>Mr. Freels:
>It has come to my attention that you are in possession of a report
>concerning the ethical use of HBO that was prepared for the UHMS. As a
>manuscript based upon that report is pending publication, I would like to
>find out just what document you currently have. Basically I want to ensure
>that the manuscript that has been prepared and submitted to Undersea and
>Hyperbaric Medicine, is not the same as the manuscript you have. Would you
>be kind enough to send me a copy of the manuscript you have (fax is 619 543
>3115) and also inform me from whom you obtained it. Thank you very much.
>Tom S. Neuman, M.D., FACP
>Director, Hyperbaric Medicine Center
>UCSD Medical Center
Dr. Neuman,
Just like anybody else, you can download the Undersea and Hyperbaric
Medical Society ethics report from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medicaidforhbot/files/UHMS_Has_No_Ethics.PDF
.
I don't know who you are or of what relevance this 2 1/2-year old
unpublished UHMS document is to you, but I am very curious about your
statement:
>Basically I want to ensure
>that the manuscript that has been prepared and submitted to Undersea and
>Hyperbaric Medicine, is not the same as the manuscript you have.
Are you some sort of representative of Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine?
If the UHMS ethics report I've posted for downloading is different from the
manuscript submitted to to Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, what does it
say about the "ethics" of that manuscript?
Does this mean that UHMS "ethics" are somehow changeable?
Are UHMS ethics--relative?
After downloading and reviewing the UHMS ethics report and comparing it to
the manuscript you must have, please answer the following questions:
1. Is there a difference between the UHMS ethics report I've posted and the
manuscript you possess?
2. If there is a difference, what is the difference?
3. If there is a difference, why is there a difference?
You asked where I obtained this report. My wife and I have been in pursuit
of Medicaid reimbursement of HBOT for our child for over 2 1/2 years.
After our first request, the Georgia Department of Medical Assistance asked
the UHMS for guidance, but the UHMS said there was "no documentation on the
use of hyperbaric oxygen for this diagnosis". I am emailing you a pdf of
this denial under separate cover.
We made that first request to Georgia Medicaid on April 14, 1999.
This ethics report is dated June 27, 1999. I have two videos of lectures
given to UHMS membership on April 4, 1999 by Dr. Paul G. Harch and Dr.
Phillip James where the use of HBOT in cp, coma, hanging, stroke, and
multiple sclerosis, etc. were discussed. The panel discussion that
followed was led by ethics committee members Evelyn Chan and Caroline Fife.
The April 4, 1999 lectures weren't the first archival of documentation on
the use of HBOT for brain-injury in children. The ethics report states that
the committee first convened in the fall of 1998--which means the UHMS had
at least some documentation, even if that documentation was just
"anecdotal", it's still documentation.
Which means the UHMS lied to the Georgia Department of Medical Assistance.
Which was the basis of our first denial.
Now, I've been fairly vocal and fairly persistant in pursuit of Medicaid
reimbursement. In light of that, it should come as no surprise that this
UHMS ethics report that was handed out at the 1999 UHMS annual meeting in
Boston was given to me. It's full of UHMS hypocrisy.
Professionally, I'm a freelance writer. A journalist. I don't reveal my
sources. Never have. Never will.
Again, some questions for you:
1. Is there a difference between the UHMS ethics report I've posted and the
manuscript you possess?
2. If there is a difference, what is the difference?
3. If there is a difference, why is there a difference?
|
