Transferring files from Windows 98 pen computer to Windows XP tabl

"shemar" wrote in message
...
Mine is a most bizarre request for information and I don't know where to
post
it.


snip

For a case of this nature (where you have posted to a public forum
considerably too much private information)...

the *only* person who gave you the correct adivce was the one who told you
to consult a lawyer.


Please do so at once and quit wasting your time here.

Wow . . . you people are too much!! Thank-you all for your comments and
concerns!

It sounds like I am in over my head, doesn't it? I do know that I shouldn't
be posting this on a public forum but I really needed advice from people who
know about what sort of "issues" could be encountered and/or if there is a
"definite" incompatibility problem between the two systems.

To answer some of the questions raised, the doctor claims that 12-14
patients were affected in which he had to "rewrite" files and the
investigator took a cursory look at a sampling of those patient files.
There is no "original" file to be found, as the doctor professes to having
had his old computer professionally cleaned and there isn't a hardcopy from
the original files. From the documentation I received, it doesn't seem that
the investigator asked if there were backup copies; or if there are, it isn't
something that he looked at.

In the College's decision, they say that "electronic medical files" was a
new, innovative procedure and allowed the doctor's ignorance of needing
safeguards, etc. in his software program. This is despite the fact that the
College had directives circulating several years earlier about using
electronic files and the *musts* of software programs doctors use, including
being capable of an *audit* should the need arise. There are also directives
from the Alberta Medical Association and Canadian Psychiatric Association,
stating the requirements for electronic files. Not only were there
directives from these various organizations, but it is part of our
legislation in the Alberta Evidence Act, which was in effect at the time this
doctor rewrote the file.

I'm not professing that there was a "conspiracy" between the College and the
doctor; but there is a definite bias in favor of the doctor. For example,
after I quit seeing this psychiatrist and I had some *proper* counselling, I
wrote him and requested a copy of my file. At his suggestion, I met with him
to *review* same. During this meeting, I read him a statement about how I
perceived our doctor/patient relationship and his lack of knowledge about
abuse affected me. I also related he was "correct" that sibling abuse was a
common occurrence, as not only had my brother abused me, but he abused my two
sisters as well--a fact that I found out *after* I had quit seeing him.
[After I finished reading my statement, suddenly my file was no longer
available to me. I was told that it had personal information about my
husband (who attended the appointments with me most of the time) and I was
not priviledged to see this information.]

The mention of my two sisters' abuse is in the first pages of my file in the
initial assessment--7 1/2 years *before* I had ever mentioned it to him, and
which was the reason I had phoned the College minutes after receiving my
file. I advised them that this information could NOT be in my file, because
I wasn't even aware of it. I told them that I was going to obtain statements
from my sisters attesting to the fact that the abuse had never been discussed
between us. We were all unaware of each others abuse. The College advised
me not to bother with the statements, as they would be considered biased. I
sent them anyways and they were considered *unclear* and didn't have any
bearing on the investigation. This is just one example of the prejudices
that I encountered.

I did try to get legal advice, but no one was interested in listening to me.
I had also contacted the police fraud department and was told that I should
go through the College's process, as the courts are backlogged. So, it
wasn't for lack of trying that I am here trying to get enough information to
win my appeal.

Wow . . . you people are too much!! Thank-you all for your comments and
concerns!

It sounds like I am in over my head, doesn't it? I do know that I shouldn't
be posting this on a public forum but I really needed advice from people who
know about what sort of "issues" could be encountered and/or if there is a
"definite" incompatibility problem between the two systems.

To answer some of the questions raised, the doctor claims that 12-14
patients were affected in which he had to "rewrite" files and the
investigator took a cursory look at a sampling of those patient files.
There is no "original" file to be found, as the doctor professes to having
had his old computer professionally cleaned and there isn't a hardcopy from
the original files. From the documentation I received, it doesn't seem that
the investigator asked if there were backup copies; or if there are, it isn't
something that he looked at.

In the College's decision, they say that "electronic medical files" was a
new, innovative procedure and allowed the doctor's ignorance of needing
safeguards, etc. in his software program. This is despite the fact that the
College had directives circulating several years earlier about using
electronic files and the *musts* of software programs doctors use, including
being capable of an *audit* should the need arise. There are also directives
from the Alberta Medical Association and Canadian Psychiatric Association,
stating the requirements for electronic files. Not only were there
directives from these various organizations, but it is part of our
legislation in the Alberta Evidence Act, which was in effect at the time this
doctor rewrote the file.

I'm not professing that there was a "conspiracy" between the College and the
doctor; but there is a definite bias in favor of the doctor. For example,
after I quit seeing this psychiatrist and I had some *proper* counselling, I
wrote him and requested a copy of my file. At his suggestion, I met with him
to *review* same. During this meeting, I read him a statement about how I
perceived our doctor/patient relationship and his lack of knowledge about
abuse affected me. I also related he was "correct" that sibling abuse was a
common occurrence, as not only had my brother abused me, but he abused my two
sisters as well--a fact that I found out *after* I had quit seeing him.
[After I finished reading my statement, suddenly my file was no longer
available to me. I was told that it had personal information about my
husband (who attended the appointments with me most of the time) and I was
not priviledged to see this information.]

The mention of my two sisters' abuse is in the first pages of my file in the
initial assessment--7 1/2 years *before* I had ever mentioned it to him, and
which was the reason I had phoned the College minutes after receiving my
file. I advised them that this information could NOT be in my file, because
I wasn't even aware of it. I told them that I was going to obtain statements
from my sisters attesting to the fact that the abuse had never been discussed
between us. We were all unaware of each others abuse. The College advised
me not to bother with the statements, as they would be considered biased. I
sent them anyways and they were considered *unclear* and didn't have any
bearing on the investigation. This is just one example of the prejudices
that I encountered.

I did try to get legal advice, but no one was interested in listening to me.
I had also contacted the police fraud department and was told that I should
go through the College's process, as the courts are backlogged. So, it
wasn't for lack of trying that I am here trying to get enough information to
win my appeal.