Brain Tumour Survivor

A site dedicated to leading edge treatment for brain tumours
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:09 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:45 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Surgeon specialty, hospital volume important factors in patient outcomes

In other studies, outcomes of specific surgeries has been shown to improve when performed at high-volume centralized centers. Researchers from the Netherlands Cancer Institute wanted to understand if patients undergoing lung cancer resections would benefit from having their procedures performed in a high-volume specialized center. The study, published in the July 2012 issue of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer's (IASLC) Journal of Thoracic Oncology, concluded that hospital volume and surgeon specialty are important factors in patient outcomes. However, they found there is no evidence-based standard for a minimum volume. To address this lack of standard, they recommend a national audit program to evaluate institutions based on quality of care parameters, including hospital volume.

The authors evaluated articles published between Jan. 1, 1990 and Jan. 20, 2011 that studied the effects of surgeon specialty as well as hospital and surgeon volume of lung resections on mortality and survival. They compiled data from 19 studies that met stringent criteria.

Researchers found that high volume hospitals had lower postoperative deaths compared with lower volume hospitals and thoracic and cardiothoracic surgeons had lower risks of mortality compared to general surgeons. There was a greater association of lower mortality with high volume centers as opposed to individual surgeons suggesting that the system and team involved in the post-operative care are important.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201206 ... comes.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:47 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Italy in first robotic liver procedure

A MEDICAL transplant centre on the Italian island of Sicily says it has carried out the world's first partial liver transplant using only a robot to remove the organ of the donor.

The ISMETT transplant centre in Palermo said only the arms of a robot entered the abdomen of the 44-year-old donor looking to save his 46-year-old brother suffering from cirrhosis of the liver.

Thanks to the robot, only five keyhole incisions and one nine-centimetre incision were required for the operation, the centre said.

"This is the first case in the world performed entirely and exclusively with the robotic technique," the centre said.

The procedure, known as hepatectomy, was performed in March but the news was held until the recipient was given a clean bill of health and discharged from hospital, the centre said.

"In the past, some living donor liver transplants had been performed in the US using the robot," but were aided by a surgeon who inserted his hand through an incision to perform the surgery with the robot, the centre said.

The procedure lasted 10 hours and the two brothers recovered well, with the donor leaving hospital after nine days and the recipient leaving a few weeks later.

The surgical first was carried out using the Da Vinci SHDI robotic surgical system, a multi-tentacled device conceived at the Robotic Surgery Center in Pisa.

"The use of new technologies in transplant surgery is extremely important since reducing trauma for patients may encourage living organ donations and increase the number of transplants," the centre

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/br ... 6408501932


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Doctor 'failed' injured patient

Prominent Canberra obstetrician and gynaecologist Andrew Foote failed in his duty of care to a woman who was injured when the medico operated on her in 2004, a Supreme Court judge has ruled.

In a judgment published yesterday, acting Justice Margaret Sidis found that Susan Virginia Dixon should be awarded $140,000 in general damages from Dr Foote, who is president of the National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The final amount of costs to be awarded to Mrs Dixon will be determined at a later date.

In September 2004, Dr Foote performed surgery on Mrs Dixon, which included an abdominal hysterectomy and treatment for the breakdown of a mesh sling that provided support following the prolapse of her uterus.

Mrs Dixon's right ureter was damaged during the surgery, causing urine to leak.

She required further surgery to reimplant the ureter and was treated in the intensive care unit of Calvary Hospital.

She subsequently underwent surgery for a fistula and required other treatment.

Acting Justice Sidis found that Dr Foote failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in advising Mrs Dixon to proceed with the hysterectomy and another procedure known as a sacral colpopexy.

Acting Justice Sidis found Dr Foote failed to take steps described by experts as standard medical practice to identify the ureter at the time of surgery and to check for injury after the surgery.

She also found that Dr Foot caused thickness damage to the wall of the bladder and failed after the surgery to recognise that further investigations were necessary.

''I find the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill post-operatively in failing to recognise that investigations were necessary to confirm or negative his diagnosis in circumstances where he was confused and where the plaintiff's condition was deteriorating,'' acting Justice Sidis said.

In his evidence, Dr Foote denied that he was negligent in the advice or treatment that he provided to Mrs Dixon.

He said he would not have discussed the option of total abdominal hysterectomy with Mrs Dixon if there was no evidence of prolapse.

He said that during the surgery he had palpated the position of the ureters and was satisfied they were clear of where he proposed to apply a clamp.

Dr Foote rejected the proposition that he caused full thickness damage to the wall of the bladder.

Acting Justice Sidis found some of the evidence Dr Foote presented to the court to be unreliable.

She also found Dr Foote lied when he suggested to Mrs Dixon that she had had an s-bend or abnormality in her ureter.

''I concluded that the defendant lied to the plaintiff in his contention that she suffered from some pre-existing condition with a view to averting any claim she might bring as a result of the unfortunate outcome of the surgery,'' acting Justice Sidis said.

Since the surgery, Mrs Dixon had suffered from bowel obstructions and had unsightly abdominal scarring and swelling.

Despite having a family history of bowel cancer, she had been advised that she should not undergo colonoscopies.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 21342.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:15 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Cancer treatment survival increases

The number of people surviving after treatment for oesophageal or stomach cancer has risen significantly in the last 10 years, according to new figures.

Nearly 50% of patients with stomach tumours and 45% of those with an oesophageal tumour live for three years after diagnosis compared with only about one third of patients a decade ago, an audit of thousands of sufferers found.

Together, oesophageal and stomach cancers are the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the UK, and affect around 13,500 people each year.

The new statistics are taken from the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit. It is the first time national data on three year survival rates for this patient group have been published.

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) said the audit includes information on more than 17,000 patients in England and Wales diagnosed between October 2007 and June 2009 and is the largest audit of its kind in the world.

Surgeons said the figures show that if patients are diagnosed early enough and have curative treatment their chances of long-term survival are stronger.

Stuart Riley, consultant gastroenterologist and member of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), said: "Unfortunately, most patients with oesophageal or stomach cancer still report symptoms too late. We need to improve the early diagnosis of the disease to increase the proportion of patients eligible for curative treatment and improve survival rates even further."

The RCS said the improved results reflect better organisation of NHS cancer services in England and Wales. It said the centralisation of cancer services has allowed patients to have better access to the best available treatment.

Richard Hardwick, consultant surgeon and member of the Association of Upper GI Surgeons (AUGIS), said: "Survival of patients undergoing curative surgery for oesophageal or stomach cancer has improved significantly. Our next challenge is to reduce the rates of complications following these major operations so that our patients recover more quickly from their surgery."

The audit was commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and carried out by a partnership between the Association of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgeons, the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 107979819A


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:41 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Odd couple, good cause

One is a famous Sydney character who saves lives, the other a Melburnian infamous for doing the opposite.

This tale of two cities involves Mick Gatto teaming up with the renowned Sydney neurosurgeon Charles Teo to host a gala dinner in Melbourne with the aim of raising money for the fight against brain cancer.

After receiving a phone call from a ''random bloke'' whose mother had three months to live with an incurable cancer, Mr Gatto, who now styles himself as a ''mediator'', decided to help Dr Teo's cause.

''I put the word out and a few weeks later a mate of mine was sitting next to Dr Teo at a dinner,'' Mr Gatto said.

''Dr Teo heard the case and, to cut a long story short, he saved the woman's life. Since then we developed a friendship and well, he is such a wonderful man, I just wanted to help.''

The November 9 dinner, to be held at Grossi Florentino restaurant, is being promoted by Mr Gatto as an ''Up Close and Personal with Dr Teo: Finding a cure for brain cancer''. It boasts a tax-deductable platinum sponsor's VIP table for $100,000.

''Yes, it's a fair whack but for the right company it's advantageous,'' Mr Gatto said.

''Corporates want to get on board because it's a good cause.''

Other sponsors can secure a gold table at $50,000 or a silver one for $20,000. Single tables are also on offer for $5000.

Mr Gatto said ''a lot of tables have already been sold''.

Closer to the night, he said, he would announce a raft of celebrities and entertainers lending their support. ''Tables are selling like hot cakes, at least 70 have gone already because it's such a good cause,'' Mr Gatto said.

The former boxer who runs Elite Cranes, shot dead Andrew "Benji" Veniamin in March 2004 but was later acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.

He denied he was ''trying to buy respectability''.

''I don't care what people think, people ask me for support or I think something needs support,'' he said.

Dr Teo, the director of Sydney's Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, is held in high regard but has also faced criticism for performing radical surgery on tumours that other neurosurgeons consider inoperable.

Dr Teo told The Sun-Herald he welcomed support for the Cure for Life Foundation from anyone who could help in the fight to find a cure for brain cancer.

''To be honest, I didn't really know who Mick Gatto was but a mutual friend of ours brought us together a couple of years ago,'' he said.

''When I found out [who he was], I found it quite amusing. I understand he has a colourful past but he has been nothing but a gentleman to me.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/o ... z1zyHciGD1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:17 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Patients forced to wait longer for elective surgery

WAITING lists for elective surgery have ballooned, with hospitals struggling to catch up with a backlog of cases cancelled during the nurses strike, government figures reveal.

The number of elective surgery patients on the waiting list rose by more than 2600 in the three months to March 31, compared with the December quarter.

The Victorian Health Services performance report for the March quarter reveals the average wait for elective surgery rose from 34 days to 42 days since December - the worst result in at least a year.

On March 31 this year there were 45,912 patients on the elective surgery waiting list, compared with 40,071 for the same period in 2011.

The number of patients visiting hospital emergency departments rose by more than 5000 on last year, and the number admitted increased by more than 6000.

Health Minister David Davis said the March quarter had been a tough time for hospitals, with 15,000 more patients in the system compared with the same period in 2011.

Mr Davis said more money had been allocated in the state Budget to clear the elective surgery backlog and negotiations had begun.

"I in no way resile from the challenge that we face with elective surgery, in no way resile from the challenge that we face in managing ongoing emergency demand as well," he said.

Emergency department patients are assessed on arrival, with the most life-threatening injuries listed as category 1.

The figures showed all hospitals treated category 1 patients immediately.

But seven emergency departments - including Frankston, Wonthaggi, and Sunshine - fell short of an 80 per cent target to treat category 2 patients within 10 minutes.

http://www.news.com.au/national/patient ... 6424875509


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:27 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Public sector union warns hospital cuts will be statewide

HEALTH service cuts will not be limited to Brisbane, with regional hospitals across the state preparing to reduce services because of slashed budgets, a Queensland union leader has claimed.

Secretary of public sector union Together Alex Scott said he had credible information regional hospitals would soon follow Brisbane's Metro North division, which will suffer a cut of $80 million from its projected budget.

The Courier-Mail revealed yesterday budget cutbacks would cost the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital funding of almost $1 million a week.

Metro North Hospital and Health Services District chairman Paul Alexander yesterday said services would be increased.

"We've increased health service delivery in Metro North every year for the past three years.

"There will be no cuts to services."

Dr Alexander insisted the "starting-point" budget of $2.034 billion for this financial year was an increase in real terms on 2011-12.

Based on figures provided by the Metro North district, the rise equates to 2.7 per cent, given last financial year's budget of $1.98 billion.

But it fails to account for the Government agreeing to boost nurses' wages by 3 per cent, other health workers' pay rises, population increases and inflation.

Mr Scott said budgets of the previous Labor government were being cut savagely.

"Every hospital has been having meetings in the past few weeks to talk about what services they cut," he said.

Mr Scott said Health Minister Lawrence Springborg had to outline exactly what hospital budgets would be.

Australian Medical Association Queensland president Alex Markwell said doctors would not support cuts that compromised patient care.

"I know all boards are looking at how to prioritise their services," she said.

"The bottom line is we need to make sure that frontline services are maintained."

Mr Springborg said the State Government was expected to increase total hospital and health board funds across the state by about $400 million.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nation ... 6437112516


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:22 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Inquest hears junior doctor ignored advice

An inquest examining the death of an intellectually disabled boy has heard a junior doctor did not mention important information about the boy's condition to a specialist.

Vaughn Rasmussen, 15, died in November 2009 after a shunt designed to drain fluid from his brain became blocked.

Five days earlier, his parents had requested a CT scan of his brain after an unusual seizure.

His parents had sought treatment at both Fremantle and Princess Margaret Hospitals.

The inquest heard despite the requests a CT scan of the teen's brain was not conducted.

Today, the inquest heard from junior doctor Revini Gunawardana who had only recently arrived from Nepal.

She admitted despite advice from two senior consultants that the boy's shunt was a likely cause of his seizures, she did not pass the information on to a neurologist.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-07/r ... section=wa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:01 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Doctors Often Don't Tell Patients About All Risks Of Treatment Options

According to a review published in the week's PLoS Medicine, doctors in Australia frequently don't disclose all the possible risks about treatment and procedures to patients.

Although doctors are expected to share information with patients that might affect treatment decisions, including risks of adverse outcomes, David Studdert from the University of Melbourne found that doctors are often uncertain about which clinical risks they should discuss with their patients prior to treatment.

For the study the team analyzed 481 malpractice claims and patient complaints from Australia involving allegations of deficiencies in the process of obtaining informed consent.

Of the 481 cases, 9% were disputed duty cases, meaning that they involved disagreements over whether a particular risk should have been discussed prior to treatment. According to the researchers, the majority of these disputed cases were related to 5 specific outcomes that impacted the quality of life for patients, such as chronic pain and requiring additional surgery. Furthermore, two-thirds of these cases involved surgical procedures.

The team discovered that the most common reasons doctors gave for not informing patients about certain risks prior to treatment were that they believed the specific risk was covered by a more general risk that was discussed or that the risks were too rare to warrant discussion.

Of the cases studied, the team discovered that 9 in 10 involved arguments over who said what, and when.

The researchers explained:

"Documenting consent discussions in the lead-up to surgical procedures is particularly important, as most informed consent claims and complaints involved factual disagreements over the disclosure of operative risks.Our findings suggest that doctors may systematically underestimate the premium patients place on understanding certain risks in advance of treatment."

They conclude: "Improved understanding of these situations helps to spotlight gaps between what patients want to hear and what doctors perceive patients want - or should want - to hear. It may also be useful information for doctors eager to avoid medico-legal disputes."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/248912.php


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:08 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Terminally ill patients used in radical experiments

A PROMINENT neurosurgeon at the University of California, Davis has been banned from performing medical research on humans after he and a colleague were accused of experimenting on dying brain cancer patients without university permission.

Dr J Paul Muizelaar, who earns more than $800,000 a year as chairman of the UC, Davis's department of neurological surgery, was ordered last to immediately cease and desist'' from any research involving human subjects, according to documents obtained by local newspaper The Sacramento Bee.

Also banned was Dr Rudolph J Schrot, an assistant professor and neurosurgeon who has worked under Muizelaar the past 13 years.

Documents show the surgeons got the consent of three terminally ill patients with malignant brain tumors to introduce bacteria into their open head wounds, under the theory that post-operative infections might prolong their lives. Two of the patients developed sepsis and died, the university later determined.

Research on humans and animals is tightly controlled in the US and must undergo a rigorous approval process to ensure that subjects are protected.

The National Institutes of Health also plays a role in protecting human subjects by potentially withholding coveted research money from individuals or institutions. Among medical schools, UC Davis ranks 36th in the nation in NIH funding for medical research at more than $130 million in 2011.

Muizelaar, 65, who has been a department chairman at the School of Medicine since 1997, said last week that he and Schrot believed the FDA gave its permission early on, if the doctors thought the treatment was "beneficial to the patients.'' He described the research ban as an "overreaction'' by the university.

"There are people who blatantly break the rules that endanger all of their research programs. We certainly didn't blatantly trample any rules,'' he said.

Schrot said: "the determination of 'serious and repeated noncompliance' is misleading.''

Despite the disciplinary action imposed almost a year ago, Muizelaar was honored this year with an additional academic role at UC Davis. He was named the first holder of the Julian R. Youmans endowed chair in the department of neurological surgery.

He said he plans to funnel endowment dollars into further research on the procedure that led to the ban.

"If I come down with a glioblastoma, I will demand that it be done on myself,'' Muizelaar s aid.

The divergent views illustrate the tension that exists at research institutions between protecting human subjects and developing cutting-edge cures.

The controversy erupted over a project known as Probiotic Intracranial Therapy for Malignant Glioma.

The surgeons were intrigued by clinical trials showing promising but unproven results in patients suffering from glioblastoma, the most common and most deadly type of malign ant brain tumor. For these patients, median survival is only about 15 months from diagnosis.

However, Muizelaar and Schrot were aware of medical literature that "seems to suggest'' that patients who had post operative infections lived longer. Muizelaar said he ``inherited'' two glioblastoma patients who had unintended infections who went on to live 15 and even 20 years with the deadly disease.

In 2008, the doctors proposed treating a glioblastoma patient with bacteria applied to an open wound to ``attack the tumour,'' then later withholding antibiotics and letting the bacteria do its work.

Schrot contacted the FDA but ultimately was told that animal studies were needed first. So the doctors continued with preclinical work, arranging for a rat study.

From October 2010 to March 2011, the physicians did three procedures on humans with malignant brain tumors, surgically introducing probiotics into their open head wounds.

University documents show that the physicians believed they had been given the go-ahead for all three surgeries, but officials later determined that they had been misinformed or were misunderstood by the doctors.

Muizelaar and Schrot stressed that all three patients, in consultation with their families, gave their consent.

The patients' outcomes varied dramatically.

Patient 1 died six weeks later after the tumour progressed. The university later determined that the patient also had developed sepsis, a life-threatening illness in which the body responds severely to bacteria or germs.

Patient 2, who underwent t he procedure in 2010, was still alive in October 2011. The patient was described as having a reduction in the brain tumor but also suffered a wound infection and was given antibiotics 10 months after being intentionally infected. The patient has since died.

Patient who underwent surgery in 2011, soon developed sepsis and meningitis and died.

The same day Patient 3 ``suddenly and precipitously deteriorated'' Muizelaar and Schrot were seeking per mission from an ethics committee to infect five more patients.

Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Centre, said that desperate people are especially vulnerable and need added protections.

"If you're dying, you're kind of like reaching out to anything that anybody throws in front of you,'' said Caplan.

"They're not able to think straight because they're at death's door.''

Schrot said he now realises that federal regulations are complex, and that ` `all the appropriate regulatory processes were not followed''.

Muizelaar said he and Schrot had no financial incentive or underlying motive for the research.

"This treatment - we did it purely to save some patients,'' he said. ``This is not something we can take a patent on. We won't get a dime for it.''

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- ... 6432743081


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:51 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
DAILY DOSE OF ASPIRIN CAN PROLONG LIFE FOR THOSE WITH PROSTATE CANCER

A DAILY dose of the wonderdrug aspirin can help men with prostate cancer live longer, research has found.

Men who have been treated for the disease, either with surgery or radiation, could benefit from taking a regular pill.

Researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas found that taking the powerful drug was associated with a lower risk of death from the cancer, especially in men with high risk disease.

Millions of people already take a low dose of the each day to cut their risk of heart disease and strokes.

But this is the latest in a string of new research which shows it is also of benefit in not only treating, but even protecting against getting many different types of cancer.

Studies have already shown that the bathroom cabinet staple has “triple whammy” cancer-busting properties, not only protecting against the disease, but triggering a “double hit” on existing cancer cells.

Others have revealed that daily aspirin use was associated with a 40 per cent lower mortality from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, such as stomach cancer, and about 12 per cent lower mortality from other cancers.

Now, research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, has shown it is a potent protector for men with prostate cancer.

The study looked at almost 6,000 men in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database who had prostate cancer treated with surgery or radiotherapy.

About 2,200 of the men involved – 37 per cent – were receiving anticoagulants - either warfarin, clopidogrel, enoxaparin, and/or aspirin.

The risk of death from prostate cancer was compared between those taking anticoagulants and those who were not.

The findings demonstrated that 10-year mortality from prostate cancer was significantly lower in the group taking anticoagulants, compared to the non-anticoagulant group – 3 per cent versus 8 per cent, respectively.

The risks of cancer recurrence and bone metastasis also were significantly lower.

Further analysis suggested that this benefit was primarily derived from taking aspirin, as opposed to other types of anticoagulants.

Lead researcher Dr Kevin Choe, assistant professor of radiation oncology at UT Southwestern , said this suggests aspirin, a frequently prescribed and relatively well-tolerated medication, may improve outcomes in prostate cancer.

He said: “The results from this study suggest that aspirin prevents the growth of tumour cells in prostate cancer, especially in high-risk prostate cancer, for which we do not have a very good treatment currently.

“But we need to better understand the optimal use of aspirin before routinely recommending it to all prostate cancer patients.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/343 ... te-cancer-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:17 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Calif. Firefighter With Cancer Denied Colleagues' Leave

A San Francisco firefighter who is just days away from surgery for breast cancer has learned officials have denied the donation of sick leave by her co-workers.

Firefighter Janette Neves Rivera has been on medical leave since June and will be forced to return to work in one week, right before she undergoes a double mastectomy, according to KTVU-TV.

"I'm scared," she told the news station. "I'm a tough, strong woman and this does scare me."

The 44-year-old assigned to Station 26 in Diamond Heights and applied for the city's catastrophic illness program that allows employees to donate their leave when 700 of her fellow firefighters stepped up and offered her theirs.

Despite the efforts of her colleagues, Rivera received a denial letter from the San Francisco Department of Public Health citing that her current condition wasn't considered "life-threatening."

An official told the news station that the agency does not discuss personnel matters.

Rivera plans to appeal, but will work for a few days before the surgery in order to take care of her family.

She says her goal is to win her battle with cancer so that she can go back to fighting fires and saving lives.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10779556/ ... gues-leave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:10 am 
Offline
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Second of Victor Chang killers paroled

THE man who fired the fatal shots that killed heart surgeon Victor Chang will be released from prison on parole next month after serving more than 20 years behind bars.

Chiew Seng Liew, 69, fired the two shots that killed Chang in the exclusive Sydney suburb of Mosman in July 1991 in what was a botched extortion attempt.

Liew was sentenced to 26 years in jail while his accomplice, Phillip Choon Tee Lim, was sentenced to 24 years.

Lim was released in 2010 after serving 18 years and was immediately deported back to his native Malaysia.

Liew, who has served 21 years of his 26-year term, will also be deported to Malaysia once he is deemed fit to travel.

His lawyer, Will Hutchins, told the NSW Parole Board yesterday Liew's health was deteriorating fast as he had Parkinson's disease -- which Liew believed was "karma" for the role he played in Dr Chang's murder -- and was struggling with the early stages of dementia.

The court heard Liew was "often haunted" by his crime and he asked through an interpreter if he could read a statement. "I'm not going to make any complaints. I'm not going to defend myself. Just a few sentences to ask for leniency," he said, adding that he planned to "say sorry".

The request was denied.

Department of Immigration officials will take Liew into custody upon his release from jail between October 3 and October 10, and will assess whether he is fit to travel back to Malaysia, where it is understood his wife and children will care for him.

State Parole Authority chairman Ian Pike said yesterday the authority had made a considered decision. "We offer Dr Chang's family, friends, colleagues and the community our heartfelt sympathy and offer the hope that others would continue with the work to which his contribution was so tragically cut short," Judge Pike said.

Dr Chang's family was said to be devastated by the decision.

Howard Brown, of the Victims Of Crime Assistance League NSW, represented them at yesterday's proceedings and informed them of the authority's decision.

"They are absolutely devastated by this outcome," Mr Brown said outside the parole court. "They have absolutely no faith in the administration of justice in this state."

NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith, who opposed parole, is seeking advice about a possible appeal.

Dr Chang was voted Australian of the Century in 2000 for his achievements.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6477630082


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.329s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]