Re the article ‘‘Heat on Hazzard: Health chief defends inquiry into doctor’’ (Leader, February 15).
I wish to thank all those concerned people of the Sutherland and St George communities for the positive support give to Dr Kiran Phadke by attending the public meeting, in extreme heat, on Friday, February 10.
Unanimous agreement was given by the hundreds attending the meeting for Dr Phadke to be returned to his former role in the caring of his oncology patients at St George and Sutherland Hospitals. It was also agreed that this outcome should be conveyed to the Minister of Health.
Lorna Stone AM, Kiran Phadke Community Support Group
I would like to add my support to Dr Kiran Phadke. I have known Kiran for many years both as a medical colleague and a friend and there is no way I could see him guilty of any of the charges laid against him.
Kevin Orr, Honorary Surgeon St. George Hospital & Sen. Lect. Uni NSW
If a tailor uses his basic drafted suit pattern without adjustment for every client , one can only imagine the result. Some very ill-fitting, uncomfortable, quite peculiar garments would no doubt ensue.
I suggest this analogy applies to chemotherapy protocol. I would not want the ‘‘standard protocol’’ (read drafted suit pattern ) applied to me without significant changes made to cater for my particular disease. I would require a personal approach - a design for me.
I would want a doctor like Dr Kieran Phadke. Someone prepared to use the guidelines as a base and work out an individual recipe just for me. It seems to me basic common sense dictates that this approach is the only logical one.
It is to be hoped that Dr Phadke will soon be back at work, having received an apology (at least ) for this great injustice that has been thrust apon him.
Margaret Ryan RN (ret), Bexley
Dr Phadke was consulting doctor for both my wife and my former spouses. Their cancer treatments were long and difficult before they died. We had, and continue to have, full confidence in Dr Phadke.
We can’t believe the way he is being judged. These people are not even his peers.
Alan Osland and Mary-Lynne Ferrari, Cronulla
Mr Marr is at it again! He has given Dr Phadke three weeks to respond to the final report that has taken nine months to produce, and yet he decides to release elements of the document which are confidential.
This is prejudicial as the response period granted to Dr Phadke is still current.
Why is Mr Marr doing this? As the CEO of a large organisation he should be aware of judicial process and the importance that this must not be compromised in any way.
He has failed in this regard and hence has failed to meet the high standards of good governance expected of his office.
Mr Marr has made sweeping statements that prejudge the outcome of this protracted review process. This indicates he has made up his mind to dismiss Dr Phadke.
There is nothing that Mr Marr can say, or do, that will change the fact that Dr Phadke has dedicated his working life to progress cancer care in the Sutherland Shire to an outstanding level.
It is outrageous for Mr Marr to suggest otherwise.
How many dedicated consultants is Mr Marr prepared to sacrifice if they disagree with his vision of how hospital care should be provided?
At the end of the day Mr Marr is only a public servant, and he should not forget this.
Brian Courtney, Noosaville, Qld
