Wednesday, September 17, 2014

The NRA demonstrates bad judgement (once again)

Katherine Parker
If you had an open criminal case, would you run for political office?

Maybe that is the question the political advisors for Monica Wehby who is running for US Senate from Oregon should have asked before hitting the hustings, but they obviously didn't.

It seems there is a medical child abuse case out there which she is a party to in Multnomah County.  As far as I know this case has not been decided.

But here is the short form:
Wehby’s practice has been controversial within the small circle of pediatric neurosurgeons, in part because she is willing to perform tethered cord surgery when other surgeons would not, such as when a radiologist tells her the MRI results don’t appear to support it. She says that’s because MRI technology is limited, and she can usually tell when a child suffers tethered cord through other means, including the description of symptoms.

Jim Moore, a Pacific University government and elections professor, said the timing of the Parker case could be a problem for Wehby.

"It raises questions about her judgment, and for the last 25 years voters have said judgment is very important," Moore said. "And remember, she's not very well known in this state. She's staking her whole campaign on her expertise in health care and her
competence. So this is going to raise questions about the center of who she says she is.
Of course, running with an open case is one act of bad judgement, but the NRA decided to endorse her candidacy.

Personally, I think that this is a great way to dodge the elephant in the room.  I have to admit that I am curious as to how the campaign will handle the issue of the pending criminal case. As far as I can tell, this case is still pending.

Or if the NRA will do anything in light of that case.

Of course, the NRA backs some real winners.

For more information about Dr. Wehny's connection to this case See also:


  1. So Laci, we should start out by mentioning that the photo in your posting isn't Dr. Wehby. Its a booking photo of the person actually charged with the medical child abuse who deceived medical providers in order to raise money on the internet.

    "Court documents reveal one of Parker’s biological sons and two adopted girls were injured as a result of what officials called unnecessary surgeries. Investigators said Parker knowingly and intentionally caused “serious physical injury” to the children by making false and or misleading statements to medical professionals so they would administer medical treatment."

    Perhaps we should also bring up a statement by another doctor interviewed,

    "Patrick O’Hollaren, a urologist who works with Wehby, said pediatric specialists are particularly vulnerable to parents who want to dupe doctors. That’s because doctors can’t rely on young children to describe their symptoms.
    “What the parents tell us is paramount, it’s huge,” he said. “If somebody really wanted to pull the wool over a doc’s eyes over what is going on with the child, it’s doable with any specialty.”

    Now lets look at the controversial surgery, this is also from the very article you cited,

    "Early on, when she says she was being "crucified" by her professional colleagues at meetings, she considered giving up the surgery. But her patients' success stories renewed her conviction.
    "It was worth all the hassles and the slings and arrows," Wehby said in a recent interview. "I know that I've changed the lives of so many kids that otherwise would not have been helped."
    She said that because she is on salary at Legacy Health, she has no incentive to do more surgeries. Legacy bills carriers about $23,000 per tethered-cord surgery.
    Over time, more surgeons have adopted her approach toward using the surgery. But some of her colleagues still think the surgery should be done sparingly, whereas Wehby conducts several dozen each year.
    Wehby defends her number of surgeries, saying it's because she has become well-known among parents and urologists around the country. First, because she was more willing to do the surgery than others. And later, because she does it so well, using a tiny incision to lessen the risk and in just 20-30 minutes on an operating table, she says.
    And, she says, it works 90 percent of the time or more, with very low risk. "I haven't had any problems," she said.

    So we have a doctor who developed a minimally invasive surgical procedure that has become more widely performed and who has a 90% success rate in the procedures that she's performed. Doesn't sound like her judgment is all that bad when you look at it.

    1. OK, First off, the caption to the photo is "Dr. Wehby?" Implying I was not sure whether it was her or not.

      you seem to miss that the issue is not her medical judgement, but being associated with a criminal case. Although, there is another article which you failed to have read:

      "Tethered cord surgery itself is not controversial, but using the procedure to treat a variety of the syndrome that doesn't show up in an MRI sparks disagreement among neurosurgeons to this day.

      Doctors agree only a tiny fraction of people suffering incontinence have tethered cord syndrome. But for those who do -- many of them children facing trauma and alienation at school over their loss of bladder control -- traditional therapies do not work.

      Wehby calls her tethered-cord advocacy her proudest professional achievement. It defines her practice, and reflects her personality as well. She says if you don't do it early, say by age 5, the symptoms risk becoming permanent, more serious harm.

      Wehby's role in pushing the treatment nationally, even in the face of criticism and controversy, gains importance now that she is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Rep. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. "

      The fact that she is associated with an open criminal case, and that she may have performed an unnecessary surgery is still an issue despite what you may want to say.

      I should add that I have asked her campaign for a comment and none was given.

      Again, the issue is if someone is associated with an open criminal case, is it a good idea to run a political campaign?

    2. Laci - you linked an article about the NRA endorsement that had a picture of Dr. Wehby. Why didn't you just use that picture? Did it not look bad enough for you? Pretty pathetic on your part to try and smear this Dr. all because the NRA has endorsed her. And is Dr. Wehby charged with a crime in this criminal case you mention? Why not clarify what her role in the case is? By your reasoning, if a woman was a victim of domestic violence and in the process of having her husband prosecuted then she should not be running for office since she would be involved in a criminal case?

    3. Also, you have acknowledged that it is not her picture but you still have not removed it or corrected the caption. Pathetic.

    4. Short form, ssgmarkcr:

      Do you deny that she performed the surgery in question?

    5. I did read the article you cited Laci, though if her performing these surgeries isn't relevant, then why did you mention it? And from the same article,

      "Wehby says she is extremely cautious before going ahead with surgery, sometimes waiting years in the hope symptoms will improve. Unlike many doctors, she uses a cinematic MRI, which simulates a video, to tell if the spinal cord is tethered. But Rozzelle says that video tool is not widely accepted.
      Steinbok, the Vancouver doctor who is leading a study on the topic funded by the National Institutes of Health, says he has changed his position. From being skeptical of Wehby, he has moved toward sometimes doing the surgery himself, though he still wants more scientific backing for it.
      He says the tethered-cord controversy is typical of how the practice of medicine changes, by trial and error. If you do something and hurt the patient, you stop. If the patient improves dramatically, you do it again, he said."

      I doubt there is any question as to whether she actually performed the surgery, though it appears she was duped by Parker, as were the other doctors involved in the case. I'm not seeing how she can be held in any way responsible. As I cited earlier,

      "Patrick O’Hollaren, a urologist who works with Wehby, said pediatric specialists are particularly vulnerable to parents who want to dupe doctors. That’s because doctors can’t rely on young children to describe their symptoms.
      “What the parents tell us is paramount, it’s huge,” he said. “If somebody really wanted to pull the wool over a doc’s eyes over what is going on with the child, it’s doable with any specialty.”

      Though your issue seems to be why she is running. It seems to be all a matter of timing. She announced her candidacy in October of last year. Five months later, Parker was charged. So are you suggesting that after campaigning for five months for public office, she should quit because the parent of one of her patients deceived her in order to get her to perform what turned out to be an unneeded surgery in order to scam money from people on the internet?

    6. ssgmarkcr you could not be more wrong on every point.

      Where Laci looks at this from his expertise in criminal law -- and he is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT -- I look at it from years in the insurance industry, including a considerable period of dealing with medical malpractice claims.

      Any time you have a doctor doing a procedure that is not supported by facts - by lab work, by radiology, by MRI's, a doctor IS GUESSING, and is arguably using their patients like guinea pigs for likely unethical experimentation. That it additionally defrauds insurance companies and potentially care providers, is on top of exposing patients to risks that are unlikely to be fully understood by patients who are not expert in the bio-medical field. There is a good REASON when most doctors, who DO understand this, are unwilling to perform such questionable surgeries.

      Symptoms alone, as described by a patient, or a surrogate for a patient like a parent, are usually not sufficient to warrant any surgery other than the most urgent emergencies (i.e. a rupturing appendix where there is no time for a CBC, etc.) which suggest having to go in ANYWAY.

      Lacking any medical evidence that the surgeries were necessary in the first place, it is highly questionable any successes can be scientifically or otherwise legitimately attributed to those procedures.

      That there is further treatment needed because of the damage done by unsuccessful surgeries --- as high as 10%, which is extremely high -- argues that this is not an acceptable risk, particularly for children who cannot participate in the choices about what is inflicted on their bodies.

      Wehby did not develop this surgery, she just profited by exploiting it, performing unnecessary surgeries. I hope they throw the book at her, and that she loses her license to practice medicine. That apparently the primary people touting how wonderful this is were also profiting from apparently unnecessary surgeries on poor suffering children, putting them at risk for injury or death (anes risks alone, particularly for children, are very serious, and neurological surgeries on spinal cord tissue are also very risky) shows this woman is a nut job who has no cred for public office.

      The NRA will tolerate anyone who is a gun loon, no matter how egregious their judgement or behavior -- no respectable or responsible organization would tolerate Ted Nugent, OR this woman.

      Thanks for the excellent article Laci -- I'll add one about our own nut job with a pending felony in MN, not trying to get into the senate, but onto our state Supreme Court, endorsed by the MN GOP. It should make a nice companion piece to this post.

      I don't know where the hell you get your notion of minimal invasiveness here either, but it sure as hell is not an applicable term to spinal surgeries.

      First of all, you seem to glide over that children were injured here. That makes this surgery dangerous, not 'minimally invasive' or benign; it is not out patient surgery. Any time surgery

    7. dog gone - you seem to be confused as to the lawsuit that the doctor is "involved in." The doctor faces no criminal charges, she was on of 10 doctors that treated the kids of the actual criminal that is on trial. In all likely hood, Dr. Wehbly will be a witness for the prosecution. Does that mean anyone that witnesses a crime and may have to testify in court should not run for office?

      Notice how Laci skirts around the fact that the doctor is not accused of any wrong doing? Laci implies the doctor is the focus of the investigation but that is not the case. The mother is being prosecuted - not the doctor. Laci then says the campaign did not respond to a request for a comment. How many people would expect a potential witness in a criminal case to comment to the public about the case? Talk about opening yourself up to problems - discussing an ongoing investigation would be on the top of the list of stupid things to do. I am sure the prosecutor would just love to have their witnesses discussing the case in public - probably getting them thrown out as potential witnesses in the case.

    8. Again, ssgmarkcr
      1) Do you deny that Dr. Wehby performed this surgery?
      2) Do you deny that the surgery in question has led to allegations of criminal child abuse?

      To be quite frank, ssgmarkcr, you are an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And you tend to go off on extremely little knowledge.

    9. Laci - please cite where Dr. Wehby has been charged with criminal child abuse. Is she under indictment for said offense? Yes she performed surgery based on miss-information provided by the parent (who is charge with criminal child abuse and whose picture you have posted). If the doctor is not being prosecuted why even mention the criminal case? If she ends up being a key witness for the prosecution and helps convict this parent of the charges of child abuse wouldn't that be a good thing?

    10. "I'll add one about our own nut job with a pending felony in MN, not trying to get into the senate, but onto our state Supreme Court, endorsed by the MN GOP. It should make a nice companion piece to this post."

      DG, you might want to reread all of the sources before you write that daring expose' since the doctor Laci writes about isn't being charged with anything. The person charged with the felony is the mother/caregiver who deceived Dr. Wehby and OTHER medical personnel into performing the unnecessary surgeries.
      Strangely, Laci says this at one point,

      "you seem to miss that the issue is not her medical judgement, but being associated with a criminal case."

      If it isn't the issue, I'm not sure why she mentions it, but if that is Laci's position on that issue, then the only complaint seems to be the doctor in question refusing to drop out of the race after five months of campaigning because the parent of one of her patients deceived her.

    11. "1) Do you deny that Dr. Wehby performed this surgery?"

      I never questioned or suggested that she didn't perform the surgeries that led to the charges.

      "2) Do you deny that the surgery in question has led to allegations of criminal child abuse?"
      To be quite frank, ssgmarkcr, you are an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

      Well Laci, all of the charges seem to leveled out against Parker, the person who deceived several doctors into performing unnecessary surgeries. It was Parker's intent to subject the children to these painful procedures in order to raise money.
      And while I'm just a dumb infantryman, those smart folks in the prosecutor's office, who might have asked some doctors about it too, seem to have a pretty good handle on who the bad guy is because I haven't heard of ANY medical providers being charged.
      Do you have any information that might clarify that?

    12. BTW, ssgmarkcr, what are your qualifications for giving a medical opinion? Do you have ANY medical training (I know Doggone does).

    13. Well, you’re doing better. Now you have the correct caption under the picture, but there is no context for this woman in the post, or even the links that you provided. Journalism 101, my friend. The reader has to go down to the comments to find any reference to Katherine Parker. You should either include text to reference the woman who was actually charged with a crime, or replace the picture with that of Monica Wehby, or just delete the picture all together.

      And then maybe hold off on chastising people with lines like this one below if you’re going to be so sloppy on your own posts. You first link has video of Ms. Wehby, which if you actually looked at the material, you would know that the arrest photo you posted wasn’t her (especially since you should have known she wasn’t arrested).

      Laci (re: Scotland): “All in all, you talk a lot, but have superficial knowledge of what you are discussing. Please come back when you have actually looked at the material.”

    14. Try and use your brain. I know it's hard, but try.

    15. Yes, as a former prosecutor, I can say why she might not be charged, whereas the mother was. First off, she could say that she had some medical basis for performing the procedure, although the fact that there have been charges made make that a questionable defence.

      Remember that the standard for a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a pretty high standard to get past. OTOH, a civil case it is merely a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard.

    16. Dog gone: “That there is further treatment needed because of the damage done by unsuccessful surgeries --- as high as 10%, which is extremely high”

      Wehby cites a 90% success rate for the surgery solving the problem. That does not translate into 10% of her surgeries causing damage.

      Doggone: “...and neurological surgeries on spinal cord tissue are also very risky”

      If you watched Wehby’s video where she discusses the procedure, you would know that the surgery is below where the spinal cord stops. It just releases the traction on the tip of the cord caused by the spinal fluid sack. What did Laci say about people commenting with superficial knowledge by not having looked at the material?

      I highly, highly doubt that you two give a crap about the controversy over tethered-cord surgery for urinary incontinence in children. All you care about is that she got endorsed by the NRA, so you grab onto anything to make hay out of. You’re not smearing any of the other doctors who got “duped” by Ms. Parker calling for loss of their practice. Your motives are straight up political.

    17. Additionally, if Dr. Wehby serves as a witness it will result in fifth amendment issues.

    18. RE: TS's comment about having an understanding of the topic at hand.

      I do understand medical malpractice and criminal cases, and this looks to me like it is something which shows questionable judgement for the reasons stated by Doggone.

      I'm not sure why you all are defending someone who is described by others in her field as showing questionable judgement. Additionally, she performed what is alleged to be an unnecessary surgery without proper testing to justify that surgery.

      As someone who knows the law, that sounds like malpractise to me.

      And you can quote me on it.

    19. Additionally, those surgeries formed the basis for a criminal case: even if she has not yet been indicted.

    20. Laci, my comment wasn’t that you don’t understand medical malpractice in general (I’m sure you do), it’s that you didn’t take the time to look at the materials in this particular case before making this “shoot from the hip” post. You made vague reference to a felony with no links to details, and posted a picture of the wrong woman not being sure whether or not it was Wehby, when clicking on the link you provided immediately shows that wasn’t her. It took a small amount of diligence by Sarge to show us that the arrest photo was for the mother, and the surgeon isn’t being charged with any crime (and neither is all the other doctors “duped” in this case).

    21. TS, if you are dealing with surgery on an attachment to the spinal cord, you can fairly be claimed to be dealing with spinal cord surgery, particularly as this relates to nerve involvement.

      Secondly, if you were as knowledgeable a you wish to be taken to be, you would know that incontinence problems are fairly common in kids around the age of the child in question. It is frequently a growth problem, where the nerves involved need to catch up, and where kids just outgrow it.
      Third, just because Wehby says she has a 90% success rate doesn't make it so -- you can't claim success is a result of what you do, unless you can prove causation with medical testing that it was necessary in the first place-- there is no effective causal relationship. See above comment about kids outgrowing this (btw, there is a similar pattern in some other mammals of that growth-related temporary incontinence during certain ages).
      Fourth, it is not Wehby but another doctor who describes 10% as the rate of unsuccessful surgeries doing harm occurring where this procedure is done without supporting evidence such as MRIs, and that is by a more conservative surgeon. Therefore it is a reasonable base line to expect for Wehby, given the result of this kid being harmed --- and no pro-gun person commenting here seems to give a damn about the kid who was harmed.
      It was the surgeon who did the surgery without sufficient evidence it was necessary. It is the surgeon who is expected to know that parents are sometimes unreliable (as are other patients) and that surgery needs MORE than that to be ethical and professional.
      We don't know what the outcome will be in terms of law suits or criminal proceedings against Wehby; most of all this article does not reference the rate of medical malpractice suits/claims against Wehby. From what I read, I'd bet there have been more than a few. The absence of them being mentioned does not mean an absence of legal problems exist.

    22. "From what I read, I'd bet there have been more than a few. The absence of them being mentioned does not mean an absence of legal problems exist."

      Is this where you would look for that information DG?

      "Board Orders 
      There are no public orders on file for this Licensee."

      "Malpractice Claims
      The Oregon Medical Board has no closed malpractice claims on file for this licensee."

      Is there somewhere else I might look? I didn't see anything on the Utah medical board site either, since she did a Fellowship there.
      So far, all I've been hearing is "wouldn't be surprised" and "I'd bet", which equal personal opinion and not fact. I'm going to assume that if you had any of those pesky facts on you regarding this person you would have shared them. I'm not even going to delve into the possibility of you coming across a fact that proves you wrong and you sharing it. There's likely a legal term for that, but since I'm not a paid professional, I wont try it at home.
      What it boils down to is that you just don't like this person because she's running against a Democrat. And you're perfectly free to do that.

    23. Dog gone, you claimed the surgery is on spinal cord tissue. It’s not. You’ve corrected your error by now saying “attachment to the spinal cord”, but you haven’t changed your stance. You are now aware that this surgery is significantly less risky that you thought it was yesterday. Fair statement? But it seems your opinion of her judgment remains the same. Or do you now say she still showed bad judgment, but it’s not as bad as you thought yesterday because you learned something about the procedure?

      Dog gone: “Fourth, it is not Wehby but another doctor who describes 10% as the rate of unsuccessful surgeries doing harm occurring where this procedure is done without supporting evidence such as MRIs, and that is by a more conservative surgeon.”

      Please provide a citation for this other doctor’s statement.

      Dog gone: “Therefore it is a reasonable base line to expect for Wehby, given the result of this kid being harmed --- and no pro-gun person commenting here seems to give a damn about the kid who was harmed.”

      One thing I have not seen so far is any evidence that Dr. Wehby’s surgery caused the child specific harm. Have you? Please provide a citation if you have. The charges of causing harm are directed at the mother for subjecting him to a lifetime of medical procedures and intentionally making/keeping him as sick as possible. Are you aware that the child had at least five of these tethered-cord surgeries (probably not)? Are you also aware that he had at least five Chiari Decompression procedures, which is actual brain surgery (probably not)? Do you have any evidence that Dr. Wehby’s surgery caused specific harm because it was botched, performed poorly, or he recovered in a worse state than before the surgery? Please provide if you do.

  2. Don't know where you pulled the picture from, Pooch, but I tried to check on your story. No, that is, in fact, not a picture of the doctor. That is the picture of one Katherine Parker--the mother who has been charged with neglect and medical abuse for manipulating doctors into conducting surgeries on her children (It would be my advice that you correct the post).

    Can't find anything that suggests any wrongdoing on the part of Wehby. Instead, the local coverage talks about Parker's son having a brain abnormality, potentially spina bifida--something that can be associated with tethered cord syndrome. Apparently, the charges are that Parker lied about symptoms to multiple doctors, including Wehby, to secure unnecessary surgeries for the children.

    The son is now 8 and the surgeries were done in 2011, meaning he was about 5 at the time, so the mother would have normally been the best person to get his medical history and information on his symptoms from.

    Even if this case proves true, it sounds like Wehby was one of several doctors who were taken in by Parker in what looks like a Munchhausen by proxy case. She is not, however, part of an open criminal case, as you alleged, and further implied by posting a picture of the real defendant with her name as a caption.

    Seriously, Pooch, do some fucking research--I found all this with ONE search on Google using terms from your post.

    1. Again, Do you deny that she performed the surgery in question?

    2. Your question proves nothing on its own. All indications from the coverage, and from the charges, are that the doctor was one of several doctors who were misinformed and manipulated into performing surgeries by an attention seeking, depraved mother.

      However, you seek to use the innuendo about her being "associated with an open criminal case" to smear her as if she is the one being investigated rather than her being one of many doctors who was deceived. I thought you opposed blaming victims?

      As for the appropriateness of her type of surgery, Sarge did a good job of laying out the opposing case. It would be one thing if you wanted to oppose how often she does these surgeries and try to claim that it shows bad judgment, though the debate would be beyond the expertise of most laypeople. However, you are merely pretending to have that debate to try to add to her supposed culpability in this case.

      As if that weren't bad enough, you pulled a picture of the real defendant, who does not look like the doctor, from some source other than the articles you linked to--articles which had actual pictures of the doctor. One has to wonder if the original source of the photo had it properly captioned as every article containing it that I looked at did. Your fig leaf of a response is that you asked if it was the doctor. If you weren't sure, you could have used the photos in the article you linked to, but you preferred to feign not knowing so that you could further imply that the doctor was subject to a criminal investigation and may well have been booked as part of it.

      Now that you have been informed, twice, of information you could have known, and probably did know, you should remove the picture or change the caption. Wonder if that will happen.

    3. Doctors are, Anonymous, generally assumed to rely on more than ONLY someone telling them about a health problem. The first rule in medicine is do no harm -- do nothing to make something worse.
      Wehby appears to be performing unnecessary surgeries, and that is a serious problem. I'm surprised if she still has med malpractice insurance, which is usually a requisite for having a practice or hospital privileges, or possibly even for having a license (did not look up Oregon's statutes on this).

      Laci did a better job than you did -- I suggest you look at the term iantrogenicity.

      Btw, since BOTH Laci's parents were licensed doctors, I think he probably grew up with a pretty sound notion of what doctors will and will not do as ethical decisions.

    4. I would add that since you claim Dr. Wehby was somehow "duped" into performing an unnecessary surgery, My question is why would a professional fail to see that a surgery might be unnecessary? Additiionally, the fact that the lay woman was charged chld abuse makes me wonder how someone using professional judgement would be tricked.

      You might have a point, anonymous, had the person charged been somewhat sophisticated in her medical knowledge, but it appears that the trained surgeon was tricked into what is alleged to be an unnecessary and unethical surgery by a lay person.

      That is not good judgement from someone in a professional field, especially that of neurosurgery.

    5. BTW, Anonymous, what are your qualifications for giving a medical opinion? Do you have ANY medical training (I know Doggone does).

    6. Anonymous, the reason doctors don't rely on what their patients tell them but rather use it as the starting point to run tests is that patients lie, or are wrong, or are inaccurate, or can have agendas.

      Doctors as a matter of professional conduct avoid being duped BY relying on tests like MRIs, instead of going on their gut instinct.

      Of course, if you get your notions of how doctors practice medicine from watching television fictional presentations, you would think otherwise.

      Now I don't give rat's rear end what Wehby says about how careful she is, for the same reason in the example above that where I cite the conduct of Michelle MacDonald I don't give credence to the blood test MacDonald claims she gave herself some many hours after her arrest for DUI -- it is unreliable and self-serving, and incidentally it doesn't appear to be true.
      Ditto her companion in performing the unnecessary surgeries.

      Were you expecting her to say -- "hey, I'm a jerk, and I put patients at risk and exploited kids, and so did my associates"?

    7. "All indications from the coverage, and from the charges, are that the doctor was one of several doctors who were misinformed and manipulated into performing surgeries by an attention seeking, depraved mother."

      You have just stated that these physicians may have committed malpractise.

      They did not follow proper medical practise, or they would not have found themselves in such a position.

      Thank you for making my case for me.

    8. They did perform MRIs. You are not up on the material but have no problems dolling out your judgment.

    9. Dog gone,

      Gee, if being a lawyer AND having doctors as parents qualifies Laci, then I guess I'm qualified too, seeing as I'm a Lawyer and the son of a doctor. Your appeals to authority used to try to silence opponents are getting old.


      Your post states that the doctor is a party to a criminal prosecution, which is patently false, and tries to strengthen this smear with insinuations that her practice is built on unsafe procedures. You're asking the general public to look at those statements and determine if she's responsible in her practice. That's why Sarge and I looked up articles about the issue, and he did additional research to see what the controversy was. That's where we get off trying, from our lay perspective, to make sense of the medical controversy even though we're not trained experts.

      When you go to court, you bring in experts to testify and then ask the jury to judge on topics they're not expert on, based on what they've learned from these witnesses. This is exactly what we were doing--trying to find out what experts say and make sense of it. So get off your high horse and stop acting like we need a medical degree to comment, or stop practicing law where you must ask juries to study and issue and make the best informed decision they can.

      As for the issue of malpractice, it's not an area I practice in (and neither of us know all the facts in this case), so I can't say for sure, but you may be right--the child in this case may have a malpractice claim when he grows up, if there are any complications or other damages from the surgery.

      HOWEVER, that is a FAR cry from your debatable claim that the doctor has criminal culpability and your false claim that she is a party in this ongoing prosecution.

    10. TS, doing an MRI is not the point. The point that you keep wilfully ignoring is that the MRI did not support doing the surgery, and apparently nothing else did either, other than the mother's claims.
      THAT is what is wrong with what Wehby did -- the MRI did not support doing the surgery.

    11. MRIs can be inconclusive. In this case the child has Spina Bifida, which is commonly linked to tethered-cord syndrome, and speaking as a layman, I could see how Spina Bifida would cloud the MRI and make it hard to detect if there is a tethered-cord. That’s just a reasonable guess though. But yes, she is known for her stance that the MRIs can be inconclusive and that there would still be a need/positive benefit for the surgery. So? That happens all the time in medicine. Many people have benefitted from her expertise in this area. Laci specifically said she did not follow proper procedures (as in she didn’t even do the tests). He’s wrong about that.

  3. Of course, she's endorsed by the NRA, so I guess that excuses your libel.

    1. Libel is the publication of something which is false.

      As I pointed out in the post and is mention in both the articles I have cited to, the surgery is controversial and in this case may have been unnecessary.

      But, the real issue here is whether or not there had been a case and what the accusation is. There is proof that she was mentioned in relation to this case and that she performs a surgery which is considered controversial.

      So, my question to you is what is the falsehood?

      For something to be libel, it needs to be (1) false and (2) somehow impact on someone's professional standing.

      The issue here is whether she was somehow "duped", or whether she willingly performed this surgery.

      It seems she performed this surgery, which is something none of you deny.

      Anyway, I think you people need to brush up on Slander, Libel, and how they actually function.

      Thank you.

    2. Again, Do you deny that she performed the surgery in question?


      "The Multnomah County prosecutor on the case would not confirm if investigators have talked to Wehby.

      Parker is the only person facing criminal charges in the case.

      Wehby's campaign manager referred Fox 12 to Legacy Emanuel for comment, citing medical privacy laws.

      A spokesman for Legacy Emanuel said they could not comment due to medical privacy laws and the ongoing investigation."

      So the doctor faces no criminal charges in the case. She will most likely be a witness for the prosecution. Should all people that have to testify in a court case avoid political office or political campaigns? How do you suggest people that want to run for District Attorney go about campaigning when they are involved in so many criminal court cases? This is pretty pathetic on your part Laci.

    4. You said that she was a party to the case. She is not and never has been. You then repeatedly made statements implying that there was an open criminal case against her. You sidled up as close to the line as you could, and tried to do your best not to cross it, but by saying she was a party to the case (false) and posting the picture of the real defendant who looks nothing like her (wanton disregard of truth or falsity anyone?), a jury could well find that you defamed her, in writing, with the goal, and possible result, of damaging her.

    5. Also, your statement of the elements of libel is incorrect.

      A nice definition from Cornell:
      Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

      So, we have:
      1: Written, picture, or other physical statement
      2: Defamatory
      3: Damage
      a: personal reputation
      b: exposure to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule
      c: injures business/profession

      Truth is a defense that you must prove. The plaintiff only need prove it is defamatory. Good luck proving that she's a party in the criminal case of State v. Parker.

    6. Anonymous, you are again wrong. It is that the NRA has no care or consideration for the quality of who they endorse that is the problem here.

      Laci did not commit libel. Libel must include --as I'm sure Laci can explain to you, as a licensed lawyer -- that first the statements must be substantially false (they are not), they must be damaging (doesn't look like he's said anything not said already, or damaging) and there must be both malice (none -- his primary beef is legitimately with the NRA, more so than the doctor, and that conflict is not malicious) and there must be damages.

      Looks like a failure to commit libel on all counts.

      YOU on the other hand might want to tread carefully in making unsubstantiated accusations against Laci -- he could legitimately go after YOU for libel here.

    7. Again , anonymous, do you deny she performed the surgeries in question?

      Also, what is your basis for giving a legal opinion?

      You are going out on a limb here with giving medical and legal opinions without any proper basis, other than you found it in the internet.

    8. I should also add that the campaign is not denying this either.

      Please realise that Dr. Wehby has fifth amendment issues here,

      I realise that since that is not the Second Amendment, you might not understand what that means, but she is not free and clear having been declared innocent by a court of law.

      As I said, you still haven't shown any falsehood here.

    9. Dog gone,

      You have misstated the elements of libel and misapplied the law. As for your accusations that I have libeled Laci, anyone with an understanding of libel law could tell you how wrong you are. However, if Laci demands satisfaction, he can try, and fail.

      Laci, as I've said, and I know it could be confusing as we have at least one more Anonymous here, I don't deny she did the surgery, but whether or not she did a surgery based on bad medical information provided by the parent is immaterial to your false claim that she is a party to the child abuse case.

      As for my basis for giving a legal opinion here, the law is straightforward enough that anyone could read up on libel and form a reasonable opinion, but since that obviously isn't enough for you and your friends who love appeals to authority, I am a licensed attorney. So don't give me this bullshit power trip that you supposedly know more than me, or your condescending comments about not understanding the Fifth Amendment.

    10. Sure, no falsehood shown other than that you falsely stated that she was a party in the criminal case.

  4. Well in Laci's defense the picture is captioned as "Dr. Wehby?" The question mark clears Laci of any wrongdoing as I am sure Laci is only interested in posting factual information. (/sarcasm)

    1. Please note caption has been removed before making stupid comments.

    2. Actually, it does since I make it clear that I am unsure it is her and once I found out that was not her mugshot, I remove the caption.

  5. Ok what is really funny is if you click through to the NRA endorsement story, they have a picture of Dr. Wehby. Why not use that picture?

    1. Because the real issue here is Dr. Wehby's lack of proper medical judgement.

      She chose to perform a surgeries without proper medical testing prior to those surgeries. Additionally, the surgeries in question are part of a criminal case.

  6. BTW, I thought about editing this post, but I will leave it as is.

    As I point out, the caption to the picture shows I am not sure it is Dr. Wehby. It came up on a search on this topic.

    I acknowledge that is it not her, but Katherine Parker, the person who managed to get Dr. Wehby to perform the surgery in question.

    The real issue here is did Dr. Wehby perform an unnecessary surgery, which none of the people who have tried to exonerate her have denied or shown that she did not perform the surgery.

    1. Ah, so you're not going to change it. Guess such an amount of honesty is too much to ask for. Just going to keep it up there so that anyone who sees the post and doesn't read down into the comments can continue to draw bad assumptions.

    2. I see you (or someone with the blog) did in fact go back and edit the caption on the picture. Why did you change it if you had done nothing wrong?

    3. Yes, I did. I could keep the original caption, which as I pointed out indicated uncertainty; however, as you also pointed out--I prefer accuracy.

      Which is something you don't really care about.

    4. BTW, the only reason I would have kept the original caption was to show that I was uncertain it was her.

    5. Why did you think an arrest photo was her? Did you think she was arrested regarding this case when you first made the post?

  7. OK, final statement on this topic:

    For there to be a case of libel, this would have to be patently false.

    As it stands, Dr. Wehby performed the surgery in question and performing it under these circumstances is considered questionable by the medical profession.

    No libel since I didn't write anything which is false.

    And the truth is a defence to libel.

    1. As I said above, you falsely stated she was a party to an open child abuse case, you repeatedly made this false connection implying she had the potential of being criminally charged, and you posted a mugshot of someone else with wanton disregard of its truth and falsity. Moreover, you posted it along with links to articles which have actual pictures of her showing that the mugshot is NOT her, and you refused to take it down or edit the post.

    2. She is what is called an "unindicted co-conspirator" since she performed what is considered an unnecessary surgery.

      It is obvious that you spout shit since the post has been edited to reflect the truth.

      You have been proven that you have no idea of what you are talking about, please shut up.

      Again, (1) are you denying that she performed the surgeries in question?
      (2) Do you deny that these surgeries are part of the elements of an open criminal case?
      (3) and that some in the medical field are of the opinion that these surgeries were unnecessary?

      As I said, I am using the truth as a defence.

      You seem to be unable to understand the English language and address the issues at hand.

    3. You will find if you had the wherewithal and intelligence to read the indictment in this case that Dr. Wehby is mentioned as performing the surgeries in question.

      Now, if you are truly honest, you will stop trying to make me into an evil person. Dr. Wehby is a candidate for public trust and this matter must be discussed in the open.

    4. I would toss in that if she in any way serves as a witness it would open up fifth amendment issues.

    5. If you perform a surgery that injures a child, where according to both professional standards and professional ethics, you should only perform that surgery when supported by tests -- she IS a party to this case, and is in serious trouble whether she has been indicted yet or not. At the very least, she is at risk for losing her license.

      But then that is probably why she went into politics; she knew her career in medicine was likely to be over.

    6. Dr. Wehby has not made any statement, which is good since there are fifth amendment issues here.

      I know five may be too high for you to count.

    7. Wow, nice tag team. It's so nice to know I'm living in your heads!


      1: Your post didn't say she was an unindicted co-conspirator, it said, and says as of this moment, that she is a party to the case (false), then that she has an open case and a pending criminal case. I hope you have evidence that there is an open investigation of the doctor and that there is a pending criminal case against her, because otherwise, you're going to have trouble with that attempted truth defense. (BTW, glad to see you properly stating that truth is a defense rather than stating that falsity is an element of libel.) As for your Unindicted Co-conspirator allegation, that is something I could see being passed off as an expression of opinion, but it's NOT the claim you made in the post. If it's what you meant, you should have said it clearly rather than saying something completely different.

      2: As for your comment that I'm full of shit because the post has been edited, it had not been edited at the time I posted the comment (or was edited while I was typing the comment). At the time, your last comment displayed was the one where you admitted it was Parker and said that you thought about editing the post and decided to leave it as it was. Don't go insulting me for not noting the edit that Hadn't happened yet. You ruin the little bit of goodwill that your edit might have earned you.

  8. While searching for "Laci the Dog" I came upon a website on bestiality. I am not saying Laci partakes in such actions, just that there may or may not be a picture of Laci having sex with a dog - I didn't bother to actually confirm who was really in the picture.

    1. You can come up with all sorts of sites if you search on "Laci the Dog". Your point?

  9. I think the NRA should not offer opinions on pediatric neurosurgery, and they seem to agree as they give their endorsements on political careers, not professional. But here you are smearing the NRA for endorsing the political career of someone where in their professional career gave surgery to the child of a woman charged with a crime. Wow, that’s quite a stretch. So are you blaming the prosecutors for not charging Ms. Wehby with a crime? I’d say the prosecutors know a lot more about this case than you, Laci and Dog gone, and they are putting the fault on the mother.

    Blame the lawyers if you must.

    1. Actually, you should blame the ignorant, of which I consider you one of them.

      Personally, some people seem to miss that she has been accused of serious questionable judgement. And not just by me.

      Anyway, you might want to look at the material and try to understand it, but that might tax your brain.

    2. TS, so, you would choose someone who shows seriously poor professional judgement to run your country?

    3. I don’t see any evidence that she has shown seriously poor professional judgment. She takes different risks that some of her counterparts, so what? That happens all over the place in medicine, and it’s good to have a mix of conservative approaches, and ones that push boundaries. I haven’t comment on (and won’t) on whether or not Wehby should have known the surgery was unnecessary based on the information she had, including false information by the patient’s mother. How would I know? I am not a neurosurgeon. And neither are you. So why are you so sure she’s guilty of poor judgment? What facts of the case combined with your knowledge of neurosurgery led you to your conclusion? There are people close to this case who have examined the details and have knowledge of the procedure, and we see that there are no malpractice charges against her, either civil or criminal. What makes you the authority?

      It’s also possible that this surgery is done electively, possibly even in this case. Has anyone read anything along those lines? If it’s an elective surgery, it’s by definition “not necessary”. Parents may be consulting with Wehby and she tells them of the risks and rewards and the parents decide “yes, we’d like to do the surgery because we don’t want our kid pissing their pants for the rest of their life”.

      No, I haven’t seen a reason why that makes her a bad choice to run a country. What you’re implying is that you want your government officials scared to make choices that carry a slight amount of risk compared to reward. Vote that way if you must.

    4. Laci, If you want to stick at questioning her judgment, go for it. That's a legitimate tactic. Interestingly, it is one that Doesn't require making false statements that the lady is a party to the abuse case or that she has a pending criminal case against her.

      Also interestingly, it requires us to read up on the procedure and determine if it looks to us as if she's behaving responsibly...something you and dog gone keep telling us we're not qualified to do. Guess you just want us to trust in the medical knowledge you picked up growing up in a medical household (and yes, I know dog gone brought that up--hopefully you wouldn't appeal to that authority).

  10. I've just spent what could be considered a very disturbing time wandering at a blog that claims to advocate for the children involved in the Parker case. I'm not seeing how I can post everything without it looking like I'm trying to take over Mike's blog, but I hope supplying the links will suffice. You can look here to see the number of doctors who seem to have been deceived by the Parkers,

    In this post, the individual counts on the indictment have been matched with entries made by Ms. Parker on procedures performed,

    Here is a copy of the indictment,

    Here is the one section of the blog I'll post which provides a rather grisly picture of the situation,

    "Kate Parker is facing a total of 43 criminal charges, stemming from a Multnomah County Grand Jury indictment.
    She was arrested at her home at 1000 Marjean Lane in Grants Pass late in the afternoon of Tuesday, April 1, 2014.
    Kate’s alleged crimes span a period of more than six years, from April 20, 2007 to October 29, 2013."

    I cant claim to know what the real challenges of the maladies which have been confirmed to exist, much less the ones that seem to have been manufactured by the elder Parkers. I do have a hard time conferring blame or responsibility on anyone except those charged. Looking at the very long list of medical providers involved, the fact that it covers six years and several children. I have to admit I lost count of how many children because there is mention of some being renamed.
    So unless you're prepared to brand the entire list as incompetent or with some overriding desire for profit over professionalism, I'm going to default to all of them wanting to do the right thing. Especially since there is no mention of sanctions of the providers by anyone involved in the case.
    After reading of what these supposed parents have done to their children I now need a long shower and some calming music, to be followed sometime tonight with a stiff drink.

    1. ssgmarkcr, I have been looking for the perfect reason to tell you that you are far less intelligent than you think you are, and this is the perfect moment.

      Yes, I would brand the entire list as incompetent and failed to follow proper medical procedure, which would be to have done the proper testing prior to any surgery.

      There is a story about the real Laci which covers this, but the upshot is that a doctor does not just perform a surgery willy-nilly.

      That is the real issue here.

    2. You are way more thorough than our hosts, Sarge.

    3. Laci: “Yes, I would brand the entire list as incompetent and failed to follow proper medical procedure, which would be to have done the proper testing prior to any surgery.”

      Laci, if you read the materials Sarge provided, you would see the child did have MRIs performed. What led you to believe she didn’t follow proper testing? Is this yet another example of you not following your own code of learning the material before commenting?

    4. Thanks for the research, Sarge.


      There may well have been a breach of duty by some, or all of them. It's also possible that the doctors did what they could to figure out what was causing the reported symptoms and then went ahead with treatments because they thought the case might be atypical in its presentation.

      I'm sure the local bar will have a field day with this over the coming decade, and there might be some malpractice wins. Such speculations are legitimate. False statements that someone has pending criminal charges against them, not so much.

    5. Nah, anonymous -- the issue here is that the woman's judgment is bad and the NRA backed her anyway.

      The doctors did harm, and they should be on the hook for it; having good intentions doesn't excuse them from bad judgement or going against existing medical standards.

      The NRA is bad for supporting an easily duped doctor here, who injured a kid. Apparently once again the NRA demonstrates they will support anyone, no matter how poor their judgement, so long as they are a gun nut. Apparently the NRA shows once again that guns matter to them far far more than children's lives and health.

    6. Sarge, TS -- if the MRI did not show a need for the surgery, having performed the surgery anyway is the essence of the crime and the essence of the bad conduct of Wehby.

    7. Dog gone: "Nah, anonymous -- the issue here is that the woman's judgment is bad and the NRA backed her anyway."

      Why on earth would the NRA judge her ability as a neurosurgeon? Not everyone is as presumptuous as you when you use your vast knowledge of pediatric neurosurgery to deem her judgement bad. The NRA should be judging her on her stance on gun rights- nothing else.

      It's clear that both you and Laci are working backwards here. It's not like you're upset about the way she does neurosurgery. You're upset that she is running for the US Senate as a Republican and worse yet, she's won an NRA endorsement. That makes you want to smear her, so you desperately glom on to what you can find. The proof is that you two have been caught several times being wrong about the facts of this case, but it doesn't change that you still want her smeared. Turns out she is not arrested or accused of crimes after all- doesn't matter. Turns out she's just one of many doctors "duped" (meaning this wasn't just willy-nilly carelessness)- doesn't matter. Turns out the procedure is much more minor than you originally thought- doesn't matter. The end goal remains- you want her smeared. All those reasons you cited before for smearing her weren't that important to you.

      Dog gone: "Sarge, TS -- if the MRI did not show a need for the surgery, having performed the surgery anyway is the essence of the crime and the essence of the bad conduct of Wehby."

      Did the MRI conclusively say he did not have tethered-cord syndrome? You even said "if". No doubt the MRI said no such thing, otherwise she probably would be facing charges. Again, you base your judgment on false presumptions.

    8. I'm going to beat this dead horse one more time with this observation. This whole discussion began when Laci posted this article using two sources. One about the doctor's controversial technique and one about someone who is putting their children through unnecessary pain by subjecting them to surgeries.
      We really don't know if the detethering surgeries performed in the abuse cases showed on an MRI or not, and what exactly the detethering is being used to treat. Especially since the controversy seems to revolve around using it to treat one particular issue.
      Laci and DG paint a picture of this doctor performing surgeries at the drop of a hat with no diagnostic evidence and what it boils down to is that's a sweeping generality. In fact, if you're masochistic enough to look in the blog about the Parkers's children, you'll see several instances of "Dr. W" deciding NOT to perform various procedures. Keep in mind that Parker uses the term "Dr. W" to refer to two different doctors.
      They also haven't said much regarding the long list of providers who are also involved in treating these children who have avoided the spotlight here simply by not having the gall to run as a Republican against a Democratic incumbent.
      Here are some questions I honestly do know the answers to due to my profession being shooting people and breaking things as opposed to the healing arts. Perhaps someone else has the answers. First, given that not all ailments are detectable using imagery, at what point do symptoms reported by the patient/parent justify what amounts to a medical deduction and decision to conduct exploratory surgery?
      Second, and I'm truly in the dark about this one. Is there a procedure in place to perform a "logic check" prior to performing surgery where someone else looks at the available data and says surgery is called for? Especially in a world where we read news about some doctor removing the wrong organ or appendage.

  11. The real issue here is that this is not just me who is saying this, but it is coming from quite a few other qualified sources.

    So, tough luck.

    You will do anything to excuse anyone who is "pro-gun" of misconduct even if they harm children.

    1. And what of all the children she helped?

    2. Laci,
      If you were only criticizing her medical judgment, that would be one thing--that's what the other sources I saw were doing. You went a step farther by claiming pending criminal prosecution. The fact that you can't see the difference truly disturbs me.

    3. I don't know that she helped ANY children, other than her self-serving claims.

      However, that does not make harming children ok. First rule of medicine - do no harm.

    4. Really? So the hundreds of other surgeries she did, the success stories, parents seeking her out to help their kids when others would not- that's all made up? Her whole practice is a sham?

      Inaction can cause harm too. If a child needs this surgery but no one will do it, that causes the child harm.

    5. And again, show us how Wehby's surgery did specific harm. You must have this information to be repeating it so often.

    6. Every unnecessary surgery is harmful -- it causes pain, it cuts a person open, it severs tissue.

      Do YOU want someone cutting into you without valid support that it is necessary?

      This whole criminal case is about children hurt by unnecessary surgery, including the Wehby surgery.

    7. So you're against abortions then?

    8. Dog gone: “Do YOU want someone cutting into you without valid support that it is necessary?”

      Yes, I went into surgery before based solely on what I told doctors. If I intentionally misled doctors then that would be on me. I’ve also had MRIs that were inconclusive, and thankfully the doctor’s didn’t say, “Welp, there’s nothing else we can do for you without positive confirmation from an MRI.” The next step was to have a surgical procedure (which ended up also revealing nothing conclusive).

      Dog gone: “Every unnecessary surgery is harmful -- it causes pain, it cuts a person open, it severs tissue.”

      Once again you are forced to backtrack. You previously said 10% of tethered-cord surgeries end in damage (you didn’t provide your source for that information when I asked), and you said her surgery caused that damage. Now you’re defining “damage” or “harm” as the incision? Um, that would be 100% of surgeries “causing harm”, but that’s not what you meant when you were talking about 10%, so what did you mean by that, and what is your source?

      And still, though you were wrong about the facts, the reason for the smear job remains- she is a NRA Republican.

  12. Dr. Webhy performed the operations related to these counts in the indictment, totaling 13 in all:

    Count 1, Count 3, Count 4, Count 5, Count 6, Count 7, Count 8, Count 15, Count 16, Count 23, Count 24, Count 25, Count 26

    Now, if someone does makes a material contribution to a crime, in accordance with conspiracy they in are participants in the crime, unless they actively do something to remove themselves from the conspiracy.

    Please show that Dr. Wehby did some affirmative act which would get her out of the role of a co-conspirator.

    1. Broken link.

      However, I'll point out that to be a co-conspirator in a crime, a person has to be part of the conspiracy. E.g. if we all conspire to be moonshiners and I buy the corn for you to make whiskey from, that's the act in furtherance. However, if we decide to be moonshiners, then we ask DiFi to buy corn for us saying that you need to feed your hogs with it, and then we use the corn to make whiskey, her act will not make her a co-conspirator.

      Do you have evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Parker and Wehby, because otherwise, you're piling on more reckless accusations with what would appear to be willful disregard of their truth or falsity.

    2. You are silly Anonymous -- you have your notions of law wrong.

      The doctor got paid to do a surgery that other doctors decline to perform, and which is recognized as dangerous.

      Not all conspiracy is criminal.

    3. Dog gone,

      Are you seriously saying that she is a criminal because she engaged in a non-criminal "conspiracy" with people who had a separate criminal conspiracy?

    4. Both Laci and I are asserting that she was cooperating with this woman-- and was paid to do so -- by performing an unnecessary and unjustifiable surgery, since the MRI did NOT indicate that this was a surgery case.

      Are you seriously saying she did nothing wrong or that she had nothing to do with it?

    5. Dog gone,

      Laci did not claim that she was morally culpable or might have malpractice exposure. His statement was that she was a member of a criminal conspiracy, and even listed the criminal counts he alleged she was criminally culpable for.

      I'm taking issue with Laci's statement that the woman has a pending criminal case and is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current criminal case. Whether she's a saint or screw-up is a different point entirely, in spite of your constant attempts to justify the inaccurate statements about criminality by pointing to what you perceive as malpractice.

  13. You can tell how out of touch and extreme Laci and Dog Gone are because even Mike has stayed away from commenting on this thread.

    (That’s how it works, right Mike?)

    1. It is somewhat disappointing that MikeB would let such incorrect material remain as a post on his website but it is not surprising at all.

    2. There isn't incorrect material on his website.

  14. TS, you know that means nothing.

    You must be getting pretty desperate here trying to defend the guns are more important than kids crowd.

    1. Of course I know that means nothing. I'm just teasing Mike, who had twice said that because Sarge was silent on a post meant that I was wrong.

  15. I'm feeling much calmer now that I've stepped away a bit from the very depressing details of what has happened to the children, and did a bit more looking around. I've already posted information that Dr. Wehby has no record of disciplinary action from the medical board, and no record of malpractice lawsuits.
    I also came across this information in regards to her campaign,

    "Wehby got into politics when backers of a tort reform initiative on the 2004 ballot asked her to serve as a chief petitioner and public face for the campaign. Wehby, who court records show has never been sued for malpractice, passionately warned that high liability insurance costs could drive doctors out of Oregon."

    We could also use the absence of data to come to a conclusion. She has been an official candidate for just under a year and the only items that have surfaced during that time was a contentious divorce and break-up with a dating partner. I'm sure there are many more people more dedicated than I who have spent countless hours searching for whatever embarrassing details that can be found.
    If this is all they have, then the best thing to do is to just drop it and debate the issues. Ones that might pertain to a US Senator. I'm sure Laci and DG wont want to read the second article because its from the Daily Caller, though the authors to take some to task for not knowing these details before they were released by the media.

    1. First, looking at your source, 'the Daily Caller' is not a valid site for any information. They are a lying right wing propaganda source that has one of the worst records for factual inaccuracy and just plain making shit up of anyone on the internet that is not a satire site.

      As to the absence of law suits -- if you had any knowledge of malpractice issues, you would be aware that very few malpractice cases actually go to court. Overwhelmingly they are settled outside of court, with the exception of a few specialties (notably gynecology and cosmetic surgeries tend to have higher rates of law suits, for example). So the absence of law suits is not in itself a commendation for her expertise.

      Ditto complaints that do not result in formal disciplinary actions are not a matter of record -- which does not mean there is no wrong doing, incompetence, etc. It just means it is dealt with by other jurisdictions, like hospitals. When you see other doctors making the assertion that one of their colleagues is doing unnecessary surgeries, it should raise red flags -- because typically doctors are notoriously tight lipped about even some of the worst offenders in their profession, not the opposite.

      And Wehby's problems with her ex-husband and an ex-boyfriend go a good bit beyond 'embarrassing details'. They involve active stalking and illegal entry. This woman is a nut job, a real piece of work, no matter how you spin it --- and you wouldn't BE spinning it if she wasn't pro-gun and endorsed by the NRA.

      Ah, poor Sarge, you are not nearly as good at research as Laci and I --- please see the above post I just put up about the problems Wehby has with plagiarism.

    2. Actually, it appears the illegal entry by Wehby probably qualified as breaking and entering.

    3. "First, looking at your source, 'the Daily Caller' is not a valid site for any information."

      So I should disregard the author of the article criticizing the vetting process of Wehby and listing all of the scandals that have come up? And I did supply a not so biased source which provided more detailed information. My sole reason for the Caller article was to illustrate the Wehby is also being taken to task by conservatives as well.
      Again, lets look at what the victim of the stalking said,

      "Miller, who has since been a prominent supporter of Wehby's U.S. Senate campaign, told Politico that he never sought the order and regrets calling the police."

      "There was a week there or so when we were breaking up that people can be emotional. And me included," Miller said. "If I think back to that period of time, I regret saying those things in that light."

      Of course her relationship with Miller has also opened another can of worms in regards to their relationship,

      The Democratic Party of Oregon has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that the advertising campaign partly financed by Miller could not be truly independent, as required by federal election law. The complaint said it was "implausible" to think that Miller was not privy to non-public details about her campaign.

      "Miller has insisted in interviews that he is not involved in working on her campaign's strategy and told Politico that he would not be involved in her race if she becomes the Republican Senate nominee."

      "Ah, poor Sarge, you are not nearly as good at research as Laci and I"

      I never claimed to be as good or better than either of you. One of the things I appreciate about hanging out here is that I'm constantly learning new things in this area. And in many I hadn't thought of before.
      With the exception of comments regarding Nugent and how everything is Bush's fault, I'm constantly learning here. As the old saying goes, everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time. That being said, Laci's supposedly superior research skills enabled her to post a photo that apparently not the person she thought it was. Be it intentional or accidental, neither speaks well to her superiority.
      Everyone is eventually going to make a mistake here. If I make one, I'm good with being corrected. I've even corrected myself here on occasion.

    4. Interestingly, Dr. Wehby apparently co-authored an article on malpractice claims in her field.

      "Review of Closed-Claim Malpractice
      Litigation in Neurosurgery"

    5. Dog gone: “Ah, poor Sarge, you are not nearly as good at research as Laci and I”

      Oh that’s a hoot!

      Laci posted a mug shot of someone thinking it may have been Dr. Wehby, but excused it by putting a question mark next to her name. He didn’t know whether or not she was arrested in this case, and didn’t bother clicking on the links that he provided which showed her real face. He also accused her of not conducting MRIs, while Sarge’s research showed us actual pictures of the child’s MRIs.

      You claimed the surgery is done on spinal cord tissue (then had to revert), made claims that 10% of these procedures do damage (without citing the source that you claimed to have found). You claimed hers was one of those cases, and then had to revert by calling the incision “damage”.

      Yeah, you’re real good at this.

    6. "Ah, poor Sarge, you are not nearly as good at research as Laci and I."

      I think the level of condescension and unwarranted hubris in that quote sums up dog gone's character better than anything I've ever seen here before.

    7. Dog gone,

      Nice attempt at explaining why the doctor doesn't have a history of malpractice suits that you expected. I love how you state, proudly, that if Sarge had "any knowledge of malpractice issues" he would know that the cases mostly settle before they go to court.

      Yes, you're right! Give the lady a cookie!

      Of course, these settled suits have already been filed and are just settled before going to trial--meaning that even if the details of the settlement are sealed, the case itself would still be on record.

      Oh the dangers of hubris and running too far with incomplete information. It would have been something you could have plead ignorance on and moved on, but you just had to include that dig about how you totally rocked at research.

    8. You are incorrect. A suit does not have to be filed for a complaint or incidence of malpractice to be settled by insurance.

      That is a pretty foundational piece of information.

      You are just so damned desperate to defend your gun loon -- but I notice no defense for her plagiarism.

      So far, both Laci and I are better at research than Sarge, or for that matter the other gunner commenters here, and you haven't show otherwise.

    9. "So far, both Laci and I are better at research than Sarge, or for that matter the other gunner commenters here, and you haven't show otherwise."

      I'm glad you think so DG. But then I'm not competing with either of you. I'm just enjoying commenting here.

    10. But Sarge, those comments reflect both a lack of background information on your part that is not being corrected by your research and subsequent comments, and that is in turn not advancing discussion. Rather we are more mired in ignorance, when people commenting here fail to understand how the preparation operates before the decision is made for safe and legitimate surgery is performed, or how medical malpractice incidents are resolved (such as no law suit being required for resolution or record of such claims being kept anywhere that is accessible to the public).

      With the addition of not one but two examples of plagiarism about which Wehby has LIED, it confirms that this is not an honest woman when her judgement is in question, and which shows she does not in fact have the expertise in formulating health policy that she claims for her medical background in particular.

      I'm very pleased you are enjoying commenting here.

      But Laci was correct; this candidate was a poor choice for endoresment by EITHER the GOP or the NRA.

    11. Does it have to be filed? No. Is it usually filed? Yes, in most cases.

      As for your comment that we are only defending Wehby because she is NRA endorsed, it's funny that within the same sentence you note that we didn't jump to her defense on the the plagiarism charge.

      That is what we'd call a clue--a clue that we aren't just reflexively defending OUR person against you guys. Instead, as we've said repeatedly, we were pointing out a smear campaign against a candidate, and especially pushing back against the part of that smear campaign in which Laci lied by saying that there was pending criminal case against her.