The NSW Health Care Complaint Commission in action 5

One of our readers claims that, when he was referred to Dr Andrew Brooks, Urologist for help with what is called the “frequency problem,” – he was having to get up two or three times during the night to go to the toilet that made it difficult to get a good night’s sleep, that Dr Brooks’ diagnosis was that the problem was that his bladder had become small, down to a capacity of about 200 mls, and so was full more often, and that if he, Dr Brooks, carried out an operation on him, called a TURP, under a full anaesthetic, his bladder would soon grow to a more normal size, having a capacity of, say, at least 300 mls, and he would no longer have the problem.

But that when our reader underwent the TURP:-

Firstly, he still had the “frequency problem” exactly the same!!! Even when the capacity of his bladder was at least 300 mls some months later, as was confirmed by another Urologist, he still had the problem!!! (The likelihood is that it was always at least 300 mls – Brooks has always refused to provide copies of anything that might confirm that it had been 200 mls when he was first consulted, at least to our reader – but if he’d admitted that, he wouldn’t have been able to justify recommending the TURP, for which he got a fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work.)

Secondly, the TURP damaged him, causing his sex life to be largely ruined for the rest of his life, it is a consequence of the TURP, ALWAYS, and can’t be reversed!!!

All at a cost of more than six thousand dollars, even after Medicare rebates.

And that when our reader lodged a complaint with Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, he was told he had no basis to complain!!! Their letter can be summed up in one of it’s sentences – “We have not identified a deficiency in the clinical care and treatment provided to you by Dr Brooks.”

In a letter Brooks provided to the Commission in relation to the matter, he wrote, “I would usually discuss the alterations in sexual function and the loss of ejaculation.” So it appears that even he didn’t claim that he had discussed these things with our reader??? Perhaps he thought that the Commission wouldn’t believe that if they were properly explained, that our reader wouldn’t have consented to go ahead with the TURP. But obviously  Ms Dawson and her people had no such concerns! They’ve obviously decided, typically, that even though nothing in writing exists to confirm this, that everything had been properly explained to our reader, but that he had responded with something like, “I don’t care if my sex life is largely ruined for the rest of my life, so long as there’s a chance, albeit only an 80% chance, (as it turned out, no chance,) that I won’t have to get up 2 or 3 times during the night to go to the toilet.” 

As we’ve said, our reader’s initial complaint about the clinical care and treatment provided to him by Brooks was dismissed, and readers, we’re almost willing to bet you any money you like that a request for a review, sent to Ms Dawson, on 18 April, 2021 will be similarly unsuccessful – allowing Brooks to keep collecting $3,2oo fees for less than an hours work, irrespective of the consequences for the patients referred to him. Does anyone believe that there haven’t been others, perhaps many others, who have had the same experience with Brooks as our reader had, and that there haven’t been others who have lodged complaints with Sue Dawson and her people, all of which have been dismissed – leaving Brooks full of confidence that he can do the same thing over and over again?

This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *