Mike
Throughout the two years of the inital investigation started while rob was still alive,this man stated quite catagorically in writing that he saw no lesion on robs tongue when he saw him in October(4 weeks later he had a 5 cm secondary in his parotid gland)On the day of the trial,he withdrew this statement and changed his plea to guilty.Despite this absolute proof of his dishonesty,and the fact he altered his records by crossing out enteries he had made so they couldn't be read,he was given the benefit of the doubt regarding his failure to follow up Robs tongue lesion that he DID observe and record six months previously in May.The board decided his exemplory record,and testimonials by patients and colleagues meant they could overlook this mistake and it was fair for him to PRESUME the lesion was traumatic and caused by a broken denture and required no follow up,and this in no way contributed to wards robe death.
The statement in the summing up that i find totally unacceptable is that his admitted negligence in october would have no affect on the outcome of robs life as he was going to die anyway by then.HOW COULD THEY SAY SUCH A THING.At the time of his diagnosis even Robs surgeons gave him a 90% chance of a ten year survival,but this is the ignorant attitude we all struggle against.Oral cancer means death!!!!thats crap and we both know that.The main point of my fight is that the dentists failure to follow up robs lesion in May WAS a major contributing factor in his death.Six months is a long time for a cancer to grow ,but the committee put absolutely no weight behind "early detection saves live"

Its like beating your head against a brick wall and this argument is wearing me down and out.How can professional people be so blinkered?