Our expert says:
Everyone needs to be cautious in suh situations. But defamation, if I understand the law correctly, should be untrue, no in the public interest, and intended to do harm, rather than to defend a child at risk. People do forget, when being criticized, that it is wise to apologist -- even for you having been upset and worried, even if he felt he hadn't done anything wrong. And the point was that while it is highly justifiable for him to insist on seing people on chronic meds every 6 months before continuing their prescriptions, (a) that should be stated in writing to the patient or their representative, (b) they should be reminded or contacted in time to make the required appointment before the prescription runs out, and (c) if there was a delay of months before he could offer such an appointment, to make some plan to ensure she got enough medication to last until that appointment, rather than penalizing a vulnerable patient by responding in such a way that she would lose the protection of medication HE had declared she needed to remain on, for months, before he could see her again.
Something i his system doesn't sound effective or well thought-out.
The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal
advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.