Stanley West response

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

As many of you are aware, Dr. Stanley West, author of " The Hysterectomy

Hoax " and champion of the myomectomy and a woman's right to retain her

uterus, has recently had his license suspended for 90 days in the state

of New York. Documents regarding this suspension and additional

probationary terms are available on the NYDOH website as well as in the

Files section of the uterinefibroids support group.

Given the incredible number of women who have been helped by Dr. West

who have shared their success stories online at the National Uterine

Fibroids Foundation support group, and also simply because I know Dr.

West does indeed handle some of the most difficult gynecological

surgical cases involving uterine fibroids in the U.S., I felt it

critical that we contact Dr. West and allow him the opportunity to share

his thoughts regarding the proceedings directed against his practice of

medicine. All told, I collected over 60 questions from many concerned

members of the uterinefibroids support group and submitted those

questions to Dr. West a little over a week ago. His summary response

follows (below).

Any outstanding questions left unanswered will be addressed on Saturday,

April 5, 2003 at 1 p.m. EST in the uterinefibroids chat room, as Dr.

West has agreed to a 90 minute online chat at that time. To participate

you must be signed into the for uterinefibroids at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uterinefibroids

Reminder notices will be sent out to members tomorrow and again on

Saturday morning. The chat session will be recorded and transcribed for

later posting on the NUFF.org website for any of you who may be unable

to participate and a follow-up announcement with the link to the

appropriate webpage will be sent out at that time.

Sincerely,

Carla Dionne

Executive Director

National Uterine Fibroids Foundation

1. (toll free)

1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Dr. West:

As everyone knows, there are always at least two sides to every story. I

have recently had my license suspended for three months, and placed on

probation for three years.

My troubles began approximately 8-10 years ago, when several insurance

companies began to question whether it was medically correct to do a

myomectomy rather than a hysterectomy unless pregnancy was a factor. I

was adamant in insisting that this should be a womans choice, and that

myomectomy in experienced hands was a very safe surgical procedure. This

became a running battle with several insurance companies balking at

paying for a myomectomy.

About 3-4 years ago, the Department of Health asked me to come in to

meet with them and discuss some nine cases. They assured me that I was

not being charged with anything, but they simply wanted to discuss these

cases with me. That meeting turned into what appeared to me to be a

questioning of why I did myomectomies instead of hysterectomies in women

not wishing a pregnancy. Following that meeting, I heard nothing from

the Health Department, but I did hear from a number of my patients who

told me that they had been contacted by the Health Department trying to

get them to say something bad about me or their surgery. Several

patients wrote indignant letters to the Department of Health supporting

me and the surgery they had. I discussed with my chairman and several

colleagues my experience at the Health Department, receiving the comment

that it was indeed an evil place.

Eight or nine months later the Health Department requested I come in to

discuss a number of different cases. This time it involved different

questions however, such as why there was no pap smear on a chart. I

explained that a pap smear was done by her previous gynecologist, was

negative, and I did not feel it was justified to redo it. Another chart

did not have an endometrial biopsy. I answered that it was not

indicated, is painful and expensive. There were several seemingly

innocuous questions which I answered to the best of my ability.

Every two years, each physician must reapply for privileges to his

hospital. On that application, among other things, there is a question,

" Have you been convicted of a felony, had your license revoked, are

being investigated, etc. " I checked all the " no " boxes since it had been

a number of months since my initial interview. I had heard nothing from

the Health Department, and I felt that was the end of it. I was asked

about that application, and I explained that the way the question was

asked on the application appeared to me to warrant a " no. "

Since a year had now passed with no word from the Health Department, I

again assumed that everything was dropped.

I received a notice that I was being charged on several accounts with

mismanagement, fraud and poor record keeping. I was shocked to say the

least.

My attorney called to say that he received an offer from the Health

Department the next day. The Health Department offered [to drop all

charges, wipe the slate clean, and not threaten to take my license if I

would agree to cease operating.] If I was such a threat to the general

population that I should have my license revoked, how could they offer

to drop all charges if I only would consent to cease operating? This

convinced me that it was the insurance industry behind this.

Unfortunately, the Health Department refused to reveal who was behind

the complaint.

A panel was convened, a hearing took place sporadically. During the

hearing, the offer to dismiss all charges was reiterated. Since in

everyones opinion I was winning hands down, I continued with the hearing.

Some months after the hearing ended, I received what my attorney

described as a slap on the wrist. This entailed a promise to improve my

record keeping, have someone review my records quarterly and I would be

on probation for one year. While I didnt think I deserved that much, I

accepted it, and went on with my life.

Several months later I was informed that the Health Department would

appeal the decision and ask that my license be revoked (? Insurance lobby?).

The appeal was made to a panel appointed by the Health Department. I was

not allowed to appear. Of the 5 panel members, 2 refused to participate

in taking my license (2 out of the 3 doctors). There is no appeal. I am

convinced that if this panel exonerated me, they would have simply set

up an additional panel.

At the same time as I received this news, I was involved in an

automobile accident totaling my car. I am a firm believer that things

happen for a reason, and so I have decided to take time out for myself

to " smell the roses, " doing the many things that I have not had the time

for.

While I am on " sabbatical, " Dr. Lynn Parodneck is in the office seeing

patients. I fully intend to resume surgery at the end of May when my

suspension is up.

I have no doubt that the Health Department will continue to harass me,

indeed I have heard from them several times in the past 6 weeks.

I appreciate the hundreds of letters and phone calls that I continue to

receive, and look forward to resuming practice.

The surgical complication occurrence rate depends upon 2 factors: The

skill and experience of the surgeon and the condition of the patient. My

complication rate of 4% falls far below the 30% average even though I do

many patients that no other doctor will touch.

This whole hearing had to do with stopping me from operating. Although

the Department of Health opened the hearing by stating that myomectomy

was not the issue, they then proceeded throughout the procedure to

condemn it

Through the gracious efforts of Carla Dionne and several others, I am

attempting to throw some light on what really happened.

I hate paper work! I, like many docs, am guilty of not documenting every

conversation, every request for records (such as a pap smear). I have

reformed. I now document everything.

To my knowledge none of my patients ever filed a complaint against me

with the Department of Health. Two of those patients appeared at the

request of the Health Department to testify.

With regard to Patient A, much of the ability of a doctor to manage his

patient depends upon the patient. If she reports severe pain, bleeding

or inability to urinate, it is incumbent upon the doctor to act

immediately to resolve the problem. However, with Patient A, there were

only vague complaints. When asked to come in she replied that her vague

complaints were not serious enough to warrant a trip to the office.

It should be noted that my practice consists of a large number of

patients that other doctors have declared impossible to do, indeed for

many of them a hysterectomy was deemed impossible. These patients will

often present with multiple adhesions (frozen pelvis), huge fibroids,

difficult locations of the fibroids and anemia. The increased risk of

complications are always discussed in detail with the patient before

undertaking surgery, giving them the opportunity to go elsewhere. Even

so, my complication rate is far lower than most gynecologists.

Stanley West, MD