Ask an expert

07 Oct 2009

The doc
So i wrote a letter and faxed it to the doc (not that I had hope that he' d get it because the wonderful receptionist would probably hide it or chuck it) I also faxed it to the PHCSA and emailed it to them, 702 for John Robbie and Carte Blanche.

I soon after got a call from the doc (funny how easy he can NOW return a call?) he said " i see you have been activly busy defaming my name"  I said how is it defamatory when its all the truth? He then went on this long long explanation as to how they do not give scripts unless they see you every 6 months, I said well as you can see from the supporting documentation in my complaint you have given me 3 scrips since January 2008 and never once mentioned this? He said he cant believe it and that they MUST have told me. I said they did not. He said well he WILL answer the complaint I said please do. He said I WILL. I said what are you worried about YOU ALWAYS WIN THESE CASES as your receptionist said.

He then said that he IS worried about the patient, I said don' t worry I found another doc who has helped me with an appointment next week. I told him to have a lovely day and put the phone down.

The way he approached me p' d me off why did he not when phoning me say ooops he see' s they' ve done this and they should not have etc and can he help?

Please explain to me if it is so that they HAVE to see you every 6 months and then give you a 6 months script WHY is it that they ever fax scripts and charge R70? Surely if you get a script for 6 months and you have to see him after 6 months for the next script it would never be necessary to fax scripts? hhmmmmmm??

Answer 387 views

01 Jan 0001

Everyone needs to be cautious in suh situations. But defamation, if I understand the law correctly, should be untrue, no in the public interest, and intended to do harm, rather than to defend a child at risk. People do forget, when being criticized, that it is wise to apologist -- even for you having been upset and worried, even if he felt he hadn't done anything wrong. And the point was that while it is highly justifiable for him to insist on seing people on chronic meds every 6 months before continuing their prescriptions, (a) that should be stated in writing to the patient or their representative, (b) they should be reminded or contacted in time to make the required appointment before the prescription runs out, and (c) if there was a delay of months before he could offer such an appointment, to make some plan to ensure she got enough medication to last until that appointment, rather than penalizing a vulnerable patient by responding in such a way that she would lose the protection of medication HE had declared she needed to remain on, for months, before he could see her again.
Something i his system doesn't sound effective or well thought-out.
The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical examination, diagnosis and formal advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.
Voting Booth
Have you entered our Health of the Nation survey?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
32% - 9472 votes
68% - 20296 votes