Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Dr. Karin L. Hastik, MD
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
Dr. Hastik is an accomplished and highly respected psychopharmacologist in the medical community. Since her licensure, she has seen thousands of patients. I am confident that her history of quality care will go unabated by this incident.
The accusations and results therein are essentially based on a lack of supportive paperwork. Period. I am not saying that is not a fault. But everything snowballs after that since without such documentation, the accused cannot properly defend him or herself and it becomes a he said/she said situation. Also, there is trial by no jury here. This is administrative law. I suggest you read the Public Interest site about their issues with various Medical Boards and their lack of standards in managing these types of cases.
There are really two issues raised here ? one is the interpretation and clear understanding of the judgment and the other regarding her speaking for drug companies, of which she has done for a long time. This is America and she has a right to speak for whomever she wants. She does not work for the government. If you don?t like it, see another doctor.
Your comments about the ?degree? of sentencing, as well as that a dishonesty decision ""almost went against her"" is essentially libelous. In this country, a n individual is not guilty until proven so. You so obviously fail to cite that SIX accusations were dropped ---including that of dishonesty. What remains are all again, are charges that remain that could not be supported due to a lack of documentation. I can assure you that if the Board believed that this physician was endangering the lives of patients, they would have acted with much greater urgency rather than dragging the case out over 5 years.
They are a variety of gross negligence case from the Medical Board?s perspective, yet are treated very differently in terms of ?sentencing? ? albeit not necessarily fairly. You can view the many inconsistencies regarding these types of cases via the various Medical Board newsletters. Go read about these cases ? look them up. They will surprise if not shock the average individual. They are all over the place. Some physicians have killed patients and they 3 years probation. Others have sex with a patient and they lose their license. There was a recent psychiatrist in the State of CA who killed a patient due to gross negligence and got off on 3 years with a plea bargain.
The real conflict of interest is how Medical Boards operate. The Board makes annual fees off the doctor on probate as do the individuals that take the required courses as well as the monitors. The term ?monitor? is also somewhat misleading. The monitor is not someone who sits in a room with the doctor and patient and watches them interact. That would be in violation of HIPAA rules and regulations. And the physician on probation gets to choose the monitor.
I also want to mention that the Psychcrimereporter website and some of its reference are affiliated with the Church of Scientology. It is nothing but biased journalism.
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|