Most Hair Transplant Surgeons excercise habitual practices prohibited by law

[john36]

Hello everyone

I am a new member and I am shifting my post from Dr.Armani Law Suit Against the Hair Transplant Network to a new discussion, because is assertion focused on the (non existence of)

ethic in the HT "Industry".

 

It is assertion pertaining to the VAST majority of HT surgeons.(in fact I don't know of any HT surgeon who does not exercise habitual practices prohibited by law as I will describe in my post).

 

Some of you have already, like me, undergone HT surgery, so you will know what I am talking about because you will recognize that in fact what I say is true.

 

Some of you are thinking about having HT surgery

and I recommend before you decide to do so, check for a HT doctor who will answer NO to the questions I ask below. So far no one did .

 

here it is:

For the doctors claiming (having/practicing) ethics as opposed to some Armani or someone else who doesn't.

A.

1.How many of you personally evaluate the patient sufficiently so you could formulate an appropriate pre-operative diagnosis, and how many of you use "consultant" non medical person to do it for you? In addition and related to this how many of you explain pros and cons of HT surgery so patient intelligently can decide about his options (informed consent) and how many of you give that to the "consultant" as well?

 

2. How many of you perform or personally supervise all aspects of the surgery? Including placement of the grafts in the receptor sites? And how many of you carve the patient, take the strip, suture the wound, make incisions (holes) in patient head and then leave the surgical room and patient and leave the rest to the "surgical technicians"? Do you have in other words, aspects of the surgery outside of your supervision performed or supervised by another qualified surgeon with the consent of the patient?

 

3. How many of you fail to personally perform post-operative medical care? How many of you delegate post-operative medical care to a non-qualified medical professional or to a non medical professional at all?

 

4. Do you recklessly delegate medical tasks in violation of the Administrative Codes in your states?

 

5.Does any of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of selecting the donor site to harvest the hair follicles for transplant in the preceptor site by letting the "surgical technicians" choose the location of the same by shaving and preparing patient just before surgery?

 

6.Do you and how many of you negligently and recklessly and ILLEGALY delegate the tasks of administering anesthesia to patient to persons not qualified under your state law? (everywhere in USA it is a law only DOCTOR can administer anesthesia)

 

7. How many of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,with your supervision ,to your "surgical technicians"? How many of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,WITHOUT your supervision ,to your "surgical technicians" while you chill outside the surgical room for hours? In violation of your administrative laws of your state.

 

8. How many of you have never seen the patient until just before surgery and therefore Lack Informed Consent in Violation of the Law in your state?

 

9. How many of you have "surgical technicians" engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery without the appropriate certificate from the State Medical Board in your state, in violation of the law in your state?

 

B.This questions are for the HT experts that post on this forum.

 

C.If you answer NO we don't do it...reply to me please I want to talk to you. However I doubt that any of you will.

 

It has become a habitual rule has it not?

Legislator regulated and anwered the questions above.Your imput or opinion on-are those things obligation of a Physician or not is not necessary

Now in the 21 Century and even 3000 years ago,Roman Law established this maxim:

 

Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.

 

The consequences of abuse do not apply to general use.

 

Used by legal specialists and suggests that a right should not be withheld from people because of others who abuse it.

 

We all know what the word abuse signifies applied in the Medical field now do we not?

...A corrupt practice or activity; unfair use, improper use:

 

D.Let me tell you something about YOUR standard of CARE .As long as ANY of you physicians think that you can successfully pretend that you are ignorant of, what common people,(like for example some jury would be consisted of), knows, which is, abandoning patient,,"surgical technicians" giving anesthesia....doing the whole surgery in fact, while Surgeon is somewhere else," Consultants" playing doctor on patients, leaving "surgical technicians determine where doctor will carve someone's head..etc etc is not care YOU are businesman,not a physician, and the HT surgery is busines,not medical field of elective surgery.

 

Because I know ,and hopefully many others soon will know, that conducts as such are disgusting violations of patient rights and abuse, resulting in butchery on the MAJORITY oh HT patients (customers).

 

 

 

And when some disfigured patient wants to seek justice in Court, none of you will dare to say the obvious, that conducts described above are not ,are forbidden to be, considered as a standard of care.

ANY REPLY DOCTORS?

 

Why I write this?Because this:

 

http://home1.gte.net/dschrode/newtransplant-tales.htm

 

is a reality

 

this is a reality:

 

http://www.baldrus.com/transplant.shtml

 

this is a reality:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/hairtransplant/

 

http://www.bosleymedicalviolations.com/procedures.htm

 

 

 

I write a long post but I won't apologize suppose if one does not like what I write one can skip reading. I have not even started writing yet.

 

Excuse my spelling mistakes here and there, I came to USA 8 years ago, so I have, I hope acceptable excuse.

This is for the grieved, abused and butchered patients. I am one of those. It happens that I have legal background back from my native country and somewhat (in my one sided and prejudiced view so far, hope that changes soon )am able to present valid argument.

 

If one reads my previous post one would notice that described conducts (by commission and omission) are violations of certain laws (either administrative laws of medical boards or the Law codes of the states).

 

Now that premise considered I will try to argue, what was never argued before.

 

In most medical malpractice Law suits plaintiff needs a doctor to state in writing that in that doctors opinion his colleague breached the standard of care. That is necessary (in most cases) element to FILE claim for med malpractice. Most doctors in the HT "industry" unfortunately brake all those things that I mentioned in my previous post, although illegal, they do brake them.

 

So when one, like for example me, goes to other HT doctors and tells them the story, no HT doctor wants to sign affidavit of merit (because I assume such conducts are epidemic in the HT industry).

Thus, grieved patient, can not even start the law suit, because does not have the element of affidavit of merit from another doctor that the standard of care was breached.

 

That is why there is NOT MANY LAW SUITS AGAINST HT DOCTORS,

 

They protect each other by the simple fact that it is almost impossible to find HT doctor willing to testify against another.

 

That has been exceedingly successful shield they have against law suits.

 

However, I will try to argue something that never was argued before.

 

Like I said in most cases expert is needed to testify in Med malpractice case. But not all cases.

 

It is well-settled with the Courts that expert testimony is required only when the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury's comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, when the applicable standard of care is not a matter of common knowledge, and when the jury must have the assistance of experts to decide the issue of negligence.

 

Robson v. Tinnin, 322 Ark. 605, 911 S.W.2d246 (1995) (citing Prater v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 547, 739S.W.2d 676 (1987)). To emphasize that expert testimony is not required in every medical-malpractice case per se, we repeat statement from Graham v. Sisco, 248 Ark. 6, 449 S.W.2d 949 (1970),that was quoted in Davis v. Kemp, 252 Ark. 925, 481 S.W.2d 712(1972):The necessity for the introduction of expert medical testimony in malpractice cases was exhaustively considered in Lanier v. Trammell, 207 Ark. 372, 180 S.W.2d 818 (1944). There we held that expert testimony is not required when the asserted negligence lies within the comprehension of a jury of laymen, such as a surgeon's failure to sterilize his instruments or to remove a sponge from the incision before closing it. On the other hand, when the applicable standard of care is not a matter of common knowledge the jury must have the assistance of expert witnesses in coming to a conclusion upon the issue of negligence.Id. at 926, 481 S.W.2d 712-13. Courts has consistently applied this rule of law from the landmark case of Lanier to cases arising under the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act. See, e.g., Robson, 322Ark. 605, 911 S.W.2d 246.

 

In other words, why need an expert when it is obvious that negligence or recklessness or even intend to purposely disfigure is obvious to a common guy" That doctrine in the law is called res ipsa...

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning, "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself." It signifies that further details are unnecessary; the proof of the case is self-evident.

 

Now, The one who filed law suit (plaintiff) has to show to the court, without any expert, that:

 

(1)

That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the condition causing the injury, under the exclusive management and control of the defendant; "

 

(2) that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed."

 

Like I said HT surgeons will never say that another HT breached the standard because most of them do the same thing.

 

But I ask this, Surgical facilities (not licensed),surgical staff and their competence as surgeons team (not licensed to administer anesthesia and select where doctor will carve patient, donor site),pre-medical consultation and explanation of pros and cons of surgery (done by consultant),Pre med diagnosis (for example, blood work not done),Actual carving and suturing donor site being only action done on patient by the surgeon and all other aspects of the surgery delegated to "surgical technicians" (non qualified licensed),postoperative treatment of wound infection via telephone (because most of the time patients and doctors are miles away)are all instrumentality in exclusive control of the Surgeon.

 

The surgeon has the control, but he chose to abandon the control, and leave the pre operative diagnosis, actual surgery, post operative care to be performed not by him directly, not even with his supervision (how it is done).

 

He makes that choice unilaterally (without patients consent) and illegally, abandoning patient in middle of surgery.

 

So I disagree that "those facts are exceedingly difficult to satisfy/prove and one needs another HT surgeon to testify that the standard was breached". The surgeons have control, they (some of them or most of them as you please) chose not to have control and surgeon had control not to choose to delegate his control, illegally.

 

The second requirement ,The second argument that "that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed."

 

I would argue that if HT surgeon told patient pros and cons of surgery as he should have, patient might not undergo it, that if patient knew he, the surgeon, would not perform the surgery him self patient might have decided , should have not agreed to, under go it, If he would have chosen, because it was in his control to choose it, and it was his duty to choose it, the donor site incision, he would have chosen it in higher or lower position on patients head because of reasons that HT surgeons know where location should be and risks of significant scaring occurring if not positioned properly. If surgeon had performed, or at least supervised the performance of placing the grafts in the receptors sites ,the injury, the adverse outcome would not have occurred because HT surgeons know and should know how those grafts are placed properly in order to appear natural when they grow, in the direction of how hair grows naturally as advertised by them. Had surgeon been there he would know did the "surgical technicians" place all the grafts, or maybe only 1000 or maybe only 200.Had he ,(surgeon) provided qualified person to dig in the postoperative wound on the donors site, to try to recognize and find absorbable sutures, with scissors, it would not for example (mine example)be done by hairdresser lady who did not have clue what those are,digged with scissors 40 minutes and caused me extreme pain and possibly worsening the scar. No all that would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed. I don't understand why is that so difficult to see. Why is difficult to see that I disagree that medical expert needs to say that all of the above must not have happened, and adverse effects and injury would not have happened had the control HT surgeons had and by law must have ,chose to abandon having the control, to unilaterally, and illegally make that choice.Ignorantia legis non excusat -- ignorance of the law does not excuse.

 

The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by any members of the medical profession ,engaged in the same (or any) type of medical practice or specialty in the locality (or anywhere in USA)in which he practices or in a similar locality; first and most, makes them aware (that skill and learning does),that like every other member of the community, every citizen, by provisions of the law, delimits certain actions that he can or must (physicians )do by commission or omission .Physicians, like everyone else must obey the law .

 

This is the definition of acceptable standard of care :

 

The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in the same type of practice or specialty in the locality in which he practices or in a similar locality;

 

So far this definition was interpreted by the lawyers that doctors only determine The degree of skill and learning. I disagree.

 

While I agree that The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by the doctors is determined statistically(how the majority does it) law provisions delimit certain actions used by doctors (even though if it happens that majority of them does it) as ILLEGAL!

 

The Law provisions forbidding certain conduct, have supremacy over the Certain forbidden conducts and make them VOID to be considered any kind of care.

 

So to simplify this definition (standard of care),so far has been interpreted that doctors only determine The degree of skill and learning. I disagree. While I agree that The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by the doctors is determined statistically (how the majority does it) law provisions delimit certain actions used by doctors (even though if it happens that majority of them does it) as ILLEGAL! And thus makes them VOID to be considered any kind of care.

 

<span class="ev_code_RED">They can't be care, they are illegal.</span>

 

No one ever argued the obvious - that violations of the things that I state above automatically(without the need of expert)makes those violations medical negligence. If any of this elements exist med negligence should be presumed! And the burden should be shifted to defendant to prove how his actions that law delimited forbidden because are considered dangerous for patient,can be in his case considered acceptable care.

 

So, while I am aware that lack of informed consent is different ground for seeking remedies, as well as unlicensed practice of medicine, battery derived from lack of inf consent, abandoning patient etc...are all different grounds in the Law suit (I am aware of that ) I am saying it should be argued this (never argued before but so obvious to me )

 

By law doctor is required to inform patient about pros cons of surgery so patient intelligently can exercise his choice.

 

That is the essence of the pre operative care

 

 

By Law doctor can not delegate certain medical tasks ( as he did in my case) to certain people.

 

The performance of surgical tasks (can anyone argue otherwise) is the essence of the activities where most of the medical care and skill is exercised on patient! Same for the rest .

 

So yes doctors do determine "this is common

practice and done by most in our field" as long as does not violate the law

 

No one ever argued the obvious that violations of the things that I state above automatically(without the need of expert)makes those violations medical negligence.

 

If any of this elements exist med negligence should be presumed!

And the burden should be shifted to defendant to prove how the law which delimited certain actions forbidden because are considered dangerous for patient, can be in his case considered acceptable care.

 

 

This argument if prevails gives a chance for future plaintiffs can by-pass the shield made by the doctors lobby which simplified is" if you want to sue us one of us has to tell on the other he he he ...good luck.

 

You who read this may ask your self...But why? Why would Physicians (lets say some physicians)

brake the laws and violate patients rights? Why someone who spent 10 years to become M.D or D.O, highly educated, would brake the laws continually, would violate patients rights continually? What is the MOTIVE?

 

Fair enough, good question, and I will tell you why.

 

The motive is, like in any business ,or as they call it now "Industry ",money, profit.

 

What makes business successfull?To be competitive against same entities offering the same services or product on the market, to the consumer.

How do you become and stay competitive?

By making the product or service cost effective so you could offer to the consumer low prices.

 

And how is that possible related to the Hair Transplant surgery, called now, most appropriately, Industry?

 

By delegating physicians tasks to non physician, very often non medical personnel.

 

That is extremely cost effective. One hour of physician time is worth 200 - 400 dollars an hour. One hour of "surgical technician "time is worth 20 - 40 dollars per hour.

 

So to get more cost effective service/product, the businessman/physician in order to stay in the "business" is forced to delegate more and more tasks that he has duty to perform him self, to "surgical technicians" and "consultants".

 

You may say...but that is illegal. And you are right. It is. But who cares .HT "Industry" made a code, Never give a chance victim of malpractice in HT surgery to go to Court and expose the illegal practice.

 

The legislator presumed that there is no business code ,but rather, medical and ethical code so gave the physicians initial power of determination to decide, was it or not breach to duty of care.

 

However the paradox now is to stay competitive in the game, most surgeons have to do the same thing.

 

No doubt, judging by results and reputation, this surgeons contributing on this web site permanently give excellent results and satisfied patients/customers. However,wast majority out there, don't.

 

"The industry itself has not been known for its good quality work in the past, nor its ethics. The industry has been laden down with a sleaze factor to a high degree."

 

"...unfortunately, over the past 30 years a lot of the doctors have done a great deal of harm in the hair transplant business. "

 

Dr. William Rassman, Hair Transplant Surgeon, Medical Director at New Hair Institute

http://www.thebaldman.com/Interview_rassman.htm

 

 

Industry? Can't be.What should we put as a moto?

Caveat emptor ?

Caveat venditor ?

 

It is medical field !!Can't be made now into market.It is not regulated as a market.

 

<span class="ev_code_RED">Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia !!</span>

 

No Doctors:

Go back and remeber,before it was busines there was :

Cura te ipsum !!

Deaurentur pilulae (Deaur. pil.)

Primum est non nocere

Fiat lege artis

[john36]

In regards to my question number 6 to the HT Doctors (please see above).Please read article bellow.There is a reason why THE LAW prohibits

"surgical technicians" to administer anesthesia:

6.Do you and how many of you negligently and recklessly and ILLEGALY delegate the tasks of administering anesthesia to patient to persons not qualified under your state law? (everywhere in USA it is a law only DOCTOR can administer anesthesia)

 

Please read this article that was in the news 2007:

 

California hair transplant clinic sued for the death of a patient

Posted on April 27th, 2007 in Hair Transplant News by admin | 1,682 Views |

Crown Cosmetic Surgery, a Los Angeles-based hair transplant clinic that touts low prices for hair transplant surgery, is being sued after a patient died during his hair transplant surgery.

The widow of 52-year-old Walter Riley, who died during surgery on April 27, 2006, is seeking unspecified damages in her suit that was filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

According to her attorney Ron Wilson, a medical expert who had been retained by his law firm determined that Riley had been given an overdose of anesthetic.

"It's a several-hour procedure. They anesthetize you, they do the hair grafts and you come out looking great later. Or that's what's supposed to happen," Wilson said Wednesday. "With Mr. Riley, he went in and within an hour he was dead."

According to media reports a person who had returned a call from Crown Cosmetic said the company's lawyer had advised that Crown not comment on the matter.

Mr. Riley is survived by his wife Yvonne Robison-Riley and her three adult children who are also plaintiffs in the suit.

It's very unusual for a patient to die during a hair transplant procedure because typically a patient is given a local anesthetic and is awake during the entire procedure. It's unknown to us what type of anesthesia Mr. Riley was under when he died.

 

 

Do you have any comment HT Doctors.Who should administer anesthesia to HT patient?

 

In my case "surgical technicians" did.

 

Readers who did in your case?

[john36]

My question

1.How many of you personally evaluate the patient sufficiently so you could formulate an appropriate pre-operative diagnosis, and how many of you use "consultant" non medical person to do it for you? In adition and related to thishow many of you explain pros and cons of HT surgery so patient inteligently can decide about his options (informed consent) and how many of you give that to the "consultant" as well?

 

Informed consent is a legal document in all 50 states.

 

It is an agreement for a proposed medical treatment ornon-treatment, or for a proposed invasive procedure.It requires physicians to disclose the benefits,risks, and alternatives to the proposed treatment,non-treatment, or procedure. It is the method by whichfully informed, rational persons may be involved inchoices about their health care.

 

Description

 

Informed consent stems from the legal and ethical right an individual has to decide what is done to his or her body, and from the PHYSICIAN'S ethical duty to make sure that individuals are involved in decisions about their own health care.

 

The process of securing informed consent has three phases, all of which involve information exchange between DOCTOR and patient and are part of patient education.

 

First, in words an individual can understand, the PHYSICIAN must convey the details of a planned procedure ortreatment, its potential benefits and serious risks,and any feasible alternatives. The patient should be presented with information on the most likely outcomes of the treatment.

 

Second, the PHYSICIAN must evaluate whether or not the person has understood what has been said, must ascertain that the risks have been accepted, and that the patient is giving consent to proceed with the procedure or treatment with full knowledge and forethought.

 

Finally, the individual must sign the consent form, which documents in generic format the major points of consideration.

 

The only exception to this is securing informed consent during extreme emergencies.

 

Hair Transplant procedure is NEVER extreme emergency.

 

Today, all of the 50 United States have legislation that delineates the required standards for informed consent.

 

If "CONSULTANT"(who almost in ALL instances is NOT physician),not the doctor, explains the pros/cons of HT to patient and patient decides to undergo HT surgery because of it,that "informed consent" is NOT informed and legaly worthless.

 

Patient can not ask the "COnsultant"needed questions about the HT,which is MEDICAL PROCEDURE because "Consultant" can not explain inteligently HT,does not have the education,skill and most important ,legal right to do so.

 

Lack of informed consent before HT constitutes Battery

 

Question for the doctors.How many of you have "consultants" doing that for you?

 

For you HT patients,who did informed consent on you?

[john36]

Or let ask the question about informed consent differently:

 

Is it Doctors,called Unlicensed practice of medicine when clinics hire salesmen (consultants) who have no medical training and then are These salesmen break the law

when they examine patients, make medical diagnoses,evaluate your hair loss, recommend a surgical treatment (for example recommending a

certain number of grafts), or schedule a surgery

before the patient actually sees a licensed doctor?

 

In other words are "Consultants" equiped,have training and knowledge to inform hair loss sufferer about anything concerning the

HT surgery before I he signes that document?

[Bill - Seemiller]

John,

 

Thanks for creating a new thread but I'm a little confused. Are you targeting hair transplant clinics with your post or forum members?

 

From reading through your first post, you appear to be addressing both. This doesn't make sense considering our forum is made up mostly of hair loss suffering male and female patients however, a few surgeons do regularly contribute.

 

If you'd like to discuss medical ethics, feel free. However, if you are attempting to corner the entire hair transplant industry and accuse it of corruption, I don't feel that you will have much success.

 

I do agree that some surgeons deserve to be called out publicly for questionable techniques and marketing tactics. But there are a number of quality and ethical clinics regularly and properly caring for patients and putting out great results.

 

With any surgery, there are certainly risks, and no doctor bats a thousand. The key is informed consent.

 

I know you mentioned that you are a dissatisfied hair transplant patient. Why don't you take the time to share your personal experience and photos and perhaps we can help you.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[john36]

To: Bill

I will do it Bill.I will share the story.To whom I went for help after the surgery also.And I will post pictures.

Targeting?What does that mean?I ask questions.If I state untrue facts on the forum it is called Libel and it is grounds for law suit for the person I state untrue facts.I have NOT stated untrue fact Bill.I act in the public declaration of this website which you proclaim.

Do I really need to cite your declaration Bill?

Be patient Bill ,we are all here patient(s)

[Bill - Seemiller]

John,

 

"Targeting" isn't to imply that you are accusing anyone. I used the word as a synonym for "addressing".

 

I look forward to hearing your story and seeing your photos.

 

Bill

[the B spot]

Wow--a lot of information to sift through John.

 

I will restrict my comments to general statements overall.

 

It is the responsibility of a clinic to determine if practices and procedures fall within the guidelines of the law.

 

However, there are many aspects of cosmetic surgery that do not have "on point" laws/case precedent that specifically address practices and procedures.

 

Anyway, clinics who want to make sure of patients health, short and long term, will make sure they do everything in their power to ensure patient safety and satisfaction.

 

There are many instances of rogue consultants, mismanagement, patients who are sedated and then asked to sign paperwork, etc.... and yes, these clinics do the entire industry a disservice and horribly scar people (physically and mentally) and often leave them without recourse.

 

But, things ARE getting better overall (imho) and with the internet/radio/word of mouth we as patients are doing a better job of communicating our satisfaction and dissatisfaction to a larger and more receptive audience.

 

I personally think it is great you have taken the time to pour all of this out.

 

Take Care,

Jason

[john36]

I am working on it.I will give names.I will post pics without hiding my face either.I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of

[john36]

how do I download pictures on my profile page?can I download pics in the forum?

[Bill - Seemiller]

John,

 

Instructions for presenting photos can be found here.

 

Bill

[john36]

To:Bill

I am unfolding the story Bill.I posted photos (under butched).But the story has allot more...and I will write

[Bill - Seemiller]

John,

 

I see that you posted your story and photos. Thanks for doing this.

 

I sent you a private message too, but in case you see this first, I moved your photo album to the "Hair Restoration Results Posted by Patients" forum since it's more appropriate there.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[john36]

removed by john36

[john36]

removed by john36

[john36]

removed by john36

[john36]

removed by john36

[mgoldberg]

sorta answers my q. apparently is it's legal in your state. you taped it because you had reasonable doubt regarding this company's services and may use it in court. i originally thought you had taped all conversations from the very beginning. That lead me to wonder if it's common practice for people to walk around with recording devices, but it seems that you took it out because of the situation.

 

my thoughts are that i am glad you are exposing this part of the industry. not sure how far you will get legally and with your other intentions, but that's up to you and i wish you the best. i have less chutzpa and attempt to settle by getting it restored by the top doc and have this doc pay for the repair. my goal would be to make it a less painful story years from now when looking back at this experience.

[Bill - Seemiller]

John,

 

Why you are you blatantly lying by creating new posts saying that I'm trying to prevent you from sharing your story?

 

See my Public Message to You Here.

 

Bill

[john36]

removed by john36

[john36]

removed by john36

[Bill - Seemiller]

John36,

 

I don't need your consent to move a thread. You create it in the wrong place, it's moved, period. Out of respect, I notified you of this privately which you clearly and blatantly ignored.

 

Though I understand you are upset due to a poor hair transplant experience, your judgement is clouded.

 

Read my Public Message To You Here.

 

You apear to be in a legal crusade against Dr. Weiss and are attempting to draw other unrelated doctors in with you. I'm not sure why you think other doctors not involved with your surgery should help you bring legal action against your first doctor.

 

Instead of pursuing revenge by legal discourse, why don't you seek repair work and get your life back?

 

Bill

[Guest]

he may have a point bill. i noticed his post are gone now and honestly id like to read what he has to say because i have the same feelings that john has. if hes lying the where are his posts?

[Bill - Seemiller]

botched,

 

What point do you think he has that hasn't already been addressed?

 

Please do some reading before assuming I've removed legitimate posts.

 

John's hair transplant photo album can be found here. It has not been deleted, only moved to its appropriate location.

 

After his post was moved, he created 2 duplicate threads that included exactly the same information as found in this thread (the one you are posting on) and his photo album. Those threads I did remove since we don't need 5 threads with the same exact content.

 

There is nothing he said on another post that hasn't been said on this and the photo album thread I've listed above.

 

Bill

[john36]

If you are an Attorney,and read this post ,In particular ,my argument that ,if prima facie evidence exists that violations of law provisions that I state there (look),conducts of doctors that are considered illegal,must presume Med malpractice occured and burden of proof (now they need expert) shifts to the doctor to prove how the violated laws,prohibited conducts,that the legislator found them dangerous to practice,can ,in the case of the defendant be considered acceptable standard of care.They are illegal.Illegal actions are forbiden to be standard.300 million people in USA and ton of lawyers don't see what I do?

 

It is time for answers to questions,asked by thousands of butchered victims of doctors predators.It is time, this here recomended doctors ,who say are different than others and have ethics, PUBLICLY,not legaly as some Bill says,tell us the potential revision customers/patients:

1.How many of you personally evaluate the patient sufficiently so you could formulate an appropriate pre-operative diagnosis, and how many of you use "consultant" non medical person to do it for you? In adition and related to thishow many of you explain pros and cons of HT surgery so patient inteligently can decide about his options (informed consent) and how many of you give that to the "consultant" as well?

2. How many of you perform or personally supervise all aspects of the surgery?Including placement of the grafts in the receptor sites?And how many of you carve the patient,take the strip,suture the wound,make incisions (holes) in patient head and then leave the surgical room and patient and leave the rest to the "surgical technicians"?Do you have in other words, aspects of the surgery outside of your supervision performed or supervised by another qualified surgeon with the consent of the patient?

3. How many of you fail to personally perform post-operative medical care?How many of you delegate post-operative medical care to a non-qualified medical professional or to a non medical proffesional at all?

4. Do you recklessly delegate medical tasks in violation of the Administrative Codes in your states?

5.Does any of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of selecting the donor site to harvest the hair follicles for transplant in the preceptor site by letting the "surgical technicians"choose the location of the same by shaving and preparing patient just before surgery?

6.Do you and how many of you negligently and recklessly and ILLEGALY delegate the tasks of administering anesthesia to patient to persons not qualified under your state law? (everywhere in USA it is a law only DOCTOR can administer anesthesia)

7. How many of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,with your supervision ,to your "surgical technicians"?How many of you negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,WITHOUT your supervision ,to your "surgical technicians"while you chill outside the surgical room for hours?In violation of your administrative laws of your state

8. How many of you have never seen the patient untill just before surgery and therefore Lack Informed Consent in Violation of the Law in your state?

9. How many of you have "surgical technicians" engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery without the appropriate certificate from the State Medical Board in your state,in violation of the law in your state?

 

Do you think that conducts as such are disgusting violations of patient rights and abuse,resulting in butchery on the MAJORITY oh HT patients (customers).And when some disfigured patient wants to seek justice in Court,do you say the obvious,that conducts described above are not ,are forbidden to be,considered as a standard of care.ANY REPLY DOCTORS?