Re “Medical Council Policy” (Your View, November 2).
The timing of Mr Marr's letter in the Leader is odd.
In the parliamentary inquiry on Off Protocol Chemo Dosing he gave evidence under oath that he could not refer to Dr Phadke's situation due to an ongoing investigation.
Why the letter to the Leader? Is he trying to influence public opinion?
The time line of events is being blurred.
Jillian Skinner made her announcement linking Dr Phadke to the Chemo Under Dosing scandal on August 2.
Since Mr Marr is responsible for communications with the Health Ministry, he must have provided relevant information to Jillian Skinner. Since Dr Phadke was under investigation at this point why did he provide such prejudicial information to the Minister? Why did he not respond in the same way as in the inquiry?
Mr Marr says he is restricted in what he can say due to process when it suits him, he contradicts this by doing the opposite and releases information to the public directly, or via a third party.
If Mr Marr provided a detailed report to the Minister pre her announcement she should not have made the statement. Either the Health Minister decided to be judge and jury, and condemn Dr Phadke, or Mr Marr provided information to the Minister that directed her to make the announcement she did.
Someone has to be held responsible for the announcement. Jillian Skinner or Mr Marr, they are the only two, this cannot be passed on to junior underlings.
Did Skinner’s announcement lead to Dr Phadke being referred to the NSW Medical Review Board? Was their decision to restrict his medical licence influenced by insufficient information? Was it influenced by a hasty review process and negative innuendo about Dr Phadke?
Why are we even talking about Under Dosing since Mr Marr and his colleagues admitted during the inquiry that the Protocols are not rigid rules but guidelines and that doctors frequently vary the dosage in the Protocols to suit the medical needs of the patient.
As variation of dosing levels is clearly accepted, why is Dr Phadke suspended and why were restrictions imposed on him, and why has his medical licence not been fully reinstated? The longer this continues the more vindictive it appears to patients and supporters of Dr Phadke.
During the inquiry we learned that more than one review is on going and there is confusion about their objectives. The review has now evolved into questioning Dr Phadke's professional integrity. Complaints, presumably internal, have been made on 'other clinical matters', such as non-attendance at meetings and record keeping.
As Under Dosing is not the issue, is this never ending review process about the fact that Dr Phadke did not attend one or more clinical meetings and did not keep sufficiently copious records. This is the inference made by Mr Marr and colleagues.
This is a gross mis-use of a complaints system which has led to the misdirection of scarce health authority funds and human resources. In any well managed organisation this would be dealt with by face to face discussions.
Is it fair and just to restrict Dr Phadke's medical licence and to deprive cancer patients of the services of an exceptional and experienced oncologist on the findings of a flawed inquiry?
The above raises questions on Mr Marr's judgement and management skills. His comments to the Inquiry suggest that he takes pride in the Complaints Procedures that he has promoted. Different categories within the complaints system appear so complex that they could be misused and misinterpreted. Could this have happened?
Mr Marr must take responsibility for the chaos he and his change management systems have caused.
It is incomprehensible why Dr Phadke has been treated in this harsh manner.
Brian Courtney, Noosaville, Qld
