According to Mail News reports that a huge determining factor in the decision to completely revoke Dr. Kamrava’s medical license instead of sentencing him to a period of probation was also the fact that Suleman’s case was not the first, but rather the third incident, where Dr. Kamrava “did not exercise sound judgment” and “committed gross negligence, repeated negligent acts, and incompetence.” One of his other negligent cases included implanting a 48-year old woman with seven embryos, which resulted in quadruplets, a complicated birth and the death of a fetus before delivery.
His other case involved continuing on with in vitro fertilization after testing on a patient showed abnormal cells, typically a sign of the presence of a tumor. Instead of referring her to a gynecological oncologist, he became distracted when negative press about Suleman’s case made the news. The woman was found to have stage-three cancer and had to have her uterus and ovaries removed before beginning chemotherapy.
The quantity of negative press about Suleman, though, was the reason why Dr. Ramrava’s judge recommended a more leniant sentence of five year probation. He felt that it was enough of a lesson to teach Kamrava to never repeat the mistake again, but the state felt that Kamrava had already used bad press as a cover for failing to properly care for his patients and so in order to protect the public, a harsher punishment should be employed. The decision states, “Accordingly, the board is not persuaded that relying on the public or the media to fulfill or supplement the board’s public protection role is sound policy.” Although the judge can make recommendations, the ultimate sentence depends upon the state medical board.
The board’s decision will go into effect July 1, but medical board spokeswomen Jennifer Simoes and Michael Kamrava can appeal for a different decision. It is unlikely, though, that there would be different results because the board had decided upon a decision themselves, rather than choosing to follow the judge’s recommendation.
While Kamrava deals with the tragedy of a lost license, though, by law, he can still petition for reinstatement three years after revocation.
And, as Kamrava loses his license, Nadya Suleman is photographed along a sandy beach, attempting to model in an animal –print two piece bikini.
His other case involved continuing on with in vitro fertilization after testing on a patient showed abnormal cells, typically a sign of the presence of a tumor. Instead of referring her to a gynecological oncologist, he became distracted when negative press about Suleman’s case made the news. The woman was found to have stage-three cancer and had to have her uterus and ovaries removed before beginning chemotherapy.
The quantity of negative press about Suleman, though, was the reason why Dr. Ramrava’s judge recommended a more leniant sentence of five year probation. He felt that it was enough of a lesson to teach Kamrava to never repeat the mistake again, but the state felt that Kamrava had already used bad press as a cover for failing to properly care for his patients and so in order to protect the public, a harsher punishment should be employed. The decision states, “Accordingly, the board is not persuaded that relying on the public or the media to fulfill or supplement the board’s public protection role is sound policy.” Although the judge can make recommendations, the ultimate sentence depends upon the state medical board.
While Kamrava deals with the tragedy of a lost license, though, by law, he can still petition for reinstatement three years after revocation.
And, as Kamrava loses his license, Nadya Suleman is photographed along a sandy beach, attempting to model in an animal –print two piece bikini.
No comments:
Post a Comment