THIS letter is in response to Gayle Cameron’s view that I, and others, should not be allowed to have controversial pieces published in the In Memoriam column, notwithstanding that the person’s death has occurred in tragic circumstances.
Recognising and remembering a loved one’s death on the day they died, or on their birthday, is a choice that belongs to the immediate family and how they do this should not be dictated by anyone else.
How far off base is Ms Cameron when she writes that my piece was “to possibly solicit sympathy’’?
The injustice of my son Mark’s death and the way in which he died are the sole reasons for avenging the premature end to his life, and also, most importantly, warmly remembering the unique person that he was.
I acknowledge that the majority of doctors and nurses working at the Bendigo Hospital are dedicated health professionals who know their work extremely well.
The only hitch is that in the health sector a wrong decision can lead to a catastrophic outcome, and the extreme of that is death.
At the coronial inquest into my son’s death, the doctor stated that he was uncertain as to what the next step ought to be.
We had requested a transfer to a hospital in Melbourne, but to no avail.
A simple transfer may have seen a considerably different outcome, but this will never be known.
If Mark had died in Melbourne then at least everything possible would have been done and his death would have seen acceptance by all.
This would have been a very sad time, but we could have at least taken comfort in the fact that heaven and earth had been moved to help him.
The medical system that should do the checks and balances is set up in a way in which other doctors won’t speak out for fear of being persecuted by their peers.
The coroner had to go outside Victoria for an opinion; however, when it came to the Medical Practitioners Board, that expert would not testify.
What happened to Mark, who was just months off turning 21, should never occur again.
If I, and others, want to recognise the way in which our loved ones died, that is our right to freedom of speech and we should not be muzzled, as Ms Cameron would wish.
I will continue to advocate for Mark through his death, as he no longer has a voice that can be heard in relation to the reprehensible way in which he was treated.
I don’t apologise for recognising Mark’s death in the way I do.
ELAINE HARRINGTON,
Eaglehawk