I was on the change.org mailing list. I have read the emails sent out by Amy Reed’s husband, Hooman Noorchashm. Not once did Dr Noorchashm threaten or state any violent intent. He spoke of legally pursuing the hospital for extremely serious harm. These hospitals are run by bureacrats who put profits before people. While on one hand I personally thought Dr Noorchashm was sending out his emails a little too frequently, other than that, I found nothing offensive about the emails, no threats of violence, no indication that he was violent. Anger is fine by me! Here is a person seeking justice through a malpractice claim and by mobilizing the public to promote change and more safety for patients. He speaks of access to information about medical equipment and procedures and about all alternatives.
I don’t see the connection here with potential violence. How did the Brigham decide this man was a violent threat? Well, he is a legal threat to them, but that is not justification for treating him as if he is carrying a weapon and planning violence. This is a classic example of a hospital retaliating against a person, terrorizing him as a way of stopping him from telling the truth.
It is also an example of speculation gone too far, although I rather think this was retaliation and intent to terrorize Noorchashm.
Readers of this blog are well aware of what happened to me. I was abused at Massachusetts General Hospital, then, because I spoke out about it, the hospital retaliated. First, I was illegally denied care and lied to about the reasons. Then, I was threatened numerous times by my MGH outpatient psychiatrist, then, after I ended up in another hospital with kidney failure, the hospital personnel abused me, KNOWING I WAS A RISK, NOT TO MYSELF, BUT TO THEM. They knew I was not violent, nor was I a danger to myself. They knew my pen was the threat. Telling the truth is not a crime!
Any investigative reporters want to take this up? I’m game.