Yesterday i spent two hours taking part in a conference between a legal team and two experts in oral cancer.One a dentist the other an Emeritus Professor in head and neck cancer with 26years experience.Over the last twelve months they have discussed and debated Robins case and yesterday saw the final conclusions of said experts.

The dentists conclusions were succcint,abrupt and to the point."Robins dentist was negligent and failed on any level to follow even the most basic guidlines laid down by the governing body".No news there then.

The report from the medical expert threw some real curve balls into the way Robins case was diagnosed and treated and ultimately the way he died.All ancient history i know ,but maybe a cautionary tale for those undergoing treatment and wondering if they should possibly be getting a second opinion.

Following Robins surgery in January,she states that the pathology report on the tumours and lymph nodes showed irrevocably that he had no chance of survival.

There was never,at any point during investigation,treatment or post treatment that our doctors ever indicated that he couldn't survive his cancer.Their diagnosos post initial biopsy was that he had a 90% chance of a ten year survival.Post surgery they decided only radiotherapy was needed and six weeks post treatment he was doing fine.

The proffessor states that tracking back,on the size of the secondary tumour when it was removed,it had been growing for approximately six months,and that it had already done its worst by the time it was removed.

Food for thought.Why didn't our doctors know all this,and if they did why didn't they tell us from the outset, and at the very least why wasn't he given concurrent chemotherapy,which Prof Saunders says would be standard practise?
None of these facts will make any difference to Robin now,but i do know if the information had been made available to him at the time ,he would undoubtedly have opted not to have treatment,a decision he surely had the right to make.

Proffessor Saunders,in answer to a question put to her by the attorney also stated that if Rob had been diagnosed after his first visit to the dentist,the only difference in his outcome would have been the manner and time of his death,which frankly shocked me rigid.In her opinion he could have survived for a few more months but would have died from the lung metasteses which she feels would still have developed.

So my question is "How do you know that your doctor is telling you the truth"We had great faith in robins surgeon and oncologist,and blindly accepted evrything they told us.We had no reason not to because like most patients we didn't know any better.In the UK we don't have the option of reading pathology reports or seeing scan reports,or even getting another opinion(not that we thought we needed one).

When his diagnosis became terminal we didn't really need a doctor to tell us he wouldn't make it,as by then it was glaringly obvious,but why did it come as such a shock to the doctors in light of the information they had in their hands.


Thoughts long since accepted and put to bed rattle around my buzzing brain,and once again the only thing of any use to come out of this is to serve as caution to always get the best advice and expertise you possibly can to fight this disease,and as always to Brian a heartfelt thankyou for expanding the information base here on OCF and continually educating us all.