DR. JONES' HEARING SYNOPSIS
(DAY FOUR)
September 7, 2006
from Sandy Berenbaum
More than 60 people attended the fourth day of Dr.
Jones hearing, despite the fact that it was a very
busy time for parents, the beginning of the school
year.
Steven Phillips, MD, was cross-examined by the health
department attorney. Not surprising to any of us who
have heard Dr. Phillips speak, he gave clear and
concise answers, backed by substantial references to
medical literature.
He discussed the low incidence of Lyme patients
recalling an EM rash (22%), the well-documented
ability of the spirochetes to transform themselves into cysts, the
fact-based
incidence of sero-negative
Lyme disease. In addressing the issue of testing, Dr. Phillips discussed
the low
incidence of positive serology in spinal fluid. He was questioned
extensively regarding the possibility that Lyme is present even when tests
come
back negative. Again, he supported his position regarding the limits to
relying
on testing in diagnosing Lyme, and the importance of treating Lyme, based
on a
clinical profile.
Dr. Jones testified next.. It had to be clear to everyone present how
knowledgeable Dr. Jones is, about Lyme and pediatric medicine. What was
also
striking
was Dr. Jones compassion and respect, for his profession, for the children
he
treats, and for the parents that raise them. I found this to be in
striking
contrast to both of the health department
expert witnesses, Dr. Shapiro as the Lyme
expert and the pediatrician that the health
department called as their pediatric expert on the first day. Neither of
the
health department witnesses showed compassion or respect, or warmth
toward the children they were treating.
On direct examination, Dr. Jones indicated that these
charges resulted from a complaint to the health department by the father
of two
children, who was seeking custody years after being divorced from their
mother. He did not have physical custody of the children.
While the children waited for their 1st appointment with Dr. Jones, to
evaluate
them for Lyme, Dr. Jones briefly extended antibiotics prescribed for a
cough, as
the cough was still a significant problem. He did not diagnose Lyme
disease
prior to meeting and
examining the children.
When the school was close to expelling one of the children for disruptive
behavior, Dr. Jones suggested
that they place him on homebound instruction instead,
pending his seeing the child, and beginning treatment,
if in fact the child had Lyme. The school followed his suggestion, the
child and
his sister were later seen by Dr. Jones, diagnosed, treated, and he
returned to
school the beginning of the following year, with vastly improved academic
performance and behavior, not
a problem child, and with no history of school expulsion on his record,
thanks
to Dr. Jones intervention.
Having seen children suffer with school problems for years due to Lyme, it
is
difficult for me to think of
a better scenario than the one Dr. Jones initiated with the school, and I
find
it outrageous that this
intervention led to charges against Dr. Jones!
On cross-examination, there was extensive discussion about these children
Lyme
disease presentation,
including co-infections. Specific treatments were
discussed, including reasons for combining medications. In responding, Dr.
Jones
certainly demonstrated how very knowledgeable he is about
treatment of tick-borne diseases. Once again, one must wonder why so much
time
is being spent by the health
department attorney questioning Dr. Jones regarding
treatment of tick-borne diseases if, in fact, this case is not about
Lyme!!
Dr. Jones proved himself to be fully conversant regarding chronic Lyme,
the
impact on the children,
and how to treat to efficacy, as he did with these patients. He discussed
his
many years of clinical
practice, his commitment to the work of treating children, and the fact
that his
Lyme specialty grew out of the need he identified 30 years ago, when he
opened his practice in Lyme-endemic CT. Politics are not a factor for Dr.
Jones.
Patient care is what this
dedicated physician is all about.
Dr. Jones attorney asked to call witnesses that were parents of children
Dr.
Jones had treated. He cited specific reasons for calling these witnesses,
and
outlined what he hoped to prove. Part of his intent in
calling these witnesses was to refute Dr. Shapiro's testimony. The health
department objected to the
witnesses being called, and the panel sustained the
objection. The hearing ended with the decision that
these witnesses not be called.
We were shocked and distressed that these witnesses
were not permitted. In my view, their testimony is
very compelling. The testimony was not being offered
as emotional accolades for Dr. Jones (though clearly
he deserves them), but for concrete reasons that very
much address the charges against him. As the hearing
continues, there is more and more evidence that this
case (as the many around the country before Dr. Jones
have been) is about Lyme. It is not only about the
rights of our doctors to treat us comprehensively and
efficaciously, but it is about our rights to access
medical care for this dreaded disease.
Lyme is chronic. Chronic Lyme is disabling,
debilitating, and can be life-threatening. The
ever-increasing number of patients knows it. Our Lyme
leaders around the country know it. Our doctors know
it. When will our health departments and licensing
boards know it, as well?
Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD
Family Connections Center for Counseling
Brewster, NY ***
Next Day...