29 July, 2008
Dr Rafick
1. As usual and expected, RPK made another stunning revelation about the so call medical report from PUSRAWI with the far-reaching conclusion that the report suggest that there was no sodomy. I feel very upset when I saw the article that RPK wrote. Let me explain why.
2. First of all, it is not a medical report. It is a doctor Out Patient notes. Going by the letterhead, it could have been PUSRAWI record but I cannot be sure because in the cause of my work I have never had the opportunity of seeing any similar documents from PUSRAWI. On the document, it shows that it was signed and the rubber stamp shows the name of Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid. He is a medical officer and probably has done some PR examination in his lifetime. Obviously, it would not be as frequent as a gastroenterologist would.
3. I am going to share with you on what was written on that piece of paper and why I feel RPK has stretched his imagination a bit too far. On the paper, it was written that the patient complains of Tenesmus of one-week duration. The word Tenesmus means difficulty or straining when passing motion. Usually patients do not come to clinics and say they have Tenesmus. They will say that they have not been able or having difficulty in passing motion. I wonder why the doctor uses the word Tenesmus. Whatever it is, the note indicates that the problem has been around for one week. The duration is important.
4. Among others it is also written that the patient did not observe any blood whenever passing out stools. I am no expert in handwriting but if one were to see, there are marked differences in the style and quality of writing after the sentence “not noticed any PR bleed”. In my assessment the medical history is badly taken. It keeps repeating the same thing where it says about pain in the anus and not noticing blood in the stools. It was noted that the doctor wrote that the “patient was alleged assaulted by intruding a plastic item in anus” I could not make out what was written in the next line. The person who wrote this notes failed to document the date and time of the allege incident. This is important. In the medical world when doctor writes some thing happens one week ago may not necessary means that it actually happens 7 days ago. The date and time is important as it has an impact on the injury and potential wounds that has taken place.
5. On the following page of the medical notes some scribbles notes can be observed. Among others, that I can make out includes no pallor and no fever (opallor, o febrile). While it might be the style of writings of some doctors but most doctor put the null sign after the word and not before it (e.g. palloro) . This is the first time I saw a doctor writing putting the null sign before the word in my 20 years of being a doctor.
6. In the next paragraph, general examination shows that there was no pallor, he was comfortable and afebrile (no fever) . It was noted that a per rectal examination was done (P/R) and there was no active bleeding, no ulcer or pus seen, No injury seen, No tear seen.
RPK wrote that “The doctor’s report (which can be viewed below) says that there is zero (0) skin tearing, zero (0) active bleeding, zero (0) traces of pus, etc., which basically means he can’t be suffering from a pain in the anus as what he alleges.” With much regret, I am in the opinion that RPK has jump the gun and made a far-reaching conclusion. His conclusions were unfair. It did not take into account the factor of time that has taken place. It has also not look at the issue of the mechanism of injury. I will deal with this in the later paragraph.
To continue reading click here
No comments:
Post a Comment