Monday, August 15, 2016
Multicultural surgeon is being sued by 57 male patients - including some claiming they were left INFERTILE
A celebrity surgeon from Channel 4's Embarrassing Bodies is being sued by 57 male patients after he allegedly left some infertile.
Cancer surgeon Manu Nair, who appeared as an expert on the hit medical show, allegedly treated patients for prostate cancer when they did not have the disease.
One man claims he was left impotent when Nair 'cooked' his prostate gland after zapping him with controversial laser treatment.
Others were apparently given a laser treatment known as High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HFIU) even though it has not been approved by the drugs watchdog National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).
Dozens of patients have now instructed medical negligence lawyers to sue Nair over claims they suffered serious health problems following treatment by the surgeon.
Many of the patients have already received letters from both Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham and Spire Parkway private hospital in Solihull, West Midlands - where the doctor previously worked - informing them that a number of Nair's practices had been reviewed.
He is also under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) and is subject to nine different restrictions - including that he cannot work in private practice - while that probe takes place.
Solicitor Adam Wright from Irwin Mitchell said: 'It is concerning to be contacted by so many patients affected by problems after being treated by the same surgeon.
'Sadly, the sanctions placed upon his practice by the GMC came too late in the day for the large number of patients already affected who appear to have suffered serious damage to their health as a result.'
One patient who is taking legal action claims he was left infertile and suffering from incontinence after the surgeon carried out a new laser treatment on him in 2012.
The man claims he was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer and was told by Nair he faced a 'life or death situation'.
But a month after receiving the controversial HIFU treatment the patient was in agonising pain and passed two large pieces of tissue from his penis.
After being rushed to A&E he was told he had passed parts of his prostate gland which had been 'cooked' by the laser treatment.
The man, from Birmingham, now suffers from urinary incontinence and impotence and is unable to start a family with his wife-of-23-years.
He said: 'My whole way of life has changed and being told that I can no longer have children is just soul-destroying.
'I was relatively young when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and I had so much to look forward to in my life.
'I was horrified when I discovered that I had passed part of my dead prostate gland after treatment I had been recommended by Dr Manu Nair. 'It was the single most painful experience of my life and it has left me with permanent damage.'
The patient has also been reviewed by a different consultant urologist who told him he was 'misled to some extent that this was aggressive cancer'.
Nair has previously been suspended by the GMC and continues to be under investigation by the public body.
He has been suspended from private practice and can only work within an NHS setting under supervision.
Nair was suspended by the Heart of England NHS Trust, which runs Heartlands Hospital, in April 2014 and resigned in July last year.
He now works at the Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust under the conditions imposed by the GMC.
Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell said the patients' complaints include prostate cancer diagnosis issues and the delivering of HIFU treatment not approved by NICE.
Other complaints include unnecessary nephrectomy - removal of kidney - unnecessary green light laser treatment and incomplete prostate removal potentially leaving malignant tissue behind.
The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust has already admitted that in one case that it was negligent for Dr Nair to recommend HIFU treatment and that there was a failure to inform their patient that there was no follow up data regarding the treatment.
A drop-in legal clinic patients worried about treatment they received from Nair is being held by Irwin Mitchell on Monday in Birmingham.
Supreme Court: School Can Keep Biological Female Out of Male Restrooms—For Now
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Gloucester County, Va., school board may prevent a biological female from using the boys’ restroom—at least for now.
The court was responding to a request from the Gloucester County School Board to stay an order issued on June 23 by U.S. District Judge Robert Doumar. That order said the board must allow G.G.—a 17-year-old biological female who says she identifies as a male—to use male restrooms (but not male locker rooms) while the court reviewed G.G.’s case on the merits.
Judge Doumar had previously dismissed G.G.’s claim that the Gloucester County School Board had discriminated against her under the terms of Title IX of federal education law, which says schools that receive federal funding may not discriminate on the basis of “sex.”
However, in April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided that the district court should hear G.G.’s case again, reconsider allowing her to use male bathrooms at school while doing so, and give deference in the case to the Department of Education’s current interpretation of what the word “sex” means in Title IX.
The appeals court said:
“At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity. Title IX provides: ‘[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’ 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Department of Education’s (the Department) regulations implementing Title IX permit the provision of ‘separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities for students of the other sex.’ 34 C.F.R. § 106.33. In an opinion letter dated January 7, 2015, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) interpreted how this regulation should apply to transgender individuals: ‘When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex . . . a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.’”
In a one-page ruling published yesterday, the Supreme Court stayed the order issued by Judge Doumar in June telling the Gloucester County School Board to let G.G. use the boys’ restrooms---but only while the Supreme Court itself considers whether to take up an appeal of the case from the Gloucester County School Board.
The Supreme Court decision to temporarily lift Judge Doumar’s order won on a 5-3 vote, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kegan did not support the court’s order.
Breyer said he did so as a “courtesy,” publishing this explaination in his concurrence to the court ruling:
“In light of the facts that four Justices have voted to grant the application referred to the Court by the Chief Justice, that we are currently in recess, and that granting a stay will preserve the status quo (as of the time the Court of Appeals made its decision) until the Court considers the forthcoming petition for certiorari, I vote to grant the application as a courtesy.”
Opposition to immigration fueled by realistic concerns
Six in ten British voters think immigration is piling too much pressure on schools, hospitals and housing – well above the worldwide average.
A study conducted across 22 countries around the globe also revealed widespread alarm that terrorists may be posing as refugees to sneak through border controls.
Pollsters Ipsos MORI found that the UK is one of the countries most worried about the pressure placed on public services by rising immigration levels, with 59 per cent concerned. This compares to an average of 50 per cent worldwide.
Some 49 per cent of Britons think there are too many immigrants in the UK, which is in line with most countries worldwide.
Almost four in ten also say immigration has made it harder for native Britons to get a job.
Just 31 per cent of those surveyed in Britain support closing our borders to refugees – but 63 per cent believe terrorists are pretending to be refugees.
Across all of the countries, four in ten say that their country should close its borders to refugees entirely.
Concern about migrants integrating into British society is in line with the global average, with 40 per cent agreeing that most refugees will integrate successfully, while 47 per cent disagree.
Half of Britons – 51 per cent – think that refugees are actually economic migrants instead, while 37 per cent disagree.
On average worldwide, six in ten think terrorists are pretending to be refugees, with more than seven in ten believing this to be the case in Turkey, Russia, India, Hungary, Germany and the United States.
On average, more people say immigration has generally had a negative (45 per cent) rather than positive (20 per cent) effect on their country.
At least six in ten in Turkey, Italy, Russia, Hungary, France and Belgium say immigration has had a negative impact.
Half across the 22 countries say there are too many immigrants in their country.
When it comes to the economy, on average 44 per cent of those polled worldwide think immigration has made it more difficult for home nationals to get jobs.
Bobby Duffy, managing director at Ipsos MORI’s Social Research Institute, said: ‘Immigration is a global issue, with very few countries entirely at ease with current levels, control and the impact of the mass movement of people.
‘None of the 22 countries surveyed have a majority of people saying that immigration has had a positive impact on their country – although there are a very wide range of views within this.
‘The sense of pressure in countries like Turkey, Italy, Hungary and Russia is particularly clear from the survey.’
He added: ‘Britain has in fact become more positive about many aspects of immigration. This might seem surprising given that the desire to reduce immigration was undoubtedly a key reason for the Brexit vote.
‘But we need to bear in mind that the survey shows that on each individual measure there are still more people who are negative than positive about immigration.’
The countries taking part were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the US.
Labour's Frank Field sparks row by saying Britain should let jihadis go to Syria so they can die fighting for ISIS
Senior Labour MP Frank Field was branded irresponsible last night after claiming it was ‘fine’ for radicalised British adults to join Islamic State in Syria – because if they were killed, it would boost Britain’s security.
The former Minister declared he was worried ‘not one iota’ about British extremists going to fight in Syria.
Mr Field said: ‘I think we should have no worries about letting them go because the chances are some of them will get killed and that increases the security of this country.
‘If people want to practise their evil, better go and practise it with the mates who’ve actually taught them about this evil than inflict it on my constituent or anybody else.’
But last night, Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke condemned Mr Field’s remarks, claiming the Government was right to seek to stop British jihadis from getting to Syria.
He said: ‘Not only is this irresponsible, it’s ill-thought-out. ‘It’s not looking at the long-term consequences – even if British jihadis in Syria don’t come back here to carry out terrorism acts, they can act as a recruiter of more people from this country to go out there.’
Speaking on BBC Radio, Birkenhead MP Mr Field made clear he was not talking about the case of Kadiza Sultana, the 17-year-old British schoolgirl who ran away to join IS last year and is now understood to have died in an air strike in Syria.
Her case was ‘horrendous’, said Mr Field, stressing the Government should draw a clear distinction for children, and saying it had a duty to protect young people and should focus most effort there.
But it was a different matter when it came to adults. ‘If adults want to go over there and get killed, fine,’ he said, although he made clear it was important to know if any British jihadis were returning to this country.
Environment Minister Therese Coffey criticised his approach: ‘I am somewhat surprised by your assertion to just allow people to go abroad and they might get killed.’
Last night, Mr Field stood by his remarks about adult Britons travelling to fight for extremists in Syria.
He said: ‘I am relaxed about letting them go but I am unbelievably tough about letting them back in again. ‘The resources used to control their going should be used to prevent them coming back.’
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.