Bend’s Largest Hospital Sued For Misconduct

Ms. Green; Regarding your story on Dr. Theodore Braich and the lawsuit against St. Charles in Bend: As a retired journalist and former member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners (OBME), I have some concerns about the reporting. 1. Was the alleged improper behavior ever reported to the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners? If not, why not? This is the agency created to discipline doctors who have violated the Oregon Medical Practices Act. 2. Extensively quoting a partisan in the lawsuit who stands to make a considerable amount of money if successful amplified the disparity of “access to the forum.” 3. That partisan was quoted: “medical sexual abuse is a huge problem in our society that is under reported…” This an opinion hinging on his experience and definition of the word “huge.” Or was it a tactic? What is the “experience” that validates this statement? If true, what relevance does the societal issue have to the specific case, or is the lawyer just trying to pressure the defendants before trial? 4. The lawyer again: "Kafoury said often when one patient who is a victim of sexual abuse comes forward with a lawsuit, others soon follow.” This is true, especially with a serial abuser. But Dr. Braich has no “priors.” The reference in this story seems designed to say, “Just wait. There are more out there!” Maybe. Maybe not. And even if more come forward, some of those may have reinterpreted their contact with Dr. Braich as a sexual impropriety. We don’t know, at this point. 5. The last three paragraphs seem irrelevant. A lawsuit not related to patient contact, not related to the same doctor, that had been dismissed with prejudice, is included why? Is this using facts “to distort the truth?” 6. Trial by journalism is difficult if not impossible to fight, especially in realms where reputation is at stake, so journalists have to be hyper aware of being used, of the need to be balanced (beyond weighing words from each side). St. Charles and Dr. Braich were unable to present “their” side of the story. Confidential peer review outside of discipline was is allowed in Oregon to promote the culling of “bad” doctors, not protect them. Talk to the executive director of the OBME for more information. 7. Do we have any evidence at all that what occurred was intentional sexual abuse beyond what, in your story, might have been an individual’s interpretation of inadvertent touch? This was my first time reading the Lund Report, and overall, from the CV of staff to the thrust of the publication, I am impressed. Oregon needs this kind of focused journalism. Still, there are pitfalls, some of which I tried to highlight here. I am no apologist: While on the OBME for four years, I was instrumental in changing policy so that disciplinary actions against doctors were treated as public information, successfully fought for “equality in standards of care” for rural Oregon, especially for female patients, investigated and “prosecuted” (through the BME process) multiple cases of behavior by doctors who violated the doctor / patient relationship. My four years of work on the OBME for the citizens of Oregon were a highlight of 13 years of public service, rivaling in personal value my nearly 30 years as a newspaperman. In other words, I have some knowledge of and care deeply about these issues.