What happens to people in the Hair Transplant "Industry"

» » The analogy with Mc Donalds is incorrect.You all agreing with that
» » analogy forget that,surgery involves INFORMED consent,by LAW.
»
» The analogy with McDonalds is the way the real world operates. I know we
» would like to think that the ehtics of medical doctors are higher then the
» local mechanic or plumber, but they are not. In fact the local repairman
» probably has higher ethical values then the average doctor.
»
» It’s not your fault, the conditioning starts the moment you are born.
» Western medicine is more about profit then it is about helping people.

http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551

» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551

John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.

There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a matter of waiting for it.

» »
» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551
»
» John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison
» you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do
» what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions
» you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes
» on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.
»
» There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a
» matter of waiting for it.

Topcat611

You didn’t read my reply to you above:-)

I know all that.
Now what?
Go under the knife again?For repair?Under same conditions?No Topcat611 you do.I am not going there untill it changes.Since you don’t want to change anything by taking some action other then defining reality…just tell how things are,I will try at least,even if it all ends up in vain,to change it, topcat611 for you me and the other poor butchered souls.

What can be done.
Open letters to Senate committee of health ,the judiciary committee,FDA,FTA,letter to USA Supreme court,contact media etc.

2 is better than one and 1000 is better than two,but that is ok.

take care I will keep you informed on progress

» »
» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551
»
» John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison
» you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do
» what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions
» you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes
» on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.
»
» There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a
» matter of waiting for it.

The most respected surgeon Dr. William Rassman, Hair Transplant Surgeon, Medical Director at New Hair Institute in an interview said:
“The industry itself has not been known for its good quality work in the past, nor its ethics. The industry has been laden down with a sleaze factor to a high degree.”

"…unfortunately, over the past 30 years a lot of the doctors have done a great deal of harm in the hair transplant business. "

http://www.thebaldman.com/Interview_rassman.htm

Nothing has changed since then.

NBC “DATELINE” Reporter CHRIS HANSEN: (Voiceover)
Can they really live up to those promises? Are the claims realistic? Can surgery restore your hair? We decided to investigate, and were surprised by how many men we talked to who felt ripped off and disfigured.
HANSEN: How big is this problem?
Dr. MANNY MERRITT: I don’t want to sound histrionic and tell you it’s of epidemic proportions, but it’s of epidemic proportions.
(From “Splitting Hairs”, the 1997 NBC DATELINE investigation of the Bosley Medical Group.)

The FTC actually threatened to audit the hair transplant industry in the mid-90s, but somehow during a meeting with representative doctors, the doctors talked their way out of an audit. So the people at the FTC already know there are illegal and unethical business practices in the hair transplant business. So my complaint will not come as a total surprise to the people at the FTC,but at least is there.

Also this went to the Senators:

The Honorable SENATOR
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Chairman
U.S. Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor,& Pensions
317 Russell Senate Building
Washington D.C 20510

Dear Senator Kennedy,
I write with serious concerns about Medical Field, the field of Hair Transplant surgery, where INTERVENTION is urgently needed, to prevent further abuses and to protect the public.
The hair transplant industry has a 40-year history, and yet still has no moral compass or code of ethics. Government agencies are unwilling or unable to regulate the industry, and doctors are unwilling or unable to police themselves. So dissatisfied patients must take matters into their own hands. And the public must educate themselves, to protect themselves from these unethical and predatory doctors.
Anyone with a medical degree can legally perform hair transplants without having had ANY specific training. The so-called “established standards of care” for hair transplants are non-existent.
Surgical Hair Transplantation is a billion-dollar industry, which is completely unregulated. Far more than any other medical specialty, the hair transplant industry is notorious for being sleazy and corrupt. The “hair loss business” has always been a magnet for crooks, con men and quacks, and Surgical Hair Transplantation is no different. It works on the principle of generating profit not on the principles that govern the noble profession of a physician which existence the legislator presumed and implemented in the legislation. Illegal sales tactics and unethical behavior are widespread. Patients are routinely lied to, in order to help meet sales quotas. False advertising is commonplace, and some clinics spend millions of dollars each year on deliberately misleading and deceptive advertising.
Patients whose rights were abused, whose surgeon abandoned them in middle of surgery, delegating his duties to non qualified, very often non licensed personnel, because such delegation generates more profit for the surgeon are unable to seek justice in the Courts because Hair Transplant Surgeons have alliance and they are never willing to provide grieved patient with the instrument of affidavit of merit so the patient can start a claim for medical malpractice.
Illegal prescription of the drug Proscar (which is covered under most health care insurance plans),by Hair Transplant surgeons, to substitute the only approved drug for hair loss ,Proscar is so common that is done openly before anyone’s eyes on the web sites. This wide spread practice allows an unlawful advantage that could protect or extend monopoly of certain prescription drug and inhibit competition.
Dear Senator I provide arguments and evidence in my attached memorandum in support of this letter/Petition to you which consists of connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of what I allege.
I believe I speak on behalf of thousands of abused, disfigured, and abandoned patients (“customers”) by this Hair Transplant “Industry” when I say, Dear Senator please do what is in your power to stop this disgrace in this field of elective surgery.

Respectfully Yours,

C.C
United States Senate
Health ,Education,Labor & Pensions COMMITTEE
Democrats by Rank

Edward Kennedy (MA)
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Hillary Rodham Clinton(NY)
Barack Obama (IL)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Republicans by Rank

Michael B. Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Wayne Allard (CO)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK)
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
Edward M. KennedyD-Massachusetts Arlen SpecterRanking Member, R-Pennsylvania
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.D-Delaware Orrin G. HatchR-Utah
Herb KohlD-Wisconsin Charles E. GrassleyR-Iowa
Dianne FeinsteinD-California Jon KylR-Arizona
Russell D. FeingoldD-Wisconsin Jeff SessionsR-Alabama
Charles E. SchumerD-New York Lindsey GrahamR-South Carolina
Richard J. DurbinD-Illinois John CornynR-Texas
Benjamin L. CardinD-Maryland Sam BrownbackR-Kansas
Sheldon WhitehouseD-Rhode Island Tom CoburnR-Oklahoma

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LETTER/PETITION
TO U.S. SENATE

Non existence of ethic in the HT “Industry”.

It is assertion pertaining to the VAST majority of HT surgeons.(in fact I don’t know of any HT surgeon who does not exercise habitual practices prohibited by law as I will describe here).

  1. VAST majority of HT surgeons do not personally evaluate the patient sufficiently so they could formulate an appropriate pre-operative diagnosis, VAST majority of HT surgeons use “consultant”, non medical person to do it for them instead. In addition and related to this VAST majority of HT surgeons do not explain pros and cons of HT surgery so patient intelligently can decide about his options (informed consent) and VAST majority of HT surgeons give that to the “consultant” as well.

  2. VAST majority of HT surgeons do not perform or personally supervise all aspects of the surgery. Including placement of the grafts in the receptor sites. VAST majority of HT surgeons carve the patient, take the strip, suture the wound, make incisions (holes) in patient head and then leave the surgical room and patient and leave the rest to the "surgical technicians”. VAST majority of HT surgeons have in other words, aspects of the surgery outside of their supervision performed or not supervised by another qualified surgeon with the consent of the patient.

  3. VAST majority of HT surgeons fail to personally perform post-operative medical care. VAST majority of HT surgeons delegate post-operative medical care to a non-qualified medical professional or to a non medical professional at all.

  4. VAST majority of HT surgeons recklessly delegate medical tasks in violation of the Administrative Codes in their states.

  5. VAST majority of HT surgeons negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of selecting the donor site to harvest the hair follicles for transplant in the preceptor site by letting the "surgical technicians” choose the location of the same by shaving and preparing patient just before surgery.

  6. VAST majority of HT surgeons negligently and recklessly and ILLEGALY delegate the tasks of administering anesthesia to patient to persons not qualified under their state law. (everywhere in USA it is a law only DOCTOR can administer anesthesia)

  7. Some HT surgeons negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,with their supervision ,to their "surgical technicians”. VAST majority of HT surgeons negligently and recklessly delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor sites ,WITHOUT their supervision ,to their "surgical technicians” while they chill outside the surgical room for hours, abandoning the patient in middle of surgery, in violation of their administrative laws of your state.

  8. VAST majority of HT surgeons have never seen the patient until just before surgery and therefore Lack Informed Consent in Violation of the Law in their state.

  9. Many HT surgeons have “surgical technicians” engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery without the appropriate certificate from the State Medical Board , in violation of the law in their state.

Violating the laws that protect patient rights has become a habitual rule during hair transplant surgery.

Patients rights are part of human rights and have been defined as 'basic moral guarantees that people allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees “rights” suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than Discretionary.

Patients rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented

Patient’s rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for getting a minimally acceptable care.
Dear Senator, commonly authorities, that are identified as typically best placed to secure these conditions traditionally were Medical Boards of the States and the Justice System/Courts where the doctrine of patients rights has become, for many, a first port of moral call for determining the basic moral guarantees all of us have a right to expect, primarily, of those capable of directly affecting our most important interests, getting medical care.
I understand, to protect them selves from people who are out here to sue a doctor without merit ,doctors lobby, was successful to push legislature that would shield them from merit less law suits. The law makers and the doctors community agreed to implement the instrument that law requires the filing of an affidavit of merit in a civil suit for medical negligence. In providing an affidavit of merit, a doctor would not be attesting to the truth of the factual events surrounding the surgery. Rather, he would be stating that in his opinion, based upon taking an oral history of the patient, examination of the patient, and review of the patients medical records, it is his opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the standard of care was breached.
If one reads my previous post one would notice that some described conducts of Hair Transplant Surgeons (by commission and omission) are violations of certain laws (either administrative laws of medical boards or the Law codes of the states).
Most doctors in the HT “industry” unfortunately brake all those things that I mentioned in my previous post, although illegal, they do brake them.
So when one, like for example me, goes to other HT doctors and tells them the story, no HT doctor wants to sign affidavit of merit (because I assume such conducts are epidemic in the HT industry).
Thus, grieved patient, can not even start the law suit, because does not have the element of affidavit of merit from another doctor that the standard of care was breached.

That is why there is not many law suits against hair Transplant surgeons although there is thousands of abused and disfigured grieved patients.

Hair Transplant surgeons protect each other by the simple fact that it is almost impossible to find HT doctor willing to testify against another.

That has been exceedingly successful shield they have against law suits.

Although this is the definition of acceptable standard of care :
The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in the same type of practice or specialty in the locality in which he practices or in a similar locality;
So far this definition was interpreted by the lawyers that doctors only determine The degree of skill and learning.

I disagree.

While I agree that The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by the doctors is determined statistically(how the majority does it) law provisions delimit certain actions used by doctors (even though if it happens that majority of them does it) as ILLEGAL!

The Law provisions forbidding certain conduct, have supremacy over the Certain forbidden conducts and make them VOID to be considered any kind of care.

They can not be care, they are illegal. Illegal actions are forbidden to be standard. Yet they remain to be in the field of Hair Transplant.

No one ever argued the obvious - that violations of the things that I state above automatically(without the need of expert)makes those violations medical negligence. If any of these elements exist med negligence should be presumed! And the burden should be shifted to defendant to prove how his actions that law delimited forbidden because are considered dangerous for patient, can be in his case considered acceptable care.

So, while I am aware that lack of informed consent is different ground for seeking remedies, as well as unlicensed practice of medicine, battery derived from lack of informed consent, abandoning patient etc are all different grounds in a Law suit (I am aware of that ) I am saying it should be argued this (never argued before but so obvious to me )

By law doctor is required to inform patient about pros cons of surgery so patient intelligently can exercise his choice.

That is the essence of the pre operative care:

By Law doctor can not delegate certain medical tasks (as it is done on epidemic scale) to certain people.

The performance of surgical tasks (can anyone argue otherwise) is the essence of the activities where most of the medical care and skill is exercised on patient! Same for the rest .

So yes doctors do determine” this is common, practice this is not and done by most in our field" as long as does not violate the law.

Dear Senator, you who read this may ask your self…But why? Why would Physicians (lets say some physicians)brake the laws and violate patients rights? Why someone who spent 10 years to become M.D or D.O, highly educated, would brake the laws continually, would violate patients rights continually? What is the MOTIVE?

The motive is, like in any business ,or as they call it now "Industry ",money, profit.

What makes business successful? To be competitive against same entities offering the same services or product on the market, to the consumer.
How does one become and stay competitive?
By making the product or service cost effective so you could offer to the consumer low prices.

And how is that possible related to the Hair Transplant surgery, called now, most appropriately, Industry?

By delegating physicians tasks to non physician, very often non medical personnel.

That is extremely cost effective. One hour of physician time is worth 200 - 400 dollars an hour. One hour of "surgical technician "time is worth 20 - 40 dollars per hour.

So to get more cost effective service/product, the businessman/physician in order to stay in the “business” is forced to delegate more and more tasks that he has duty to perform him self, to “surgical technicians” and “consultants”.

One may say Sir,…but that is illegal. And I believe one would be right right. It is. But who cares .HT “Industry” made a code, Never give a chance victim of malpractice in HT surgery to go to Court and expose the illegal practice.

The legislator presumed that there is no business code ,but rather, medical and ethical code so gave the physicians initial power of determination to decide, was it or not breach to duty of care.

However the paradox now is to stay competitive in the “game”, most surgeons have to do the same thing.

Dear Senator, I am not alone in this view upon this “Industry”.
This is what one of the most respected Hair Transplant surgeons said:

Dr. William Rassman, Hair Transplant Surgeon, Medical Director at New Hair Institute
http://www.thebaldman.com/Interview_rassman.htm
CONTINUES ON MY SECOND POST

» »
» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551
»
» John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison
» you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do
» what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions
» you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes
» on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.
»
» There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a
» matter of waiting for it.

“The industry itself has not been known for its good quality work in the past, nor its ethics. The industry has been laden down with a sleaze factor to a high degree.”

"…unfortunately, over the past 30 years a lot of the doctors have done a great deal of harm in the hair transplant business. "

Dear Senator, Industry? Can’t be. What should we put as a motto? Caveat emptor ?Caveat venditor ?

It is medical field .Can’t be made now into market. It is not regulated as a market.

Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia (The consequences of abuse do not apply to general use.)

Dear Senator before it was business there was :Cura te ipsum ,Primum est non nocere ,Fiat lege artis

Now, It is of it self manifest, that the actions of Physicians and patients/customers, proceed from the will, and the will from hope (cure baldness), and fear, insomuch as when they shall see a greater good, or lesser evil,likely to happen to them by the breach, of what legislated as patients rights and physicians conduct, by normative acts.

Then observation of the Law’s, is important, as it is designed to protect patients from harm and exposure to harm.

Who wittingly violates them is justly asked, for what purpose it is done so.

The problem here has to do with lawmaking authority being incapable of legal intimidation in this instance

HT industry, with the weapon of affidavit of merit has become sovereign power to decide existence or non existence of applicable standard of care in its industry.
A sovereign cannot be legally constrained because no person (or body of persons) can coerce herself (or itself).
Since it is interest of the HT industry to keep the status quo,HT industry works in that interest.

Since provisions limiting certain conducts of physicians in the field of elective surgery are sabotaged by that interest victims of abuse like ,me, and ten of thousands more are forced to argue that what we refer to as law in this field is really not law at all; rather, it is principally a matter of “positive morality” judged SOLELY by HT doctors, which financial interest is incompatible with the “positive morality”.

It is difficult to reconcile those two.

The “positive morality” imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been existed.

The rule, had become namely that which requires HT doctors “to do or abstain from certain actions, whether they wish to or not”

While every legal system must contain so-called primary rules that regulate citizen behavior, .they are non existent in specialized form in HT Field.

Legal rules are obligatory, because people accept them as standards that justify criticism and, in extreme cases, punishment of deviations.

Now the paradox is we have arrogance of entire Hair Transplant surgeons Club that can say, it is ILLEGAL but it is OUR STANDARD!
Doctors, have the responsibility, even more, duty, not to abuse patient’s rights.

What happens when that responsibility is violated?
How does patient that rights were violated, by the Clinic and the surgeon, seek justice?

By going to Court and explaining that the clinic and/or surgeon violated his rights.

But the patient needs in writing from another doctor statement that the first doctor breached his responsibility owned to the patient. Patient needs that as a condition to get access to the Court to file claim for medical malpractice.

What happens if HT doctors are NEVER willing to say that another HT doctor breached standard of care/responsibility toward patient? As it is a fact.
Patient is deprived of access to the Court to present the case. Although collective responsibility of HT Physicians, extends moral accountability beyond the relatively narrow scope of interpersonal relationships,(doctor/patient).
Doctors requested moral accountability beyond the relatively narrow scope of interpersonal relationships, when the doctors lobby requested the instrument affidavit of merit to shield them from frivolous litigation.
They were granted that.

The wheel keeps turning and another victim appears…same thing…the wheel is turning…and turning…

What is necessary is that there should be a critical reflective attitude to certain patterns of behavior as a common standard, and that this should display itself in criticism (including self-criticism), demands for conformity, and in acknowledgements that such criticism and demands are justified, all of which find their characteristic expression in the normative terminology of ‘ought’, ‘must’, and ‘should’, and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’

There is my question again. How do you justify practicing, what was legislated as unjust and unlawful conduct?

The subject who reflectively accepts, or does not accept, the rule as providing a standard that justifies criticism of deviations is said to take “the internal point of view” towards it.

The legislation is the "external point of view” towards it and has supremacy over the internal desire of the subjects.

So, would it be too much to require that the bulk of the population accept the rule of law, recognition as the ultimate criteria for legal validity…but some “chosen ones” to give the reality of the situation that a great proportion of its members-perhaps a majority-have no general conception of the legal structure or its criteria of validity" ?

I hope it is not. that is why I write this letter. I hope officials to take action upon the internal point of view of HT physicians towards the rule of recognition and its criteria of validity.

All that is required of citizens is that they generally obey the primary rules that are legally valid according to the rule of recognition.

Patients rights are part of human rights and have been defined as 'basic moral guarantees that people allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees “rights” suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than Discretionary.

Patients rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented

Patient’s rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for getting a minimally acceptable care.

The distinction drawn between moral rights of patients and legal rights of patients as two separate categories of rights is of fundamental importance to understanding the basis and potential application of human rights.

Legal rights refer to all those rights found within existing legal codes. A legal right is a right that enjoys the recognition and protection of the law.
Questions as to its existence can be resolved by simply locating the relevant legal instrument or piece of legislation. A legal right cannot be said to exist prior to its passing into law and the limits of its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed the relevant legislation. An example of a legal right would be my right as a patient not to be abandoned by the surgeon in middle of surgery .But what if it is done (and it is) all over the country ,frequently, without any consequences for the surgeons?

CONTINUES ON MY NEXT POST

» »
» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551
»
» John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison
» you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do
» what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions
» you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes
» on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.
»
» There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a
» matter of waiting for it.

For the existence or not of rights action no more complicated than locating the relevant legal statute or precedent is needed. But to enforce to invoke to protect such right action is needed by authorities.

If one proceeds to consider the different categories of substantive human rights one delves into all of the various documents that together form the codified body of human rights, and one can identify and distinguish between five different categories of substantive human rights.

These are as follows: rights to life; rights to freedom; rights to political participation; rights to the protection of the rule of law; rights to fundamental social, economic, and cultural goods.
These rights span the so-called three generations of rights and involve a complex combination of both liberty and claim rights.
Some rights, such as for example the right to life, consist of both liberty and claim rights in roughly equal measure. Thus, the adequate protection of the right to life requires the existence of liberty rights against others trespassing against one’s person and the existence of claim rights to have access to basic prerequisites to sustaining one’s life, such as an adequate diet and health-care…(for example one received lethal dosage of anesthetic by “surgical technician” during HT surgery and one dies, as it happened already, two rights of his were violated, rights to life and rights to the protection of the rule of law, because “surgical technician” administering anesthesia is forbidden )

Other rights, such as social, economic, and cultural rights, for example, are weighted more heavily towards the existence of various claim rights, which requires the positive provision of the objects of such rights. The making of substantive distinctions between human rights can have controversial, but important, consequences.
Human rights are typically understood to be of equal value, each right is conceived of as equally important as every other. On this view, there can exist no potential for conflict between fundamental human rights. One is simply meant to attach equal moral weight to each and every human right. This prohibits arranging human rights in order of importance.
However, conflict between rights can and does occur ,like for example a prominent Hair Transplant doctor ,Dr .Allan Feller had written an article where he rightfully claims to take donor strip below the safety zone of a patient head is exposure of that patient of excessive scaring, yet it is done so as he writes on epidemic scale. Is that not then violation of patients claim rights derived from social, economic, and cultural rights of getting COMPETENT health care and medical service, although, that right “conflicts” with the Liberty rights of the doctor to do as he pleases to you, delegating that task to non qualified personnel ‘surgical technicians” to determine, in order to generate more profit, because he thinks liberty right is a multi-millionaire and a penniless vagrant both possess an equal liberty right to holiday in the Caribbean each year.)

Treating all human rights as of equal importance prohibits any attempts to address or resolve such conflict when it arises.

Dear Senator, this country is capable of providing the resources for realizing all of the human rights for all of its citizens it is committed to doing so.
What remains to be addressed is the questions of what adequately implementing human rights generally requires, and upon whom does this task fall; who has responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights and what is required of them to do so?

For that purpose I would like to focus to the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

If we define a claim right as consisting of being owed a duty, claim right is a right one holds against another person or persons who owe a corresponding duty to the right holder. Example, patient’s right to receive an adequate education before committing to HT surgery is a claim right held against the HT doctor, which has a corresponding duty of HT doctor to provide patient with the object of the right.
Further necessary distinctions within the concept of a claim right is when one distinguishes between a positive claim right and a negative claim right.

Patient’s claim right to education (informed consent) is therefore a positive claim right. Negative claim rights, in contrast, are rights one holds against others’ interfering in or trespassing upon one’s life or property in some way. Patient could be said to possess a negative claim right against HT doctor is when that doctor steal patient’s right to receive medical care from MEDICAL PERSONEL, for example.
Indeed, such examples lead on to the final distinction within the concept of claim rights: rights held ‘in personam’ and rights held ‘in rem’.
Rights held in personam are rights one holds against some specifically identified duty holder, such as the authority of HT surgeon. In contrast, rights held in rem are rights held against no one in particular, but apply to everyone.
Thus, patient’s right to an education (informed consent) would be practically useless were it not held against some identifiable, relevant, and competent body (specific HT surgeon).
Equally, patient’s right against his right of receiving medical care by medical personnel being stolen from him/her would be highly limited if it did not apply to all those capable of potentially performing such an act. Claim rights, then, can be of either a positive or a negative character and they can be held either in personam or in rem.

There will always be people or groups who will take advantage of the lack of legislation and enforcement and VIOLATE someone’s rights.That is as I said before frequently violated in this medical field.

The people who considered and consider HT are still people most having total confidence in the doctors practicing in that field of medicine.

The state of nature of man is naturally peaceful not belligerent, but people don’t want to be abused either.

Due notice must be given and indeed had been given to conceptions of justice and morality that involve both individuals and groups in this HT “Industry”. This is not new topic.

It has been raised before, though, predominantly in individual form of expressing grief, disbelief, by abused patients by this HT “Industry”, and so far, never as a collective endeavor in which not only the ethical questions of HT field ,responsibility, obedience and delegation of doctors duty are legally challenged, but questions concerning the nature of that Industry (so too should) are.

A thing’s nature is detectable not only in its external appearance, but also and more importantly through the natural inclinations, which guide it to behave in conformity with the particular nature it has. Sometimes, such nature, such the nature of HT “Industry” causes harm to people.

After defining law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by someone who has care of the community, and promulgated.”

Since one of the essential components of law is to be promulgated, the natural law would lose its legal character if human beings did not have the principles of that law instilled in their minds .
There is such thing called natural law which guides human beings through their fundamental inclinations toward the natural perfection .
As we have seen, however, the human subjugation to the eternal law (called the natural law) is always concomitant with a certain awareness the human subject has of the law binding him (the existing law, the codified law, the common law etc)
For this reason man considers the natural law to be a habit, not in itself, but because the principles (or precepts) of the natural law are naturally held in our minds by means of an intellectual habit, a natural knowledge held by all people instructing them as to the fundamental moral requirements of their human nature.

Therefore, abused, disfigured, abandoned patients by HT doctors and Ht “Industry” should not surrender to the reality. I am one of those. Man has duty not to define the reality, but to try to improve the reality.

But man alone can not do much. The people, the population, although is the repository of ultimate political authority lacks the immediate power to coerce behavior.
Thus, in democracies , the ultimate political authority and the power to coerce behavior reside in different entities.

I hope this letter will have impact. And since true knowledge gained from experience gives rise to knowledge, and also doubt or controversy does, it is obvious that I, from the controversies, I allege, and that people who have written about these topics up to now and alleged them as well , have understanding of their this subject.
Even if I am just as wrong as they are, I can do no harm, since I shall only be leaving people in their present state of doubt and dispute.

But I hope to make fewer mistakes, by not taking any principle on trust, but merely drawing people’s attention to what they don’t know, some already know, or can know by their own experience.

» »
» http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/albumcomments/f/134107179/m/89910551
»
» John, welcome to the real world. Where the giant food processors poison
» you slowly, corporate America openly steals your money, politicians do
» what’s best for themselves and not the country, the media slowly conditions
» you, medicine gives you false hope and steals your money, and the list goes
» on. It’s not so bad when you know the truth, live and learn.
»
» There’s always a better solution right around the corner, it’s just a
» matter of waiting for it.

Banned,because of my posts on hair transplant network

read them on the links above and decide was it just.

Error Login/JoinWelcome, [Logout]

We’re sorry, but your IP address (72.241.2.180) has been banned by this community. This means that you may not login or register as long as you are online with this IP address.

For further assistance, please contact the community administrators

Go Back | The Hair Restoration Research Forum

powered by eve community     

Please Wait. Your request is being processed…
[x]

Site The Hair Restoration Research Forum
Servlet eve1da019
Version 1.3.0 build 9383
Module Forums 4.0.3
Stylesheet “Groupee Email Style”
Wordlet Set “Default Wordlet Set”
Logout: The Hair Restoration Research Forum
Update Groupee Account