Letter sent to Karen's health insurance provider (I do not expect any proper response from them).

In response to peer review regarding Karen Sue Gotcher's death.

One cell of e-coli, under ideal conditions, in seven and a half hours will result in one million e- coli cells. It is the difference between driving onto a road with 1 car on it or 1,000,000. Which one would you want to drive onto? If you have two petri dishes with equal amounts of e-coli and the first one is treated with antibiotics right away and the second one is given a rich supply of amino-acids (food), put under pressure (which expedites reproduction), and heated to 104 degrees (103.9, self- generated), then after eleven hours given antibiotics, is the outcome the same? No, it is not. I chose the first treatment. The Nurse Practitioner and the medical professionals (in defense of what the NP has done) who should know better, chose the second.

Having taken medical classes in college, including medical ethics, often referring to "The Nurse, Pharmacology, and Drug Therapy," Shlafer and Marier (since 1990) in regard to my mother's health and with others down through the years (I have the book and have read through it extensively, I know about age and the effect of drugs, that is all throughout the book), having eight and one half years of college, University, and Seminary classes, focusing mostly on European history and philosophy, read over 600 social-psychology books, 1,600 of pages of Supreme Court decisions (the liberal judge will have someone summarize the case for him, that is depend upon generalization so he does not have to worry about his conscience while the conservative judge will read all of the case, weighting all the facts because he wants to do right according to his conscience), etc., taught in a University, a 480 level class on the dialectic process, given over 5,000 lectures on its effect on the individual and society (it is what is going on in the medial profession now and all profession as well), including TV and radio, speaking from coast to coast, lecturing to Federal and State senators and legislators, Federal judges, sheriffs, town councils, educators, doctors, etc., on the subject over an eighteen year period, with professors who use the process in their classes (after condemning it in my lecture), before hundreds of their students stating "We cannot refute a word you said." It is a subject you cannot afford to miss crossing one t or miss dotting one i, or you will be crucified.

I find it reprehensible that those of the medical profession "look the other way" when a doctor (NP) does what leads to a patient’s death. We went up for help, to see a doctor not a NP, who put a boot on an infected foot—after having been told it was infected, and we had come up for antibiotics. She heard what I said. She kept repeating "It has zinc and calamine lotion on it," over and over and over again. In talking to lawyers I have found that if a patient has lymphoma, even though you can prove the doctor was at fault, all the defense has to say is the infection could have come from somewhere else, and without any evidence they win the case. No lawyer will spend the time and money on any case of this kind. I told my children, after watching my wife die because of what a doctor (NP) did, doctors can do whatever they want without being held accountable, any excuse will count, they have their peers to protect them (I have lectured on that subject as well, see Kurt Lewin's writings on "group dynamics" to start with). Having flown a plane, you have a check list, if you ignore it and someone is hurt or dies you lose your license and can be fined and go to jail (unless you know someone who will bail you out). After mentioning infection and antibiotics the NP did not examine the leg. I was there. If she had she would have seen the infected sore. It was clear for anyone to see. There is no excuse. To dismiss that is irresponsible. But as one doctor friend told me what I see and say does not count. It is what the doctor writes down, only that counts. Having studied what happen in Germany once you "turn your head the other way" once you get on that road, you can not get off and bad things happen at the end of that road.

Karen had no pneumonia. Where did that idea come from. That is an outright lie. Karen could not lie flat; you have my prior statement on that. She could not take a CAT scan. Her internal bleeding was from me saving her from falling on the floor, I guess I should have let her fall, then it would have been on record. You have that statement as well. I do not lie. My whole life has been on telling the truth.

Doctors and nurses, I have talked to agree what the NP did was wrong. I have had doctors host me upset with what they see happening to their profession (dishonest practices for financial gain and reputation). Some have even quit. You can deny that, but you cannot refute it.

To defend the facts (two petri dishes, mine vs. the NP's) in a room full of opinions (those saying, "It could have been from somewhere else,” etc.,) you will always be labeled as being "argumentative." That is an absolute. You do not put a boot on an infected foot.

You do not leave what the patient's advocate says out of your record (which was not for us to see. It was written long after we left. I did not see it until after Karen's death). You do not slander the patient. My wife never in our 56 years tell me she was "to busy." Karen did not say it in the clinic or in the hospital. Read Karl Marx's "The Holy Family." He explains how using generalization (he used fruit trees as an example) protects you from any fault you have done, placing the fault on the other person. In Communist countries they use generalization to silence anyone. It works. Once you are labeled there is no recovery. To do this in the medical profession or any profession in the US is wrong. To justify it is wicked.

I watched my wife die in pain (excruciating, she said it hurt worse than the worse sunburn she had ever had) and no one attended to it. All this is because of what a NP did. Try that on your wife. If you choose the NP's solution, petri dish number two that is what you have done.

Karen lectured her doctor (as a mother her son, if you knew Karen that is who she was, having taken the doctors hand when in his office and prayed that the Lord Jesus Christ would bless him and his wife, and even asking for his advice on her death bed) "You doctors are not listening to your patients. We come in with specific needs you are not addressing." She was right. She knew what she was talking about.

Being held accountable for doing wrong and doing better next time are two different political systems. It is not that you do not do the latter but when you put it before the first you negate the first, being held accountable for doing wrong, bad things continue to happen from then on and get worse.

My daughter just took her 14-year-old son in for what she thought was strep throat. They checked him out, said he checked out OK and sent him home with antibiotics. She took him back a day later in a coma. He was unconscious for over a week. The doctors who worked on him then were livid because the first doctor sent him home with records that should have put him in the hospital immediately. 

NP Naomi Olson was wrong on ignoring a patients advocate telling her his wife had an infected sore on her lower right leg and they had come up for antibiotics, not examining it to "prove him wrong," and putting a boot (Unnu) on it instead, then recording the office call long after we had left, not recording what he had said and slandering his wife, wording her record in a way no one could hold her accountable for her actions. Her actions lead directly to the untimely death of the patient. She must be held accountable.

Dean Gotcher