Dr Narinder Singh
Although I’m aged 85 and am otherwise remarkably fit and well, I’ve got these four problems.
(1) When I wake up, even after being asleep for only half an hour, my mouth is so dry it almost hurts – I have to rinse it out with water straight away to get relief. One of my concerns is that this may be what’s causing me to wake up at night every 60 to 90 minutes – although admittedly, once I’ve rinsed my mouth out I usually go straight back to sleep.
(2) I have difficulty in swallowing anything of any size at all, things often get stuck on my throat – my throat seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
(3) Although I don’t have any problems with phlegm during the day, as soon as I lie down there’s usually so much phlegm in my throat that I often have to try to clear it up to 10 to 15 times before I can get to sleep.
(4) There seems to be an area in my throat which gets irritated, particularly by some foods, causing me to cough and cough and cough.
Is helping people with one or more of these problems within you areas of expertise?
I would be most grateful to hear from you.
I wish to make a complaint about Dr Andrew J Brooks, Urologist, to whom I was referred for help with the “frequency problem,” (I was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate,) on two grounds. Firstly, that as the result of the treatment he recommended and carried out on me, a TURP operation, I was damaged FOR LIFE in a highly personal way, it can’t be reversed. And secondly, his treatment didn’t work, didn’t help in any way.
The first, in more detail.
As a result of his treatment the semen I produced during sex was no longer ejected through my penis as used to happen, with all the pleasure that gave, (as any adult male would understand,) it just went up into my bladder. And it was FOR LIFE, it can’t be reversed.
It happened to me, but I’ve been told that it’s general knowledge that it’s ALWAYS a consequence of TURP operations, ALWAYS. (If it’s not accepted by the Commission and/or Dr Brooks, that this is general knowledge, please let me know – I’m sure I could easily get other Urologists to confirm this.)
AND, although I’m sure Dr Brooks will claim otherwise, he did not warn me of this in any way before he operated on me.
I would assume that I signed a consent to the operation, but that it wouldn’t have been on what basis – if it’s claimed otherwise, could I please have a copy. And Dr Brooks wouldn’t have anything else in writing to confirm that he had warned me of this.
The ONLY thing he could claim was that a conversation something like this took place.
Dr Brooks: “Now, you fully understand don’t you, that you will be subject to an operation under a full anaesthetic that always has it’s risks, that you will spend 48 uncomfortable hours in the hospital, that you will be out-of-pocket for more than $6,000, for my fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work and the hospital’s charges, even after Medicare rebates, and that one of the consequences of this operation will be that your semen will no longer be ejaculated through your penis, it will just go up into your bladder, it doesn’t just happen sometimes, it always happens, and it can’t be reversed, it will be for the rest of your life. And there’s a 20% chance that my treatment won’t work to help with your “frequency problem” at all.” (About which more later.)
Me: “Oh yes, Doctor. Anything so I don’t have to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet.”
The second, in more detail.
The treatment I got for my “frequency problem” didn’t work!!! Dr Brooks has conceded this himself in writing.
On 9 September, 2014, nearly a month after my operation, he wrote to my GP, “He still has significant frequency and urgency.” And on 18 November, 2014, more than 3 months after the operation, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved.”
Incidentally, I never had an “urgency” problem – this was a figment of Dr Brooks’ imagination, an example of how careless and lax he was, of which there were many.
He had an explanation as to why it didn’t work. In his 9 September letter he explained, “In the face of outflow obstruction there are changes of the bladder wall which significantly reduce the compliance and explain the low functional capacity, the frequency and the urgency. In 80% of cases these revolve after successful removal of the outflow obstruction, but it can take six months to resolve. The majority of the resolution occurs within the first three months.” But it doesn’t change in any way that it hadn’t worked.
And this is the first time he’d mentioned that it didn’t work 20% or the time, always – nearly a month after his operation, he’d never mentioned it before.
But who’s to say that it ever worked? I would have thought the onus on him to establish that it ever worked.
So it’s up to the Commission to decide whether it’s acceptable for a doctor to put patients through what Dr Brooks put me through, an operation under a full anaesthetic that always has it’s risks, 48 uncomfortable hours in hospital, and expenditure of more than $6,000 for his fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work and the hospital’s charges, even after Medicare rebates, to help with a relatively minor problem, the “frequency problem,” when, in addition to the fact that it damages them for life in a highly personal way, it can’t be reversed, and when he knows, and admits himself, that it doesn’t work in 1 case in 5, with no evidence that it ever works, of which he doesn’t warn the patients in any way.
When I subsequently sought the assistance of the NSW Privacy Commissioner to get a copy, advising her that, amongst other things, you had ignored 3 emails I’d sent you requesting copies of things to which I was legally entitled, you will recall that your response to her was that you hadn’t received my emails because your email address was set up in such a way that it weeded out emails from patients so that you didn’t receive them – this, despite the fact that I’m advised by technology people that setting up and mail address in this way isn’t possible, and that when I’d sent you one email, an email enquiring about how best to pay your $3,200 fee, it was acknowledged and responded to extremely promptly.
Eventually, with the help of the Privacy Commissioner, I did get a copy of 2 or 3 documents – but never a copy of your nurses report. Even the Privacy Commissioner gave up on this. The obvious suspicion is that it didn’t support your diagnosis at all.
So, as I say, I had the TURP. AND, you yourself admitted in writing that it hadn’t helped in any way.
ThinkConveyancing’s website – thinkconveyancing.com.au.
If you go to their website and click on the “Contact” on it, you are taken to an email form, which has been used to send them this.
In using email forms, the date and time that the form has been submitted is always entered just below the enquiry, something that is done automatically with ordinary email addresses, as has been done in this case.
Having submitted this form, we got this immediate automated response.
More than 3 hours later nothing further had been received.
We had/have no interest in phone conversations – we need something in writing which might indicate that they might be worth dealing with.
We strongly recommend to our viewers that they do this sort of thing themselves with any people or organisations they may be thinking of dealing with – when we or one of our readers has done it, we put the details up on our blogs, to possible save other readers time and trouble.in doing what has been done already. Such posts can be located almost immediately by using the search facilities on this blog.
We’ll let you know if we hear anything further.
A comment or a question? Email us on firstname.lastname@example.org.
When it comes to selecting the best retirement home for ourselves or ours, the internet provides almost infinite scope for research, but we strongly believe that our first priority should be to locate the ones who are the most helpful when we have enquiries or concerns, and that when we’ve found the best one or two or three of these, we can then carry out such further research on them as we feel might be useful.
The ones who might be the most helpful.
(1) Have ordinary email addresses.
Ordinary email addresses are, of course, easily the best for us; email forms MAY be acceptable, although we’ve found, from more than ten years of experience, that those who only have email forms, are usually not very helpful; and that those who only have phone numbers and/or fax numbers, are not worth bothering with.
(2) Have people in their employ whose job it is to respond to our enquiries or concerns. Even those who have ordinary email addresses may or may not have these. Of course, having these are an expense, and we find that lots of people and organisations hope that they can manage without being up for this expense – and that we, the people, often allow them to do this.
We’ve started carrying out research to find the ones that are the most helpful, to save our readers and ourselves time and trouble, and the results as at 3 Jul. 2019 are shown below.
A comment or question? Email us at email@example.com.
By the way readers, if it’s your first time in visiting this practice, take special note of it’s address – 72A/47 Neridah Street, Chatswood – and allow plenty of time to find it, and we mean, plenty of time – it’s in a quite incredible maze of 70 or more small practices.
A comment or a question? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We just can’t believe that there are medical practices that operate, apparently successfully, without an ordinary email address, without even an email form, just a fax number, in this day and age!!! the Castle Hill Medical Centre apparently being one of them.
We’re not talking here about getting medical advice by email, we’re not expecting this to happen, although occasionally it does, but there are dozens of other matters that can arise in dealing with people in medical practices that are best handled using ordinary email addresses.
The irony is that they use an ordinary email address for their marketing – but their emails are always headed with “email@example.com,” meaning that they can use an ordinary email address to contact you but you can’t use ordinary email addresses to contact them.
Dealing with health care professionals is hard enough without this sort of nonsense.
A comment or question? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.