Tuesday, November 27, 2007

I mourn my brother's premature death

My brother was 54 and had a mild stroke last Thursday night and was admitted to one of the semi-governmental hospital in Selangor. He was diagnosed of having a blogged vessel which only required 'ballooning'. He lost feelings of one of his leg but regained them few hours later. This is to tell you how serious (or not so serious) his condition was.

The doctor asked him to try a new drug for thinning blood before ballooning procedure could be carried out. Upon reading the terms and conditions in the letter of agreement which states no liability and cannot publicise the incident in the event anything went wrong, his daughter immediately told the mother not to agree to trying the drug. My sister-in-law told my brother not to agree and also told the doctor they didn't want to try. However, after mother and children left home to rest and prepare lunch the doctor somehow got my brother's signature on the agreement and administered the drug. The family was called back at noon because my brother's condition was critical.

Upon arrival the doctor told them he had managed to resuscitate him and now all depended on his will power to live (which was actually a bluff because they could tell my brother was dead then). When the daughter saw the father was wheeled out to be sent to another room she wanted to join the lift but was asked to wait for another lift. At that moment blood had not oozed out.

The doctors continued to block them from entering the room even nurses urged my niece to see the father (for the last time). One indian doctor blocked the room door while the other (chinese) distracted the family to other room to explain the 'situation'. My niece was a strong girl and she kept trying to find opportunity to see her father. She managed less than 15 min later and found my brother covered with white clothe (death) and there were traces of blood at the corner of his mouth and hand where the needle was.

The family has reasons to believe the doctors 'murdered' my brother and tried to cover up. They could use proven drug instead of the test drug on my brother and they should not persuade or even frigthen my brother to sign when he was not in the right frame of mind and emotional state to make a wise choice. Detail detrimental effects of that drug were only HONESTLY explained to them after my brother died. Earlier on the doctor gave ambiguous misrepresentation (my own words because my niece said what was told before and after were totally different). The doctor even had the cheek to say he would not be able to know whether the drug was 300mg or 600mg because they were made to look exactly the same and they were in the same box. So, the test done on people is by luck? You lucky you got 'tested' on 300mg? You would be even luckier if you get the 600mg because you ended up like my brother. Do you believe that crab?

Or perhaps they picked on my brother because he was less educated and couldn't read the fine lines in the agreement letter. Or perhaps they were the typically Chinese who hated post-mortem so the doctors picked him to be the guinea pig? They were damned right because there won't be any case because my sister-in-law was too heart broken to allow post-mortem on my brother. According to her my brother was afraid of blood, operations, knives....that's why she didn't allow the post-mortem. Lucky you devil doctors who had no heart and treat human beings as white mice.

I really hope the authority will do something about using unproven drugs on people. Each life is precious. Who is the judge to decide which one is less worthy?

No comments: