People have accidents and illnesses for which no one is to blame. Unintended medical mistakes, complications, and oversights happen. We have experienced both--serious illness and reasonable surgical decisions that had poor outcomes--and Duckworth's "experiment" was neither. This was a considered, intentional, unjustified decision to ignore all safe, proven options and standard protocol in favor of a drastic "experiment"--using a product with known problems in a manner contrary to its intended use--that violated any reasonable standard of care.
Although I can not prove it, I believe this decision was motivated by profit and ambition. Duckworth was an active self-promoter and had submitted several papers to journals. I believe she found a willing "guinea pig" on which to try her self-described "experiment"--something she could write another paper about or present at a conference. Furthermore, she obtained consent by using false justification and failing to inform us of the specific risks of her off label usage of the OrthAdapt bioimplant.
Was I foolish to allow my son to have this surgery? Absolutely. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!
Should we have gotten another opinion--or six--before letting her proceed? Without question. I feel terrible and responsible for that. But to recap her clinical notes: conservative options were "limited"; the definitive procedure had a significant risk ("early arthritis"); and fusion supposedly would remain a remedy if the experiment failed. Also, we were lulled by the fact that the original referral was to an orthopedic surgeon in an orthopedic clinic. The medical doctor to whom he was referred then handed him off to the "foot specialist" in the same clinic. Pottenger deserved to be sued and sanctioned as well, but he retired.
Why are podiatrists licensed to perform surgeries beyond their knowledge and skills? Because their well-paid lobbyists have persuaded legislators to allow it. When can an "experiment" be determined to be the "standard of care"? When the industry is self-regulated, not regulated by medical doctors; when the "expert" making the final determination is an equally reckless charlatan; and when an unjust 1975 law ("MICRA") establishes a cap on general damages that makes malpractice lawsuits economically unfeasible for ordinary citizens.
Since the experiment failed, the only losers have been my son (for pain, suffering, and the loss of his entire life for four+ years), the taxpayers (for lengthy investigation expenses that, without the filing of an accusation, could not be recovered), and the insurance company, which is paying medical costs that include five more surgeries, four+ hospitalizations, thousands of dollars worth of medication, and the ongoing costs of psychiatric and psychological care.
The reckless podiatrist still profited--and continues to profit, practice and experiment--with no sanctions whatsoever.
November, 2014 update: I suspect the cumulative effects of a full Medical Board investigation, a Board of Podiatry finding of prescribing negligence, and one or two insurance company peer reviews actually may have been significant factors, if not totally responsible, for the termination of her tenure at the orthopedic clinic. Although the clinic is still listed as the address on her license, staff says she has not been there for over a year and gives no forwarding address. Likewise, no other address is available online. As maintaining a valid address is a license requirement, the BOP has opened an investigation.
March, 2015 update: The mother of a patient found my Google review and called me. Duckworth is back in practice at Kaiser in Roseville, CA and recommending surgery for a her 12-yr-old child. I may have influenced her decision somewhat. If not, God help them.
