|
Latest from the 'Cannabis Lobby'..why not drop by, say "high"
|
Home  Latest News Latest Did Pathologist lie in marijuana death case?
|
Did Pathologist lie in marijuana death case? |
|
When a parent is dealing with the death of a child one can only assume they have enough on their plate already, without having to wonder if the information they were given regarding their childs death, was correct, or a figment of the pathologists imagination.
But this is exactly the situation a couple from Leicester in England found themselves in recently.
Paul and Joanne Burgess were not happy with the pathologists report after their 16 year old son James died suddenly. The report stated their sons death was as a direct result of his marijuana use.
At this stage in the proceedings it would be fair just to listen to what the experts tell you, draw a line under it, and get on with grieving the loss of a child.
| | Its probably not the first time such a "glaring mistake" has been made, but for the same doctor, to have made the same mistake, twice, and both times he laid the cause of death squarely at the door of cannabis as a recreational drug, must surely question the agenda this man is working to. Shouldhe be re-instated as a medical practitioner or should he be struck off and banished from medicine for ever? Join us on the new Canna Zine cannabis forums and either have your say, or just sit and watch the grass grow. |
We could only try to guess why, but Mr & Mrs Burgess were not happy with the pathologists findings, so they decided to hire in their own pathologist in a quest for more information.
At the same time, the local coronor's office, unusually so perhaps, ordered a third examination from an independent pathologist.
In both instances, the verdict was the same. The death was attributed to a previously unsuspected heart condition. A heart condition which the initial pathologist either missed, or ignored perhaps?
At the subsequent inquest, cannabis was positively ruled out as a cause of death and the family's solicitor called for the examining doctor; Dr Al-Alousi, who works for the University of Leicester and the University Hospital of Leicester NHS Trust, to be reported to the General Medical Council, (GMC).
Charles Winstanley, chairman of the GMC panel, said they were concerned Dr Al-Alousi had stayed with his own conclusion even after the other two pathologists had examined James and at first glance it would be easy to write this off as being a case of a stubborn doctor who doesn't wish to admit he was wrong.
A terribly 'human' flaw and one not restricted to doctors I think its fair to say.
But in a second case involving the same doctor, and another death certificate signed off with "Cannabis" as the cause of death, its clearly necessary someone takes the time to look at this particular doctors agenda.
Mr Winstanley told Al-Alousi on behalf of the GMC panel, just prior to placing restrictions on his practice: "Your conclusions were significantly flawed and inaccurate in both cases."
Which is a massive understatement no matter how you look at it.
| Canna Zine - Daily zine for the global cannabis scene - Join us!
|
|
|
|
