11-10-2004, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: gmc
Quote:
So why did this thread start? Oh wait, it was about everyone arguing to see if St. Chris students were allowed to sit for the PLAB in England. How did we go from there to the Senegal charter issue? Everyone knows about the charter issue and I think we should just let that rest until the NY site visit is over. Azskeptic, you have been told the truth about St. Chris and how St. Chris students ARE ALLOWED to sit for the PLAB. Instead of posting a retraction to what you have been prattling about in your previous posts, you have changed the subject to another topic. Admit your wrong sir and move on. Even Picard wasn’t a girly man and congratulated St. Christopher’s on this. Oh and by the way, that URL you keep sending does NOT have St. Chris and MCL in the same line, and even if they did so what? Two different schools, two different entities.     
|
|
11-10-2004, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jumping jehosavas
Quote:
you seem to be reading a lot into this situation...good for you that the GMC looked at the campus, and decided that you, along with 99% of the med schools in the world can sit for the plab. most of these schools did not require a site visit to gain this status anyhow! this issue may be resolved (well, not really, lets see if anyone actually gets past limited registration in the UK before we start getting too excited) but, there is a lot left hanging out there. to interpret this as a sign of positive things to come is a bit ridiculous! you merely recaptured a lost privlege. most of the real issues remain unresloved. where are the licensed grads? where is the approval in all states? what about your charter issues? you have only proved that you are allowed to sit the plab, which pretty much ANY school can do....this only shows that you regained the minimal level of acceptance that most third-rate schools in the world had, and even they never had it suspended, for however briefly. to the curious...stay far, far away from this school, until it really proves itself in the form of licensed, practicing physicians eligible to work in all states. they have proven time and time again that the admin and students are not trustworthy, and they have never offered anything that 99% of the med schools in the world already offer....and many of the others offer it without the risk!
|
|
11-10-2004, 11:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: jumping jehosavas
Quote:
__________________
BTS4202 St. Christopher's COM 4th Year http://www.mdparadise.com "If there really is a God, He has a lot of explaining to do" - Dennis Leary
|
|
11-10-2004, 11:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: jumping jehosavas
Quote:
__________________
Moderator - State Licensing Forum Still skeptical after all these years. This is it. There are no hidden meanings.WYSIWYG http://www.internetmedicalschool.homestead.com http://www.chiropractormds.homestead.com/index.html
|
|
11-10-2004, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
...
I think we have all seen Valuelessmd's previous posts to see how biased he is against the school. His repeated posts above quoting my concerns just shows how childish he and others who associated with SC can be.
Regardless of how brief the suspension (AND YES, IT WAS A SUSPENSION, NOT AN ADMINSTRATIVE ERROR) of SC's PLAB status is, the underline issues facing SC remains largely UNRESOLVED. It's funny how SC folks want to isolate this PLAB issue and treat it as a "victory." This PLAB issue STEMMED FROM THE LARGER CHARTER ISSUE. If SC weren't a Senegalese school operating ENTIRELY out of UK without UK accreditation (a practice that is ILLEGAL IN EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY INCLUDING THE US), PLAB wouldn't become a issue in the first place. So SC gained some very basic priveleges back, good for you. But on the larger scale of things, this is minimal. Think about it, even fraudulent schools like Grace and IUHS did NOT lose their "PLAB eligibility"... goes to show you how low this "privilege" ranks. Again, I was merely trying to offer a best wish when this "valuelessmd" started acting childish... SC's larger issue is still UNRESOLVED. Operating in a host country without it's blessing/accreditation is STILL A RISKY BUSINESS that may be shut down at anytime as the political climate changes. If SC cannot see that, well, good luck. P
__________________
Jean Luc Picard Academic Hospitalist/Assist. Professor of Medicine, Star Fleet Medical, Earth, United Federation of Planets Borg-Certified... Resistance is Futile. In Glock, We Trust... Everyone Else... Keep Your Hands Where I Can See Them. http://www.odmp.org/search.php?searc...=2001&cause=27 http://www.nypdangels.com/wtc.htm http://www.hampsteadnh.us/police/A%2...ica%20Died.htm http://longmontpolice.com/MEMORIAM.HTM
|
|
11-11-2004, 10:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: ...
Quote:
Anyway, your point about grace and IUHS has no validity. Those schools are entirely geared towards the US so the GMC has not had to deal with them at all. The GMC gets lots of phone calls about St. Chris and has been put in a position where they had to make a final decision. If the GMC went to visit Grace or IUHS like they did us, I seriously doubt their privledges would be put back in place. It is like blaming a US state for not banning a caribb med school they do not know exists... it just doesn't make any sense. The facts remain, the UK is very different than the US. They have laws that allow branch campuses to operate in it. The fact also remains that the GMC has had people inspecting St. Chris for weeks and have now given us teh final decision that our program's quality is adequate enough that we deserve all the same privledges that all other proper foriegn schools are entitled to. Maybe if the GMC is made aware that not all foriegn schools are created equal, especially in the caribb, then they may start to take a longer look at some of the schools like Grace and IUHS.
__________________
BTS4202 St. Christopher's COM 4th Year http://www.mdparadise.com "If there really is a God, He has a lot of explaining to do" - Dennis Leary
|
|
11-11-2004, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
..........
Last edited by ValuelessMD; 07-07-2006 at 04:07 PM.
|
|
11-11-2004, 02:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
a bit misleading?
"Those schools are entirely geared towards the US so the GMC has not had to deal with them at all."
you are implying that SC isn't geared and marketed to the US student population. how many senagal or uk students are at SC? "The fact also remains that the GMC has had people inspecting St. Chris for weeks and have now given us teh final decision that our program's quality is adequate enough that we deserve all the same privledges that all other proper foriegn schools are entitled to" when will they have the findings in writing? that is what counts. the NY visit will be a major plus for you guys if it gets approved and will show that recognition is a possibility. i think any student that passes steps 1,2,3 with good evals from hospitals should be allowed to work because the work and determination just to get that done should be proof alone...unfortunately all schools have to abide by laws and SC, Kigezi, MCL, Grace, IUA, AUA, etc that try and find "innovative" ways around it a lot of times just leave students with debt. again i would like to point out that SC has been around since 1998 with people transfred in to clinicals and no licenses yet right? as soon as that first one happens, and i don't doubt it will somewhere, it will get easier from there. until then it will always be an unproven school with questionable ways around licensing laws no matter how many improvements they make or who does site visits, simple as that.
__________________
OBGYN PGY II I see light at the end of the tunnel!!!...wait a minute its just another freakin tunnel!
|
|
11-11-2004, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
...
Quote:
The simple fact is, GMC would NOT have had to "deal with" SC if SC had play it ethically and have you all go to school in Senegal. The PLAB rule is simple -- is the school listed under WHO. So, IUHS and Grace would have absolutely NO problem qualifying for PLAB. Even if GMC is to visit them, GMC has no choice but to let them take PLAB. SC, on the other hand, is OPERATING IN UK WITHOUT GMC accreditation. This is why GMC can rule that SC is de facto an unaccredited, illegal UK school disguising under a purchased charter from a third world country that SC has little or no relation with. And since SC is NOT listed under UK in the IMED/WHO, thus the temporay suspension of the PLAB eligbility. The final verdict on this is still out, and WILL NEVER BE FINAL as long as SC remains in UK unaccredited by UK. And, as Luton campus grows more and more sophisticated (and Senegal campus does not), GMC may rule IN THE FUTURE that SC has crossed the threshhold and is de facto an unlicensed UK school dispite it's attempt at disgusing itself as a Senegal school... (it's hard to argue SC is a Senegal school if SC's Luton campus grows to state of the art caliber while it's Senegal "parent campus" is in shambles...) So, as you can see, this issue will NEVER be finalized as long as SC remains in UK unaccredited. It will be revisited again and again in the future... and one of these times, with the right GMC climate, it may turn against SC Luton in a heartbeat. SC exists now in the legal LOOPHOLE in the UK. Believe me, if GMC can close SC down, it would. SC preys on the fact that PLAB eligibility is just like USMLE eligibility in the US -- its WHO/IMED based and requires NO accreditation process by the host country (US or UK), and the fact that the general UK laws allow foreign schools (any trade/profession) to exist in UK unchallenged. The UK law simply has not caught up to the tactics SC uses. The US, on the other hand, recognizes this... this is why US licensing laws do NOT grant licenses solely based on the passage of USMLE (plenty of folks with ECFMG certs and stellar USMLE scores and still unlicensible in ANY US jurisdiction) and have enacted laws that prevent foreign medical schools to operate ENTIRELY in the US without US charter AFTER ROSS' ATTEMPT IN WYOMING. There is a GREAT PUSH in the UK medical community to follow what the US has done and put a stop to models like SC... current UK law's loophole allows SC to operate, so GMC is powerless at this time to close SC -- but the time may come that laws may change just like it did in the US... and SC folks may find themselves joining the rank of it's founders medical school Grace. Don't be too cocky about this "PLAB eligibility" -- it does NOT in anyway mean that SC is now somehow "recognized" or "accredited" by the UK. GMC still does NOT recognize SC as a legitamate UK school. It merely allows SC to take the PLAB like the rest of the foreign schools because SC technically falls in the current loophole. P
__________________
Jean Luc Picard Academic Hospitalist/Assist. Professor of Medicine, Star Fleet Medical, Earth, United Federation of Planets Borg-Certified... Resistance is Futile. In Glock, We Trust... Everyone Else... Keep Your Hands Where I Can See Them. http://www.odmp.org/search.php?searc...=2001&cause=27 http://www.nypdangels.com/wtc.htm http://www.hampsteadnh.us/police/A%2...ica%20Died.htm http://longmontpolice.com/MEMORIAM.HTM
|
|
11-11-2004, 07:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Cost of White Lies on your CV ( a story)
http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20040300/62thec.html
The Cost of White Lies If you find yourself the defendant in a trial, falsifications in your CV or other sources could destroy your credibility, or even your career. Martin J. MacNeill, DO, JD, and Alexis MacNeill, BA Covered in FPM Quiz A PDF version of this document is available. Download PDF now (3 pages/119 KB). More information on using PDF files. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPEEDBAR® » Discuss with your attorney if and when you should disclose your indiscretions to the jury. » If you are afraid the opposing counsel plans to use this information against you, consider a pretrial motion to keep it out of the case. » If you have been dishonest in some aspect of your professional career, your reputation as a physician could be ruined in a malpractice trial. » Your CV must contain accurate information that includes degrees, awards and accomplishments that you have really earned. » Examine your advertisements and office materials for errors because mistakes might have been made without your knowledge. » If you should discover a discrepancy, whether intentional or unintentional, point this out to your attorney immediately. KEY POINTS Any dishonest information on your curriculum vitae, advertisements or other office materials can undermine your credibility as a physician and decrease your chances of prevailing in a malpractice lawsuit. If you do have misleading information on your CV, discuss this with your attorney and decide how to approach the situation so that the opposing counsel doesn't use it to their advantage. Certain information can be withheld during the trial if the judge agrees. He lied. No doubt about it. He fabricated things on his curriculum vitae. He had never been a professor of medicine, clinical or otherwise, but there it was smack dab in the middle of his CV. Why did he put it in there? Who knew? Regardless, now we were stuck with it, and the opposing counsel had the CV in his grubby little paws. What should we do? Should we bring it out in the open? Or should we keep it to ourselves and hope the plaintiff's counsel didn't check the facts? It didn't take long to reach a decision. The opposing counsel phoned us to ask about the obvious discrepancy in the CV. The result? The case was settled out of court for a hefty sum, all because of this apparent lie. If you are a defendant in a lawsuit, your credibility as a physician is extremely important. It may be the make-or-break factor in determining whether the jury buys the rest of your story. In my role as a physician/attorney, I have counseled many physicians who have fudged a bit about some aspect of their practice. Many have come to regret these white lies. If a hospital doesn't consider you a staff member, take it off your CV. Checking the facts The first thing I check when evaluating a physician's credibility before a trial is his or her CV, because it requires unerring accuracy. Small secretarial errors are not a big concern, but it is crucial that you remove all of the things that cannot be documented through other sources. If a hospital doesn't consider you a staff member, take it off your CV. If you didn't complete a residency, don't claim you did. If something on your list of publications can't be verified, toss it out. If your cum laude status doesn't match the records of the university, change it. If you're older than your CV states, correct it. Each of these examples appeared in actual CVs, and those physicians had to face the consequences of their little untruths. Be aware that your CV is just one area that may require a careful examination. Errors can pop up in unexpected places. They are not always the fault of the physician, but often he or she winds up paying for these mistakes. In one case, a well-known plastic surgeon claimed that years before, his office manager had placed the words "board certified" in the clinic's Yellow Pages advertisement. The physician noticed the error but did not reprimand the office manager or change the ad. Seven years' worth of ads later, a reporter asked the surgeon, now a state legislator, about his advertisement. The truth was uncovered, and the surgeon is no longer a politician. The office manager's error became his ticket out of politics. It seems common that physicians do not want to admit their humanity to their attorneys. Take a close look at all the letters and honors that appear after your name on your office sign, advertisements and other printed materials. Make sure they all can be documented and proven when the time comes. The information is usually available online to the general public and reporters, as well as to the opposing counsel. Admitting your mistakes It seems common that physicians do not want to admit their humanity to their attorneys. I once received a client's information from his religious leader because the physician was too embarrassed to tell me about it but had confessed to his pastor. Fortunately, the pastor had more sense than the physician and received permission to talk to me about the issue. If there is a problem, tell your attorney and your religious leader, in that order. Remember, your attorney cannot address blemishes unless he or she sees them first. There is nothing worse than the attorney hearing something for the first time while questioning the client on the stand. I know of one incident that occurred soon after a physician was sworn in to testify. His attorney, trying to show the physician in the best possible light, asked where the doctor had gone to medical school. The attorney fully expected the answer to be Yale, as per the CV. The doctor testified that he had gone to a school in the Caribbean. The attorney was so stunned by the answer that he asked a follow-up question, "But didn't you also go to Yale?" The answer silenced the courtroom. "No, I just put that in my biographical information because that makes the patients feel more comfortable with me as a physician." When asked later why he hadn't informed the attorney until then, the physician's response was, "I didn't think it mattered." Well, it mattered to the tune of $110,000 in settlement. The opposing counsel jumped on this information and hammered home that his CV was a lie. The physician's credibility was destroyed, and the jury did not believe anything else he said. The physician's patients could have easily decided on a class action suit for fraud. Choosing a strategy Before a trial you need a reality check. If you have general indiscretions that could damage your credibility, you and your attorney must assess how likely it is that the opposing side will become aware of them. If you have fully complied with the discovery process, you are under no legal or ethical requirement to divulge potentially damaging information to your opponents. Nevertheless, you must always be careful about information you withhold from the plaintiff. Your opponent may already know about this information and may be preparing to ask you about it at trial. HOW TO APPROPRIATELY DISCLOSE HARMFUL FACTS DURING A TRIAL The following dialogue between an attorney and a client presents one way to handle falsified information during a jury trial. Attorney: Dr. Smith, are you a clinical professor of psychiatry? Client: No, I am not. A: Have you ever been? C: No, I have not. A: Have you ever claimed to be? C: Yes, I have. A: Why would you claim to be something you aren't? C: I attended a class reunion and I wanted to impress my old classmates. A: Have you ever used this in an attempt to fool patients? C: No, I would never do that. A: Why are you telling us this now? C: I want, more than anything, to tell the truth. I have sworn to tell the truth, and I believe that I have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to be forthright in every way possible with the jury. A: Will you continue to tell the truth to this jury, no matter how difficult? C: Yes, I will. A: All right, Doctor, now let's talk more about the case. If you know that damaging information is going to be used against you, consider carefully whether you should be the one to expose your "warts" to the jury, and discuss this option with your attorney. It may be best to disclose it early in the trial process to prevent the opposite side from doing it at a time more advantageous to the plaintiff. If you are especially concerned about some information from your past and absolutely do not want it exposed to the jury, there are ways to prevent it from coming out. Even when the information is relevant, the judge has the discretion to keep it out of the case. To withhold this information, the judge must decide that the emotional impact on the jury outweighs its benefits in the trial. We all understand that past indiscretions occur. Everyone has skeletons in the closet, and sometimes, the court will rule that it would not be fair to expose these delicate issues for the world to see. If you decide to go this route and prevent access to information, you and your attorney should consider doing it through pretrial motions because objections during the trial can damage your credibility. Pretrial motions do have their limitations. First, you may be turned down by the judge. Second, even if your motion is approved, your opponent then is privy to this information. Do you really want to open up this can of worms? Tough decisions are ahead, but it is significantly easier to change incorrect or damaging information prior to the trial. Protecting your credibility Psychologists will tell you that people subconsciously cling to their first impressions. This is no different for a jury. If you come across as a liar, then it is difficult to change that opinion. If you have harmful information that must come out, it should be you or your attorney who brings it out. As an attorney, I would rather be able to say to a jury, "My client was open and honest with you even when it hurt." Send comments to fpmedit@aafp.org. Dr. MacNeill is the medical director of the Utah State Developmental Center and a health care attorney in Provo, Utah. Alexis MacNeill is a graduate student at Imperial College of Science Medicine and Technology in London. Conflicts of interest: none reported.
__________________
Moderator - State Licensing Forum Still skeptical after all these years. This is it. There are no hidden meanings.WYSIWYG http://www.internetmedicalschool.homestead.com http://www.chiropractormds.homestead.com/index.html
|
neilc
Linear Mode
