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.




Blog Archive