  |
|
|
Dr. Jones’ Hearing Synopsis – Day 4 September 7, 2006 Steven Phillips, MD, was cross-examined by the health
department attorney. Not surprising
to any of us who have heard Dr. Phillips speak, he gave clear and concise
answers, backed by substantial references to medical literature. He discussed the low incidence of Lyme patients recalling
an EM rash (22%), the “well-documented” ability of the spirochetes to
transform themselves into cysts, the fact-based incidence of sero-negative Lyme
disease. In addressing the issue of
testing, Dr. Phillips discussed the low incidence of positive serology in spinal
fluid. He was questioned
extensively regarding the possibility that Lyme is present even when tests come
back negative. Again, he supported
his position regarding the limits to relying on testing in diagnosing Lyme, and
the importance of treating Lyme, based on a clinical profile. Dr. Jones testified next..
It had to be clear to everyone present how knowledgeable Dr. Jones is,
about Lyme and pediatric medicine. What
was also striking was Dr. Jones compassion and respect, for his profession, for
the children he treats, and for the parents that raise them.
I found this to be in striking contrast to both
of the health department’s “expert witnesses”, Dr. Shapiro as the Lyme
“expert” and the pediatrician that the health department called as their
“pediatric expert” on the first day. Neither
of the health department’s witnesses showed compassion or respect, or warmth
toward the children they were treating. On direct examination, Dr. Jones indicated that these
charges resulted from a complaint to the health department by the father of two
children, who was seeking custody years after being divorced from their mother.
He did not have physical custody of the children. While the children waited for their 1st
appointment with Dr. Jones, to evaluate them for Lyme, Dr. Jones briefly
extended antibiotics prescribed for a cough, as the cough was still a
significant problem. He did not
diagnose Lyme disease prior to meeting and examining the children. When the school was close to expelling one of the children
for disruptive behavior, Dr. Jones suggested that they place him on homebound
instruction instead, pending his seeing the child, and beginning treatment, if
in fact the child had Lyme. The
school followed his suggestion, the child and his sister were later seen by Dr.
Jones, diagnosed, treated, and he returned to school the beginning of the
following year, with vastly improved academic performance and behavior, not a
problem child, and with no history of school expulsion on his record, thanks to
Dr. Jones intervention. Having seen children
suffer with school problems for years due to Lyme, it is difficult for me to
think of a better scenario than the one Dr. Jones initiated with the school, and
I find it outrageous that this intervention led to charges against Dr. Jones! On cross-examination, there was extensive discussion about
these children’s Lyme disease presentation, including co-infections.
Specific treatments were discussed, including reasons for combining
medications. In responding, Dr.
Jones certainly demonstrated how very knowledgeable he is about treatment of
tick-borne diseases. Once
again, one must wonder why so much time is being spent by the health department
attorney questioning Dr. Jones regarding treatment of tick-borne diseases if, in
fact, this case is not about Lyme!! Dr. Jones proved himself to be fully conversant regarding
chronic Lyme, the impact on the children, and how to treat to efficacy, as he
did with these patients. He
discussed his many years of clinical practice, his commitment to the work of
treating children, and the fact that his Lyme specialty grew out of the need he
identified 30 years ago, when he opened his practice in Lyme-endemic CT.
Politics are not a factor for Dr. Jones.
Patient care is what this dedicated physician is all about. Dr. Jones’ attorney asked to call witnesses that were
parents of children Dr. Jones had treated.
He cited specific reasons for calling these witnesses, and outlined what
he hoped to prove. Part of his
intent in calling these witnesses was to refute Dr. Shapiro’s testimony.
The health department objected to the witnesses being called, and the
panel sustained the objection. The
hearing ended with the decision that these witnesses not be called. We were shocked and distressed that these witnesses were
not permitted. In my view, their
testimony is very compelling. The
testimony was not being offered as emotional accolades for Dr. Jones (though
clearly he deserves them), but for concrete reasons that very much address the
charges against him. As the hearing
continues, there is more and more evidence that this case (as the many around
the country before Dr. Jones have been) is about Lyme.
It is not only about the rights of our doctors to treat us
comprehensively and efficaciously, but it is about our rights to access medical
care for this dreaded disease. Lyme is chronic. Chronic
Lyme is disabling, debilitating, and can be life-threatening.
The ever-increasing number of patients knows it.
Our Lyme leaders around the country know it.
Our doctors know it. When
will our health departments and licensing boards know it, as well? Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD Family Connections Center for Counseling Brewster, NY
|
