TPP ALERT: CHIROPODISTS ARE NO MORE “PSEUDO-PODIATRIC SURGEONS” THAN OPTOMETRISTS ARE “PSEUDO-OPHTHALMIC SURGEONS”: EXPOSING AUSTRALIA’S CORRUPT CORPORATE ENTERPRISE & ITS “PSEUDO-PODIATRIC SURGEON” EMPIRE: ANZPAC (ABN 64 160 358 609), ACPS (ACN 087 751 497), APODC (ABN 24 008 488 748), AHPRA

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

TPP ALERT: AUSTRALIAN CHIROPODISTS ARE NO MORE “PSEUDO-PODIATRIC SURGEONS” THAN AUSTRALIAN OPTOMETRISTS ARE “PSEUDO-OPHTHALMIC SURGEONS”: EXPOSING AUSTRALIA’S CORRUPT CORPORATE HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISE WHICH HELPED TO BUILD THE “PSEUDO-PODIATRIC SURGEON” & “PSEUDO-PODIATRIST” HOUSE OF CARDS EMPIRE: ANZPAC, ACPS (ACN 087 751 497), AHPRA, APODC (ABN 24 008 488 748): STILL CAN’T FOOL AUSTRALIA’S AUTHENTIC SURGEONS AT THE AOA SHAME ON THE HCCC (NCAT) TRIBUNAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH PROFESSIONS PUBLIC POLICY

The APodC via a highly organized conspiratorial web of bad faith, unclean hands, enormous conflicts of interest, intellectual dishonesty, criminal dishonesty, and abject deception---all carefully tucked under the vehicle of a deceptive “Corporate Veil”---has immorally lobbied Australian Parliamentarians for the “legislative” privilege of surgically assaulting innocent Australian citizens without adequate educational underpinning within the Basic Medical Sciences. Moreover, the APodC has simultaneously---over a period of years & years---conspired to prevent the seamless repatriation from the USA of Australian citizens who legitimately earned & received authentic CPME Accredited Doctoral Level Podiatric Medical School education & CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Hospital Residency Surgical Training. If the Australian Parliament failed in its “due diligence” to root out Chiropody “Surgeon” Charlatans, it is the HCCC Tribunal (NCAT) duty to do so. A “stop-gap” measure of insurance indeed---a sort of last chance effort to protect innocent Australians from the grotesque forms of modern day charlatanism. The Australian Government must erect formal mechanisms of “checks & balances” in order to protect the innocent Public from the harm that Chiropody Charlatan “Surgeons” cause. The reason why the HCCC Tribunal (NCAT) failed in its sacrosanct societal duty to fully protect the innocent Public is because of their wrongful choice to employ bogus “Expert Witnesses”---who are mere Chiropodists themselves, just like Mr. Bours and his

Defense “Expert” Mr. Mark Gilheany. This represents, unquestionably, a most serious immoral breach of protections against “Conflicts of Interest”. This HCCC Tribunal proceeding proves the point of Dr. Daniel Poratt and myself. The Australian Chiropody Political Elite possess and recklessly assert a toxic anticompetitive chokehold of exasperating choking control over all Australian employment opportunities, citizenship, and repatriation: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

University Education & Research Association & Trade Management Bogus Accreditation at ANZPAC AHPRA’s Bogus Podiatry Board of Australia HCCC’s Bogus “Expert Witness” Employment

Australia’s Chiropody Trade version of “Pseudo-Podiatry”is a bona fide racketeering enterprise for which no Australian bureaucrat or elected Parliamentarian dare to defy. It’s as if they must treat Charlatan “Surgeons” as though they were an “Endangered Species” deserving of the most extremes of protection. It exasperatingly all defies human logic.

Herein lists the accumulated evidence against the Australian Chiropodists: 1) Unjustly Thieved the Professional Titles of “Podiatric Physician & Podiatric Surgery” for the profession of Podiatric Medicine & Podiatric Surgery without adequate educational justification or appropriate formal accreditation authority via the CPME 2) Unjustly Thieved the Professional “Scope of Practice” of “Podiatric Physicians” & “Podiatric Surgeons” for the profession of Podiatric Medicine & Podiatric Surgery without adequate educational justification or appropriate formal accreditation authority via the CPME 3) Unjustly prevented, blocked, thwarted, denied, and sandbagged legalized Health Workforce Status of Australian citizens who received overseas American authentic CPME Accredited Doctoral Level Podiatric Medical Education as well as CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Podiatric Surgical Hospital Residency Training. 4) Unjustly prevented formal Repatriation into Australia by hardworking talented and highly surgically skilled Australian citizens who received their education & training wholly within the USA.

5) The above hostile actions committed by the Corporate fraudsters at the APodC, ACPS, AHPRA, and ANZPAC are so unconscionable they are deserving of the attention of the United Nations and its specific Committees established to hear these very types of grotesque Civil Rights Violations. Shame on Australia for cultivating a Corporate Culture of Hegemony & extreme Civil Rights Abuses. 6) The Governmental (unelected bureaucratic employees of Australia) and the Political (elected political employees of Australia) leadership appear to be too provincial and short-sighted to see (and issue formal estoppels to) the inherent injustices, and enormous Civil Rights & Discriminatory violations committed by Australian institutions & private corporations inherently unique to the cases of Dr. Daniel Poratt, and other Australian citizens who made the positive time & monetary investment necessary to acquire the International Gold Accreditation Standard of education found exclusively within the USA: the CPME.

The following case law quite well demonstrates the problems encountered when Australia’s Chiropodists attempt to thieve a wholly American innovated specialty surgical profession, without positive educational attribution to the International Gold Accreditation Standard: the CPME. https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/55bf0663e4b0f1d031deb70d https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a63ff73004de94513dc6cc Ironically, despite the plethora of evidence within the International Public Domain which proves that Australian Chiropodists are merely authentic Chiropodists (and not the “Pseudo-Podiatrists” & “Pseudo Podiatric Surgeons” the Chiropodists disgustingly and unconscionably claim to be); the HCCC rather haughtily displays its contempt for the USA’s CPME Accreditation Standards…case in point is the 4000 kilogram elephant in the room…the extraordinary “Case of Australia’s own Dr. Daniel Poratt” who now lives in forced exile from Australia thanks to the Chiropody conspiracy against him and his hard earned American professional credentials. At no point did the HCCC or NCAT ever attempt to make contact with the esteemed Dr. Daniel Poratt. At no point did the HCCC solicitors or barristers ever invoke the CPME despite the comically absurd reference to the Defendant’s “World Best Practice” standards. Australian Chiropodists are no more “Podiatrists” and “Podiatric Surgeons” than Australian Optometrists are “Ophthalmologists” and “Ophthalmic Surgeons”.

Yet the HCCC has the audacity to suggest that the Australian community of bogus “Podiatric Surgeons” must be protected! On the contrary, Dr. Daniel Poratt and I make the fervent plea that the Australian citizenry must be protected from Australia’s community of bogus “Podiatric Surgeons” (who are mere Chiropodists). Has the HCCC or NCAT ever heard of the “Doctrine of the Impossibility of Informed Surgical Consent”? Reviewing the following statements of the HCCC (NCAT), do they really believe a Chiropodist who holds himself or herself out as a “Pseudo-Podiatric Surgeon” can credibly have a commitment to “World’s Best Practice” when absolutely no effort has ever been made to attend a CPME Accredited Doctoral Level Podiatric Medical School and a CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Hospital Residency in Surgery---despite Ms. Suzanne Owen’s ANZPAC’s of lies? 58. “As a result of the deficiencies found in the handling patient care, the practitioner claims to have commitment to ‘world’s best practice’. Some of the improvements to practice cited are: 

Patients are given diagrams of photos of a likely post-surgical outcome.



A full explanation is given of what was proposed and the relevant risks associated with the surgery.



Full disclosure is given of potential side effects that might arise.



Realistic advice is given about recovery time.



There is more thorough written and oral communication with general practitioners, pre and post operatively. Advice is sought from the general practitioner as to suitability for surgery. For patients with comorbidities written surgical clearance is sought from the general practitioner / specialist (sample annexed to Statement).



Explanations of risks are based on the patient’s medical profile and occupational / social / sporting considerations.



Both lay terms and medical terms are used with patients.



Patients are provided with a thorough written account of the surgical plan (sample annexed to Statement).



Patients sign off on that they have understood the information given (sample annexed to Statement).



Surgery is conditional upon a signed agreement to abstain from smoking for a period. Smokers are required to sign off that they are not smoking for three weeks prior to and after surgery (sample annexed to Statement).



Patients are given information as to appropriate alternatives.



Patients are given names of back up podiatric surgeons who are contactable if the practitioner is not.



Complicated surgery is not booked prior to leave.



It is explained to parties that the surgery performed is novel and a second opinion is encouraged.



The risks of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are explained, and a full summary of the proposed surgery is provided to the general practitioner.



Patient records, including photographs, are available to them and other practitioners via a computer program called “Podio”.

59. Samples of new forms and standard letters are annexed to the practitioner’s statement as evidence of new procedures. 60. In an annexure to the statement it is evidenced that he latest available audit (2013) from the President of the Australasian College of Podiatric Surgeons confirmed there were no cases requiring readmission to hospital after surgical discharge to manage infection or thromboembolic events. Nor were there any outlying cases or outcomes requiring further investigation.”

How is any of the foregoing at all relevant if the individual in question has never attended Medical School and has never completed a Basic Medical Science curriculum? Let alone ever completed a CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Level Hospital Residency Training. “103 The final reference is from a podiatry student of the University of Western Sydney, dated 6 July, 2015. This is also a very supportive reference: “… I can confidently say that during this week with Dr Bours I gained more knowledge from him than I did from several external 4 week placements … I strongly believe that deregistering Dr Bours would not only do the profession an injustice, but it would also affect future podiatry students who would miss out on a unique placement experience where they are exposed to exclusive equipment such as the Fluoroscope or having the opportunity to attend theatre at the Sydney Day Surgery to observe various foot and ankle surgeries…”

Sure, in the words of the USA’s Department of Transporation: “You can learn a lot from a dummy!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANAlT4pjRDI Do you honestly believe that the Defendant is the “exclusive” conduit for being “exposed” to a Fluoroscope…or the “exclusive” agent for access to any “Day Surgery”? Regarding the aforementioned, it was and is morally repugnant for this Tribunal to have permitted the immature views of an undergraduate student to broach this most serious proceeding. Whoever coerced said student to write such an appraisal (either positive or negative) should be formally reprimanded. At the very least, the Tribunal Administrators, upon receiving such correspondence, should have immediately censored it from any of the proceedings records. Students, who have little appreciable experience in matters of this weight; where innocent Australians have been unequivocally harmed due to profoundly poor Health Professions Public Policy, have no business entering the foray of determining precisely what’s in the Public’s Best Interest. Shame on you HCCC (NCAT).

Obviously, the HCCC’s titular “Experts” still don’t “get it”. They don’t even possess the educational expertise to credibly perform competent analysis or investigation upon anyone’s surgical credentials…bogus or otherwise. How could they? They are mere “bogus Experts” themselves---appointed from within the corrupt APodC Corporate infrastructure. A Cyber Cascade of Chiropody Charlatan “Pseudo-Podiatrists” and “Pseudo-Podiatric Surgeons” resonating within their own Echo Chamber of Chic Charlatanism and Incestuous Amplification of Squatters’ Rights for Comical Non-Turf Wars…for which they can never ultimately win.

“157 General deterrence is significant to the matters around patient information and care inasmuch as it is important to send a resounding message to other practitioners that, for example, informed consent matters. Surgery without informed consent, strictly, may amount to a battery at law. Sadly, many might report having been utterly befuddled after a surgical consultation. Unfamiliar

technical words, cursory explanations, and haughty assurances are not the foundation upon which informed consent is easily grounded. That is not to say that a surgeon is required to explain the depth and direction of every incision, and the number and thickness of every stitch. But a legally competent person going into surgery should be armed with an understanding of the nature of the surgery, whether or not it is considered mainstream or novel, the possible risks and complications and their likelihood (or otherwise), and a reasonable ‘ball park’ expectation of the nature and length of recovery times (albeit understanding that there can be differences between individuals due to age or comorbidities or simply the vagaries of nature). However, for example, to draw and give a technical wording around the planned removal of a piece of bone, and then expect that the patient would infer from that that their toe would be noticeably shorter, is not obtaining informed consent. Similarly, if a patient expecting a simple surgery is told by their surgeon that their post-surgery foot will be like one that has been run over by a car, this conversation should occur before the surgery, not after. As was stated in the reasons for the findings, a person cannot consent to a range of risks of which they are unaware.” The Tribunal goes on and on here regarding “Informed Consent”. Of course, “Informed Consent” matters. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has lost sight of the “Forest for the Poison Fruit Trees” in the aforementioned. In the case of the Defendant, it’s irrelevant because no patient could ever possibly achieve the “Informed” aspect of the “Consent” due to the Defendant’s penchant for lying. Lying about surgical outcomes: Lying about his educational credentials: Lying by omission: omitting the fact that he attended a Chiropody School; not a CPME Accredited Podiatric Medical School. It’s not just the Defendant, however, it’s the “Corporate Culture” from which he came. He doesn’t deserve ALL the blame. The APodC, ACPS, AHPRA, ANZPAC are all full and witting participants in ANZPAC’s of lies and fabrications. These Australian Titular “Podiatry” Political Powerbroking Chiropody Trade “Elite” figureheads have never received formal training of any sort within the USA. They have never possessed the “World’s Best Practice” Accreditation Standards of the CPME. They truly meet the definition of “charlatans”. Fraud, deception, and inflated qualifications & credentials are their true “modus operandi” used amongst their political dealings with Parliamentarians. These are the same lawmakers they lobby legislative privileges for which they cannot educationally justify.

“158 The public is entitled to confidence in the profession, and the profession

must be warned. Further, other members of the podiatric surgery fraternity should not suffer the taint of findings of professional misconduct being lightly dismissed by a tribunal when it comes to making orders. The podiatric surgical community is very small in Australia, there being something in the order of twenty to thirty such surgeons nationwide. Dr Bours gave no shortage of evidence as to his contribution to the development of novel surgical techniques in podiatry, and the potential for such techniques to afford results he described as ‘remarkable’. Indeed, he and his references describe him as something of a pioneer. The reputation of the podiatric surgery profession should be protected by the Tribunal carefully making orders that reflect the measure of seriousness of the findings.”

Sure, the Public is entitled to confidence in the profession…that’s why I write! But, with statements like these, it is difficult to imagine the HCCC (NCAT) being on the side of the innocent and needlessly & recklessly injured Public.

“166 Chief among these is the recognition that Dr Bours does have highly specialised surgical skills. It is a matter for consideration in making orders of the effect of removing an otherwise skilled practitioner from the market of health services. As mentioned, there are very few podiatric surgeons in Australia, and Dr Bours has gained a reputation as being one of the leaders in the field. True, an inflated enthusiasm for novel techniques insufficiently tempered with mindfulness of potential risks, complications and limitations of the techniques, has led to some of the infringing conduct found as the substance of the complaints. But, given the demonstrated ability to improve practices and adhere to strict practice conditions, the Tribunal would seek to make orders that do not result in the utter wastage of Dr Bours’ skills. The period of suspension from all practice, followed by the limitation of practice in general podiatry only for the next two years, would seem to strike the balance of protecting the public, fulfilling the objectives of both specific and general deterrence, and preventing the removal for all time of a skilled podiatric surgeon from the profession.”

“Highly specialized surgical skills!” Oh please, give me a break. Who’s side is the HCCC (NCAT) really on here? From where; Chiropody School? The Defendant falsely claimed to the HCCC Tribunal that not only was he eligible for a CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Hospital Residency in Surgery in North Carolina (USA), but also that he completed a CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Hospital Residency in Surgery at a Hospital---despite the evidence proving said Hospital in Greenville, NC never had a Residency of any sort in its historical past! Yet the HCCC appears to insist that the conspirators among Chiropodists who falsely claim to be “Podiatric Surgeons” are too great of a number to prosecute---and, therefore, must be counter-intuitively “protected”; not prosecuted. Finally, much ballyhoo has been represented to the HCCC Tribunal (NCAT) of the economic losses and financial hardships experienced by the Defendant since publication of its findings. But what about the economic losses and financial hardships simultaneously imposed on the Defendant’s innocent patients and those Australian citizens (still desperately trying to repatriate to Australia before their Australian parents pass away) who truly do possess USA CPME Accredited Doctoral Level Podiatric Medical School Education & CPME Approved Post-Doctoral Hospital Residency Surgical Training? Is it any surprise, that it’s the Defendant’s corrupt member corporations at the ACPS, APodC, ANZPAC, and the Podiatry Board of Australia which are responsible for denying repatriation to those Australians (like Dr. Daniel Poratt) who actually do hold authentic CPME credentials? The Civil Rights violations continue to mount. Under orthodox scenarios, the Defendant and most of his “Fellows” at the ACPS should never have possessed the legal privilege to surgically assault anyone---with or without their patients’ consent. Unfortunately for the HCCC & NCAT, they and their solicitors & barristers will never get Dr. Daniel Poratt or the AOA or the RACS to legitimize Australian Chiropody Corporate fraud as the authentic “Podiatric Surgeons” they are indubitably not. The AOA’s views of Australian Chiropody “Pseudo-Podiatric Surgeons” can be found on the next pages of the following PDF.

Walter Coffey

[email protected]

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.