Isn't that alittle like the fox guarding the hen house?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. No fox. No chickens.
Peer evaluation in an academic setting is not a group of old-boys-club guys sitting around and going along to get along with whatever. It is absolutely stark and relentless simply because everyone on whatever committee is struck is an expert in their field, and has definite ideas as to what standards exist, what standards are ideal, what standards are acceptable, and what standards are unacceptable. Every person on an academic committee is highly articulate, very experienced and extremely competitive or they would not be in the position they hold in order to be recommended to sit on a review panel.
These people are chosen by their peers which is not to say they are chosen by colleagues. IMO, most would not hesitate to point out errors in judgement in order to demonstrate how they work within their own practices. If they accept sloppy work by their peers, they will be considered by many others in their field to have poor standards within their own studies, research, practice. These highly intelligent, disciplined and educated people will not allow anything to get by their investigation. They will, again IMO, do extensive research to be sure their information is up to date before even beginning to consider the circumstances the committee is required to investigate.
Back in the day, the most competitive academics were to be found in the fields of medicine. Those people invited to be part of the McMath case review would not be drawn from any one hospital or university to prevent accusations of bias, and they will all be aware of the knowledge and skills of the other members. No one will want to appear to be coasting. If asked to conduct a review of fellow medical professionals, I think you can be assured that every member of a peer review board would become conversant with every aspect of the pre-surgical tests and diagnosis, the surgical procedures, the care given after surgery, the activities of all medical and support staff from the time the surgery was scheduled to the time Miss McMath was released from CHO. They would not just skim over news articles.
Although lay people, like me, might have a lot of questions about what happened, there is no way someone not conversant with current standards and procedures, however well intentioned or impassioned, would be able to evaluate the answers to those questions. The technical references, the jargon used by people who work in medicine are very specific. The connotations of words and phrases understood by those people would not be understood in the same way by those outside of the field without lengthy explanations, if then. In fact, because lay people don't know all the ramifications of small details, all the necessary questions would probably not be asked. As well, IIRC, the review committee or panel will not receive any remuneration for their service, so their only goal is to maintain a high standard of practice. (I'm sure someone will correct this if I'm mistaken.)
Although I think that it is sometimes felt that "doctors/nurses/etc. all stick together", and that preconceived idea is certainly out there (ie. Seinfeld, Season 8, Episode 5), I don't believe it's true. The science and art of medicine is, I think, best examined and defended, by those who are its practitioners. I cannot imagine that a peer review board would accept the inept work of a "quack" just because the person in question was likeable, or a friend, or associated with a celebrity. Part of having a professional organization is being, to some extent, being capable of self-policing and removing people from the organization who are not practicing the standards held by that organization.
That said, human beings make mistakes. Further, sometimes even when no mistakes have been made, unexpected things happen, and tragedies occur. The fact that a tragedy happens does not mean that the medical team involved wanted something to go wrong because they wanted to punish someone or because they were to lazy to care. When death happens in a place like CHO, people are devastated and want to determine what happened in the hope that it can be prevented from happening again. It will never be swept under the rug. Yes, right now there is no transparency, and it is because medical professionals follow HIPPA, and because the family will not allow information to be released.
The cause of the McMath tragedy must now be determined by medical experts from the evidence of records and witnesses, not from hearsay and the conjecture of those who may stand to profit from a particular conclusion. Again, I'm sure my errors will be corrected, but I think once the facts involved in this case are determined, it will then be time to move to a formal, legal arena in which all the laws of evidence are upheld and in which those whose specialty is the law as it pertains to medicine will go further in assigning innocence or blame.
It will be, IMO, at that point that the family lawyer's propensity to conjure up a straw man when he wants to malign the medical staff of CHO. I personally am looking forward to seeing CHO's legal team pick him apart for doing this.
Finally, a judge or jury will have the opportunity to make a verdict that could have financial consequences.
I look forward to hearing the opinions of the many posters who are experts in these fields.
