Notorious public hospital does invasive cancer operation against advice

They knew the woman did not have cancer but operated anyway

A Mackay woman who claims she had an unnecessary operation to remove lymph nodes after being incorrectly told her she had breast cancer, is suing for compensation. The operation to remove 11 lymph nodes went ahead despite a pathologist advising against it because a biopsy did not reveal any cancer, the claim alleges.

Jacqueline Hampson was 48 and nursing at Mackay Base Hospital at the time she had the operation in 2006. She says she was told a year later she had never had cancer. "I was just so shocked," Mrs Hampson, 51, said. The lymph nodes that were removed showed no tumours, her claim says.

Her claim against Mackay Health Service District, filed by Shine Lawyers, says that medical staff failed to properly diagnose or investigate her condition or perform surgery in an appropriate manner. She now has lymphodema, a condition that causes retention of fluids, and a limited range of movement in her left arm. She suffers pain, swelling and psychological problems and has lost employment. "I can no longer nurse. I miss it so much," Mrs Hampson said.

On December 13, 2005, Mrs Hampson had a mammogram at BreastScreen Queensland's Mackay clinic. It revealed a cluster of micro-calcifications in Mrs Hampson's breast and she underwent a core biopsy. She says BreastScreen Queensland told her the biopsy revealed an infiltrating ductal carcinoma -- a form of breast cancer. But a pathologist who later reviewed the biopsy told the hospital that there was no cancer and advised against performing a lymph node operation, the claim says.

Mrs Hampson claims she went to hospital on January 10, 2006, for a further biopsy and was only told she was to have lymph nodes removed when she was on the operating table. A lumpectomy and testing of a larger sample from her breast revealed no carcinoma but the lymph node surgery went ahead. "This is a sad case of a woman having to undergo radical surgery which she didn't need," Jodie Willey of Shine Lawyers said.

Source





False accusations ban father

Men are presumed guilty until proven innocent and even being proven innocent does not help much

"STEVE" has been barred from seeing his daughter for seven years. He has never harmed his only child or her mother. He has never threatened them and a court has accepted he is of good character. But last week, after a tortuous 10-year journey through four courts, more than 20 hearings, 12 psychologists and six lawyers, he was told he could not see his daughter until she came of age.

Steve, whose real name cannot be revealed for legal reasons, has gone through more than 20 intrusive psychological examinations, while daughter "Molly" has endured seven. He says he has spent more than $100,000 in 10 years.

His wife twice raised sexual-abuse allegations, proven false after months of investigation. But the court accepted she would "shut down" emotionally if Steve was allowed to see his daughter and that her distress would affect her parenting skills. It was deemed in Molly's best interests that she not see her father until she turned 18.

Now Steve, a successful small businessman from Melbourne's southern suburbs, faces being alienated from his daughter forever. "It just rips your heart out. If you can't forge a relationship with your child in their formative years, there's a real risk that you never have a good relationship," he said yesterday. "There was no violence, threats, abuse, harassment or intimidation. "I was shocked when (the judge) announced that the order would apply to both my ex-wife and our daughter and would last for 10 years. "I was able to persuade her that this would criminalise me if my daughter tried to contact me when she grew up. "But I bucked the system and paid the price. If you argue with the court's finding, they label you as unco-operative."

Steve said while everyone wanted women and children protected from violence, intervention orders should not be used as weapons in custody battles. "These orders are being used to persecute men and children by litigants who know courts will always err on the side of caution and remove fathers without there being any violence at all," he said. Steve said he feared his daughter had been scarred by the court's insistence on psychological examinations.

This year he approached his ex-wife's new partner to see if there was any chance of mediation that would allow him to see Molly. His wife instantly launched legal action alleging he breached an intervention order that prevented him approaching her or Molly. "The court decided that my - very polite - conversation with my ex's partner represented harassment. It's just unbelievable," Steve said.

Source






Rights bill 'would take power from people'

A bill of rights would give too much authority to unelected judges and strip power from Parliament, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has warned. Federal Cabinet on Monday agreed to a national consultation process on what the bill should contain, which will start next week, Fairfax has reported. The bill, likely to be based on those in Victoria, Queensland and Britain, would outline a set of rights and require Parliament to ensure legislation complies with the rights.

Mr Turnbull said he had concerns about a bill of rights, saying they were often vaguely worded, offered a number of interpretations and would give courts too much power. "The problem with generally-worded guarantees of human rights in constitutional documents is that they give extraordinary legislative power to the courts,'' Mr Turnbull told Macquarie Radio today. "Judges are not elected. The good thing about politicians is that if you don't like what they are doing you can boot them out, and they are accountable. "The real question when you talk about a bill of rights is how much authority do you want to give to judiciary to make laws, versus the Parliament.''

Mr Turnbull was sceptical about the timing of the announcement, saying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may be trying to distract people from more pressing concerns. "Kevin may come from Queensland, but his political style is very much Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees,'' he said. "It's all about politics of mass distraction. They make an announcement, get a headline, then never follow up.''

Source






Son loathed Greenie mother

Sounds like her big ego and self-righteousness got too much for him



A man who admitted stabbing his mother to death says he is not in the least remorseful or repentant but regrets not doing it 20 yeas ago. And Adam Patrick Owens, 33, scolded the prosecution during sentencing today for trying to mitigate what he did, saying it sent a "terrible message to the public".

Owens, 35, of Cremorne on Sydney's north shore, admitted murdering Doris Owens, 69, between September 6 and 9, 2006 just before he was due to face trial last month. Ms Owens was known as a staunch environmental campaigner in the seaside village of Swanhaven, near Sussex Inlet on the New South Wales south coast.

During sentencing submissions in the Supreme Court today, Owens asked for any mitigating factors to be ignored by the judge and a maximum sentence imposed. "I knew exactly what I was doing. My intention was to kill her and anything else is incorrect," Owens told the court. "It was quite clear what I was doing. I'm not in the least remorseful, nor am I repentant. Given the time over, I would do the same again. "I regret, perhaps, not doing it 20 years earlier."

Owens criticised crown prosecutor Ron Hoenig for bringing up his earlier depression. "Please stop trying to mitigate the offence," he said. "It sends a terrible message to the public."

Owens's younger brother Caleb read a victim impact statement to the court in which he described his mother as an "indestructible advocate". "She was an advocate for the weak and for those without a voice," [A bigmouth?] he told the court. "The world was a better place with Doris Owens." Justice Lucy McCallum will hand down a sentence on December 19.

Source