you don’t get it unless a doctor recommends it. Shocking the heart, ventilating and a whole host of other last-ditch measures are the only treatments that doctors have to perform unless given permission not to. For this reason, a DNR discussion often looks like a negotiation. It’s a dance in which we doctors hope to lead patients and their families to see the futility of intervening — and call it off. The slang term is “getting the DNR,” though I’ve even heard it called “closing the deal” and “making the sale.”
Most often, families see things the doctor’s way. But sometimes they don’t, and there are two good reasons for that. First, doctors often make the mistake of turning the DNR conversation into a one-two punch: One, tell the family that their loved one is likely to die, and two, close in for the DNR. That’s okay if the family is prepared for their loved one’s impending demise. If not, the shock of finding out that death is imminent will be so great as to make a discussion about DNR next to impossible.
Second, we live in a death-denying culture. It’s the norm for some families to refuse to see just how close their loved one is to dying. It would be so much better if everyone decided these things in advance, but that seldom happens. And when there’s no meeting of minds, conflict ensues. Last year, a family sued a Toronto hospital and two physicians for $1 million. The claim was that the doctors imposed a DNR against the family’s wishes. At issue in the case, which is before the courts, is whether doctors or patients have the final say over DNR orders.
Because there is so much drama around DNR decisions, doctors sometimes try to avoid both the resuscitation and the potential conflict with families by resorting to something known in hospital circles as a “slow code.” Unlike a genuine “full code,” in which doctors race to the patient, in a slow code, they walk. They’re slow to perform every intervention, from CPR to defibrillation. To families, a slow code looks like the real deal. But the reduced speed means enough time passes to virtually guarantee the patient’s heart and brain are deprived of oxygen more than long enough for death to be inevitable. Slow codes are a deceptive practice and unethical, but it’s hard to find a doctor who hasn’t seen or heard of a slow code being done, if not participated in one. So why do they do it? Some doctors can’t bear arguing with the family. It’s easier to let death happen naturally.

A matter of life and death

There’s another kind of deception some doctors engage in when it comes to treating critical patients. Occasionally, doctors and nurses equate “do not resuscitate” with “do not treat,” holding back blood pressure and diabetes medications, antibiotics and even intravenous fluids. It was this thought that flickered briefly in my mind as my sister and I looked at each other outside my father’s room. We had taken Dad to the hospital half a dozen times with heart failure without signing a DNR. This time was different. From the doorway, I could see how frail he had become.
“Dad wouldn’t want CPR if his heart stopped,” I said to my sister. Perhaps I was channelling the futility my colleagues and I feel about performing CPR on older patients. Perhaps I was trying to get past the moment as quickly as possible by denying its emotional significance. “I agree,” said my sister, taking what seemed like the mature course of action.
“I think it’s a good decision,” said Miranda. “Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.” At the time, it felt like the right thing to do.
By 10 p.m., I had been awake for more than 40 hours. A hospital service assistant had just brought my dad up to his bed on the cardiology floor. My wife, Tamara, joined us as my sister and I answered a long list of questions about my dad’s favourite foods and his bowel habits. I was barely able to stand, let alone think. At 10:30, my father told me to go home. “Are you sure?” I asked him. “I’d like to rest,” he answered.
Dad looked at Tamara and blew kisses at her. I muttered goodbye and took a step toward the door. Then I stopped and looked back at my father. Dad never said the words “I love you” to me. In his world, you didn’t say it. You showed it. In caring for our mother, dad had demonstrated his steadfast devotion to her.
I walked back to my dad’s bedside, kissed him on the forehead and said,“I love you.” I don’t remember the drive home. I fell asleep instantly when my head hit the pillow.
“Brian.” In that twilight state between dreaming and wakefulness, I thought I heard my name. “Brian.” This time, I felt someone shaking me. Tamara had a stricken look on her face. “He’s gone, isn’t he?” I asked. I was surprised at my composure. It was 2 a.m. I had missed my father’s death.
When we got back to the hospital Dad looked serene. The struggle to walk, to live apart from our mother, to breathe, had vanished. The corners of his mouth were curled up into the faintest of smiles, as if to say his first glimpse of death was okay.
I looked deeply at that face, trying to absorb that the man who had existed my entire life was gone, all the while cursing myself for not being there when he died. So many times I had seen impending death on the faces of other people’s fathers. How could I have missed seeing it on my own dad?
Miranda walked in wearing a scrub suit. “His heart slowed down,” she said. “His blood pressure dropped. We tried to reach you.” She had the defensive attitude I’ve often seen doctors display in the face of a death — she was gearing up for an angry outburst from me. Her concerns seemed pointless, since my father was dead. I just wanted her to leave. “Thank you for taking care of my dad,” I said to her.
In the weeks that followed, I ruminated on our decision to agree to the DNR. Did that give Miranda tacit permission to do nothing, with his life on the line? Did she believe his continued existence was futile? Was she as oblivious as me to the fact that he was so close to death?
I’d like to think my experience with my dad has made me a better ER physician. When I see a patient in dire straits, I tell family members in as kind, yet direct, a way as I can. I don’t hint anymore.
But I’m just one guy. We need better training in breaking bad news and in helping families make decisions in the best interests of loved ones near the end of life. In a frenetic ER, it’s nearly impossible to take the time necessary to explain prognoses to families in crisis. Hospitals need extra social workers and other professionals who have both the time and the training to offer families the psychological support they need to get through the most difficult of times. More and more of us are growing older. It would be so much better if we could all talk frankly about what we want and expect years before we near the end of life, instead of putting the discussion on indefinite hold.
As for my father, I have only that slight smile on his face to comfort me. I think he knew exactly what was up. He would have liked to die at home in his own bed. Hearing me say, “I love you,” gave him permission to let go. Sending us home was his last chance to exercise his will — and to tell us that death is part of life.
Brian Goldman has been an ER physician in Toronto for 25 years. He’s the host of White Coat, Black Art on CBC Radio and the author of The Night Shift: Real Life in the Heart of the ER and The Secret Language of Doctors: Cracking the Code of Hospital Slang. Read an excerpt of his book on understanding the language doctors use in hospitals.

Blog Archive