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.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
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/
"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.
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/
"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).
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)