On 17/04/2014 at 21:49, Webber said:

I guess it's not the time to spill the real truth on Dermie's broken 'johnson' episode then?

haha now that was a classic!!

  On 17/04/2014 at 22:18, Ingeniokinetikey said:

If your the same Richard Webber that works for the Hawthorn Physio Clinic, you guys could have done more to hobble Hawthorn when you had the contract. Hate that club.

Haha, unfortunately, many of them were seemingly indestructible...

  On 17/04/2014 at 21:49, Webber said:

I guess it's not the time to spill the real truth on Dermie's broken 'johnson' episode then?

Quite!

I don't really care either way, but as long as you know which of your patients give a rats and which don't, I guess you'll be fine...

  On 18/04/2014 at 20:05, Undeeterred said:

Quite!

I don't really care either way, but as long as you know which of your patients give a rats and which don't, I guess you'll be fine...

I guess after 25 years in a profession, maybe it's just too crazy still to think I might have some idea. Lucky I've got the moral arbiters on demonland to keep me on my toes

  On 18/04/2014 at 21:35, Webber said:

I guess after 25 years in a profession, maybe it's just too crazy still to think I might have some idea. Lucky I've got the moral arbiters on demonland to keep me on my toes

I'm only getting back on this thread due to your "moral arbiters" labeling.

After 25 years one would think you would have some idea and understand your professional obligations towards patient privacy. Here's a reminder:

http://health.vic.gov.au/patientcharter/healthcare-rights-inVictoria/index.htm

"Everyone involved in your treatment and care has a professional and legal duty to keep information about you confidential. They will only share information with someone not involved in your care with your permission."

There area few exceptions, of course, but I don't believe revealing names and medical details of ex patients on a footy forum open to the public is one of them.

The Victorian Health Records Act 2001 also deals with privacy of patient information, when it can be shared and with whom.

You told us a footballer's name that you were treating, his medical condition and said he lied about his treatment and condition.

Others have called you out on this thread for breach of privacy. You're kidding yourself to think it's OK.

back to jack trengove.............

he supposedly had his op on wednesday

anyone hear how he fared, how successful the op was, what the surgeon found etc?

  On 17/04/2014 at 12:20, america de cali said:

Not just our problem but the entire games problem. We are just having a rash of them at the moment. In the old days, boots were made more for support and protection rather than performance. Now days they are made to allow unrestricted speed and agility. This takes priority and passes the buck to medical technology to deal with the resulting injuries.

Thats terrible, you would think the engineers would be able to improve the boots to allow for unrestricted speed and agility without putting players feet at risk of injury.

It isn't a good look on boot manufacturers behalf to have so many players going down with injured feet while wearing there boots.

FMD, you'll believe anything...

Haven't posted here yet but will now.

I hope the kid comes back and I feel bad hearing about this. I thought he was a lost cause as far back as two rounds ago.It was always in the back of my mind that it might have been an injury but he had been playing for two years with barely a break. I was sure that he had hit his peak and we shouldn't persist with him.

This injury makes it all so very clear why he has been so slow. I'm glad it's been found and it can be treated. Trenners might be able to reboot his career from this point.

  On 19/04/2014 at 03:38, Machsy said:

FMD, you'll believe anything...

Get over yourself mate, you aren't doing yourself any favors with pathetic posts like this.

  On 19/04/2014 at 02:54, Moonshadow said:

I'm only getting back on this thread due to your "moral arbiters" labeling.

After 25 years one would think you would have some idea and understand your professional obligations towards patient privacy. Here's a reminder: http://health.vic.gov.au/patientcharter/healthcare-rights-inVictoria/index.htm

"Everyone involved in your treatment and care has a professional and legal duty to keep information about you confidential. They will only share information with someone not involved in your care with your permission."

There area few exceptions, of course, but I don't believe revealing names and medical details of ex patients on a footy forum open to the public is one of them.

The Victorian Health Records Act 2001 also deals with privacy of patient information, when it can be shared and with whom.

You told us a footballer's name that you were treating, his medical condition and said he lied about his treatment and condition.

Others have called you out on this thread for breach of privacy. You're kidding yourself to think it's OK.

Have you imagined for a second that said details, in fact the anecdote entire and with much greater detail, has been made public, and to a much greater readership (actually listenership) than that on here, by the footballer at the heart of the anecdote? (No names!) Do you know the person, and how he feels about the anecdote, and it's public reiteration? Unless you can answer yes to these questions, your objections, your spectacularly condescending and preachy posting of Vic Health Records Act, are an exercise in pure grandstanding at the very least. Your imputations of offence and unprofessionalism could not be more misplaced.

  On 19/04/2014 at 05:36, Webber said:

Have you imagined for a second that said details, in fact the anecdote entire and with much greater detail, has been made public, and to a much greater readership (actually listenership) than that on here, by the footballer at the heart of the anecdote? (No names!) Do you know the person, and how he feels about the anecdote, and it's public reiteration? Unless you can answer yes to these questions, your objections, your spectacularly condescending and preachy posting of Vic Health Records Act, are an exercise in pure grandstanding at the very least. Your imputations of offence and unprofessionalism could not be more misplaced.

Nice try. But it's you that has questions to answer to, not me. If the hat fits....

  On 19/04/2014 at 03:43, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Haven't posted here yet but will now.

I hope the kid comes back and I feel bad hearing about this. I thought he was a lost cause as far back as two rounds ago.It was always in the back of my mind that it might have been an injury but he had been playing for two years with barely a break. I was sure that he had hit his peak and we shouldn't persist with him.

This injury makes it all so very clear why he has been so slow. I'm glad it's been found and it can be treated. Trenners might be able to reboot his career from this point.

Does it? I find that hard to believe.

Can you shed some light on this?

  On 19/04/2014 at 03:10, daisycutter said:

back to jack trengove.............

he supposedly had his op on wednesday

anyone hear how he fared, how successful the op was, what the surgeon found etc?

His foot is still attached to his leg dc!

  On 19/04/2014 at 05:36, Webber said:

Have you imagined for a second that said details, in fact the anecdote entire and with much greater detail, has been made public, and to a much greater readership (actually listenership) than that on here, by the footballer at the heart of the anecdote? (No names!) Do you know the person, and how he feels about the anecdote, and it's public reiteration? Unless you can answer yes to these questions, your objections, your spectacularly condescending and preachy posting of Vic Health Records Act, are an exercise in pure grandstanding at the very least. Your imputations of offence and unprofessionalism could not be more misplaced.

As is his right and it can be repeated if it's on a public forum.

I'm not comfortable with a treating professional giving his take on it though without permission. I think you have made a mistake here 'Webber' , we all do. Lets move on.

  On 19/04/2014 at 07:16, old dee said:

His foot is still attached to his leg dc!

phew.....that's a relief od

  On 19/04/2014 at 07:16, old dee said:

His foot is still attached to his leg dc!

Yes but is his leg still attached to his body.

  On 19/04/2014 at 07:15, KingDingAling said:

Does it? I find that hard to believe.

Can you shed some light on this?

Someone might be able to confirm this but while the injury has just been discovered, didn't the club come out and say at some stage that it is likely to have been around for at least 2 years?

  On 15/04/2014 at 06:23, ManDee said:

Maybe he and Mitch could go surfing, have a look at the real world. Could be good for both of them. Good luck Jack.

Sounds like a plan. Love to see both him and Mitch Clark return in 2015,

  On 19/04/2014 at 07:29, rjay said:

As is his right and it can be repeated if it's on a public forum.

I'm not comfortable with a treating professional giving his take on it though without permission. I think you have made a mistake here 'Webber' , we all do. Lets move on.

While I think this thread moving on is the correct way forward I'd like to add my two cents here, as not everyone here thinks a mistake has been made, many don't know either way.

Webber is an experienced physio. Many here have met him through forum footy or otherwise. If he insists he hasn't done anything wrong I think we should back him to know his professional responsibilities.

If this story had already be told publicly by the patient either in a book, in a team mates book, at a sportsman's night, in an interview etc. then it is public knowledge.

Webber's post did not give anything away that sounded like it wouldn't be public knowledge.

I agree that patient details are the strictest confidence, and hope that Webber has in fact followed protocol. But I expect he has.

  On 18/04/2014 at 21:35, Webber said:

I guess after 25 years in a profession, maybe it's just too crazy still to think I might have some idea. Lucky I've got the moral arbiters on demonland to keep me on my toes

I was actually being conciliatory and giving you an easy back out, by highlighting that yes, it was up to you to make your own calls.

  On 19/04/2014 at 15:46, Undeeterred said:

I was actually being conciliatory and giving you an easy back out, by highlighting that yes, it was up to you to make your own calls.

If it's up to him to make his own calls, then you can't actually give him a way to back out as that right is not yours to give.

Anyway … back to JT and his foot?

  On 19/04/2014 at 19:33, bing181 said:

If it's up to him to make his own calls, then you can't actually give him a way to back out as that right is not yours to give.

Anyway … back to JT and his foot?

I meant a back out from continuing the argument, but way to carry it on.

  On 19/04/2014 at 07:29, rjay said:

As is his right and it can be repeated if it's on a public forum.

I'm not comfortable with a treating professional giving his take on it though without permission. I think you have made a mistake here 'Webber' , we all do. Lets move on.

ray, you and Moonshadow are in complete and utter ignorance of the privacy details of my anecdote and yet you continue to ply your presumptions with a pedantry which is too often seen on here. You overstate your objections ("we all do") and claim the moral high ground when in fact you're in quicksand. There is no mistake, nor offence, nor breach. If you are not 'comfortable' then that is YOUR issue, not mine.

  On 19/04/2014 at 15:02, deanox said:

While I think this thread moving on is the correct way forward I'd like to add my two cents here, as not everyone here thinks a mistake has been made, many don't know either way.

Webber is an experienced physio. Many here have met him through forum footy or otherwise. If he insists he hasn't done anything wrong I think we should back him to know his professional responsibilities.

If this story had already be told publicly by the patient either in a book, in a team mates book, at a sportsman's night, in an interview etc. then it is public knowledge.

Webber's post did not give anything away that sounded like it wouldn't be public knowledge.

I agree that patient details are the strictest confidence, and hope that Webber has in fact followed protocol. But I expect he has.

As I have deanox. We move on.