Wednesday, June 16, 2010

My First Blog Award

(Originally Posted 12/6/2010, Updated 16/6/2010)
To be honest, I am not big on Blog Awards. I don't blog to receive an award, and I don't pay much attention if someone else has an award. Mainly I think it is because most of the time I think they are some junky thing made up by someone in order to drum up links back to themselves and raise their search ranking.

Call me a cynic, but I think the vast majority of awards given out are just a marketing exercise, rather than something issued by fellow bloggers to recognise truly outstanding other blogs. It is probably more productive to just post comments and provide links back to them - but being the infrequent blogger and less frequent reader that I am, laziness and lack of time stops me from doing so as often as I would like.

I think I was listed as a finalist in something a while ago... Where was it? Can't remember.

Anyway, I think this is the first time I have been sent a badge to pretend that I won something for blogging. I know that I am being used, but what the heck?

This one is from, presumably a web site that either wants to:
  1. make commissions from referring people to medical billing and coding courses, or 
  2. a web site that wants to rapidly build up as much traffic as possible and then sell the domain to some adult site for quick cash.
Then again, who am I to say no to flashy web badges? So here you go:
Admittedly, the first one is a bit tacky and self-promotional, but the second is nicely generic. Too bad they don't have transparent GIF or PNG versions (I subsequently found a transparent PNG). They will obviously need to rebuild the website and links if they ever give out more awards next year.

If you wish to follow the links then you can enter the following URLs to see what it is all about, but don't blame me if the domain name has been sold on and you get viruses, malware, and a free subscription to Foot-Lover's Weekly:
(Update 16/6/2010)
Interestingly I have found these guys have been working on several other "Top Blog" Awards, such as:
It must be a successful SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) technique, associating your website with other quality, high-readership websites (well, except for this one, of course). Presumably all the recipients are so grateful that they give links back to the award-presenter.

Since I am not convinced of the benevolence of these awards I am, on principle, not giving a direct backlink... does that make me even lower than a cheapskate? Can a web award be taken away after it has been given? Or will my ungratefulness cause my award to surreptitiously disappear into the ether? Well, for the sake of posterity, I suppose should keep a screenshot of my award here, in all of its transient, web-based glory.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

nhsblogdoc retires from blogging

It is with great sadness that I note that Dr John Crippen aka nhsblogdoc has decided to stop blogging, and furthermore remove all of his previous posts.

He has been a major force in medical blogging, and inspired me to begin blogging in the first place. Numerous posts by me have been stimulated by his lead.
It is certainly the end of an era, and I am especially sad that I have only noticed this fact 3 months down the track due to my inability to keep up with the medical blogging scene.

The impact of his blogging is reflected by the farewells that he has received, and I humbly add myself to the list of bloggers sorry to see him go.
Sadly, there are those that are happy to see him gone:
But he lives on, even if only in the faint memories of the internet:
Dr Crippen - hopefully we will see you reappear, either as yourself, as a new identity, or if nothing else then in the memory of those who continue to blog, and may our influence and spirit continue to guide us to incisive, critical, entertaining and humorous medical blogging.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

On Jurisevic, Ross, Knight and Anonymous

I must say that I really have no idea what it is about my posts on this topic, or perhaps this whole issue in general, that has caused such a heated response.

I thought this was just an innocent comment on the activities of the ACCC and my own conjecture as to what might or might not have happened, and the wider implications of the ACCC's actions. I must make clear that I do not know Craig Jurisevic, Iain Ross, or John Knight, or anyone at the ACCC. I have never met them, have no inside information about what happened, and don't have any opinion on their character or skill.

Nevertheless, a series of anonymous posters seem to think that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Craig Jurisevic-hater when this is not the case. Why should some lowly general surgeon working in the middle of nowhere have anything to do with a high-flying, TV-appearing, book-writing, decorated cardiothoracic war surgeon? I don't know what his book is about - it could be about bird-watching for all that I care! What does that have to do with me? He could walk past me in the street and I would not know or care. I neither like nor dislike Craig Jurisevic - so Anonymous, please stop accusing me of being out to get him. I am not out to get Craig Jurisevic but I am not here to defend or promote him either.

In order for everyone to see clearly what I am being accused of, here are links to the two relevant blog posts and the amalgamated comment exchange on this topic.

ACCC Strikes Again, August 2007
Bleeding Hearts in Private Hospitals


Milk & Two Sugars said...

Ah, but 'desirable' is not the same as 'required', is it? Do you think it's possible that the problem stemmed from Ross and Knight's inability to formally take action to prevent a surgeon they considered inexperienced and therefore dangerous from being allowed to take such a position? I'm not familiar enough with the College of Surgeons practices to know whether such an avenue was available.

Anonymous said...

The surgeon in question had several years as a trauma surgeon on top of his cardiothoracic training and had a Masters I Surgery in the field of cardiac surgery, so experience was never an issue, nor was patient safety.

Sheepish said...

You make a good point, M&TS. Ross and Knight may have felt that way for reasons apart from CJ's professional qualifications. There is no practicable means to limit someone's activity in private, as the whole point is that the market decides whether such qualities are a problem.

I have written a further post about my opinions on this.

Thanks for your insight, Anonymous. Please keep reading, and letting me know what you think.

Anonymous said...

Why no response to posts that highlight the fact that CJ was more than qualified and competent??

Sheepish said...

Hi Anon - I assume you are the same Anon from the postACCC Strikes Again on this topic.

I don't claim to know CJ personally or professionally, so I can't really comment on his qualifications. My observations didn't relate to how skilled or competent he is, and I assume that he is appropriately trained to the level of an FRACS(CT). They were about the issues around the ACCC's actions and private hospital accreditation.

By the way, if you comment again it would be nice if you gave yourself a nickname or logged in to Blogger - it's a bit weird replying to "Anonymous".

Honest Doc said...

Dear Sheepish,
I am not the Anon from other posts referred to. This is my first time on this site. I have recently developed an interest in the case as I have worked in SA all my life, and I , and most other docs in the public and private hospital system know of the past behaviours of the two surgeons charged by the ACCC. The finding is of no surprise as these "Old Adelaide" exclusive practices have destroyed many a young medico in Adelaide.
Lets see what the Medical Board, our independent aribiter of professional conduct, has to sy about the actions of Messrs. Ross and Knight!

Anonymous said...

Hi to all- I have read enough peoples opinions and views of those who support Knight and Ross or try to make it seem that they were doing nothing wrong. I do personally and profesionally know Dr Craig Jurisevic, and in the past have worked under Dr Knight as a theatre nurse. Let me say that there are clear and distinct differences between these two individuals. While they are both immensly tallented and educated surgeons, the motivation behind Knights and Ross' actions were not in the interests of patients who might in future require the services of Dr Jurisevic. In my time working with Dr Knight, It was clear that money was a large motivator for him, while he is an excellent surgeon, and his patients are always the priority, money comes in at a very close second. This is not the case with Dr Jurisevic, while he may be earning a significant salary, and may be launching civil action as reported in the Australian, he has every right to do so. These men have attempted to tarnish this surgeons reputation in a decietful and pathetic manner, even making him believe that he was not qualified to work as a CT consultant surgeon. To Dr Knight and Ross, what you did was intentional, Dr Knight has at various times been very callous and decietful individual to get his way, and obviously has not changed since I have worked with him. While I do not directly work under Dr Jurisevic, I have assisted him in Surgery many times and saw first handedly what an experienced and caring individual he is. Money is not a motivator for him, nor is the position or titles. His main and only motivator is knowing that he is saving or greatly improving the life of another human being.

Anonymous said...

Why do you hate craig jurisevic so much? Have you read his book yet? now that you see he was MORE than qualified and Ross and Knight were being c**ts do you admit you are wrong?

Sheepish said...

Dear Anonymous:

I assume that you are referring to a series of posts that touch on news reports involving an ACCC finding regarding the failure to appoint Craig Jurisevic to an Adelaide private hospital. (Now I sound like Sir Humphrey!)

They are ACCC strikes again and Bleeding Hearts in Private Hospitals from August 2007.

Firstly it is helpful if you provide a name as many other commenters use the same pseudonym "Anonymous" and it makes it impossible to tell whether you are the same Anonymous as has commented on those posts.

Secondly, you may wish to post your comment on those posts rather than this one, as otherwise no-one has any idea what you are on about without me coming to your rescue.

Thirdly, I have never said, and can confirm that I do not, hate Craig Jurisevic nor bear him any ill will. I have not read his book nor do I have any immediate urge to go out and buy it as I don't have the faintest idea what it is about yet.

I have merely passed comment on the general issues raised in this ACCC case and theorised on what might possibly have happened. As I passed no judgement on Craig Jurisevic I really don't have the faintest idea what you are accusing me of, or what I could possibly be wrong about.

Next time I would appreciate it if you could write a comment that at least made sense, rather than a paranoid rant.


Anonymous said...

Dear Sheepish,

I have read all those posts about the ACCC, and I am very close to the case of Mr Jurisevic and Mr Edwards. I know it well. Far better than you'd like to think you are - you are a nobody. You have no idea what you are talking about and you elude to the fact that Ross and Knight were shafted in some way. You need to go f*** (edited) yourself!

Sheepish said...

Dear "Anonymous":

I don't claim to know the case or any of the doctors involved well or at all, other that what I have read in the paper. I may well be nobody but I am entitled to pass comment and express an opinion. It is, after all, my blog.

I do not allude to anyone being shafted, but you are not doing your case any justice by your irrational, unjustified finger-pointing. I think it is fair to say that your attack on my comments is, to say the least, paranoid behaviour. If you have inside information then please feel free to share, as raving and ranting is clearly not doing much good for my education, nor your pent-up frustration (which may well be solved by the same action that you have asked me to perform).