|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: ACOG Board reverses sanctions against two expert witnessesFrom: David Priver (dpriver@aol.com)Thu Feb 23 20:00:57 2006
Dan, To clarify: I am referring not to ABOG, but to the Board of Directors of ACOG. David At Thu, 23 Feb 2006, R. Daniel Braun wrote: > >ACOG has nothing to do with ABOG,"The Board". They are totally separate >entities. They have diferent goals and each has acted in my opinion to the >detriment of the specialty in many diferent ways. They seldom if ever agree >on anyhing. >Dan > >On 2/23/06, doctorjoe@aol.com <doctorjoe@aol.com> wrote: >> >> It's always suspicious when the roaches scatter when the light is turned >> on. >> >> If they did the RIGHT thing, for the RIGHT reasons, then who cares WHO >> knows about it??? The truth shall set you free, correct? >> >> Joe P. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Priver <dpriver@aol.com> >> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net> >> Sent: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:08:58 -0600 >> Subject: ACOG Board reverses sanctions against two expert witnesses >> >> In a disturbing development which I believe all ACOG fellows should know >> about, the ACOG Board has reversed itself and dismissed sanctions >> against two expert witnesses who were charged with dishonest and >> unprofessional testimony in malpractice cases. The reason put forth by >> the Board is that an individual who was a party to the proceedings and >> therefore knew the details gave an interview to one of our throw away >> journals in which he cited the facts of the cases. It is to be >> emphasized that he did not divulge the names of the experts. Despite >> this, the Board concluded that the security of the process had been >> breached and elected to drop the charges. >> As an ACOG fellow who feels that the dishonset expert plays a major role >> in our ongoing liability crisis, I think the Board has done all of us a >> major disservice and should be held accountable. Their argument that >> security was breached is, in my view, entirely bogus. Moreover, one >> would think that the Board would want its members to know what kind of >> dishonest testimony it will act against so as to inform us about what >> not to do in court. >> If you agree that the ACOG Board acted inappropriately in this matter, I >> would encourage that you let your districy leaders know that you want a >> full and open investigation into this issue. Interestingly, this issue >> has been kept secret from the membership. At a minimum, let's insist >> upon transparency in dealing with such critical issues. >> David Priver, MD, FACOG >> San Diego >> Vice-President, Coalition and Center for Ethical Medical Testimony >> >-- >R. Daniel Braun > Kinky for Governor >
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Jul 2 04:42:46 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.