Ban is not fair, says blind osteopath

Dennis Wells wants to take his case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Picture / Martin Sykes

Blind osteopath Dennis Wells complains he is suffering unfair discrimination under rules forcing him to work in a group practice because of fears his patients might otherwise be at risk.

The Osteopathic Council will not let him practise unless he works with at least one other osteopath and, in effect, usually two.

It is concerned about the safety of his patients over things such as his ability to read reports about them from other health workers - and the risk of his tripping over toys left lying about by patients' children.

A 42-year-old who qualified last year, Mr Wells went blind in 1999, mainly from a genetic eye condition. He had to move from Christchurch to Whangarei for employment that met the council's stipulations and wants the option of working independently.

He said he was New Zealand's only blind osteopath, but about five blind physiotherapists were able to practise without similar restrictions. One is Don McKenzie, chairman of the Foundation of the Blind.

"It seems to me," Mr McKenzie said, "that the Osteopathic Council have prejudged Mr Wells' competence and his capabilities and haven't given him a fair go.

"I don't think it's justified, given that there are hundreds upon hundreds of blind physiotherapists practising ... around the world."

Mr Wells said his case went to mediation through the Human Rights Commission, but that did not resolve the matter.

He now wanted the director of human rights proceedings to take it to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

The council would not discuss the case with the Herald, saying it needed more time, but Mr Wells outlined the registration authority's concerns about his computer's interpretation of information and images, his response to patients' skin conditions and environmental hazards.

He uses a talking computer which reads out reports, such as those from radiologists about x-rays of patients. Mr Wells said the council questioned the computer's ability to cope with medical terms and bad handwriting. He said the demands on the technology were no greater now that he was qualified than when he used it during his training. It could not translate pictures, but he could phone the sender of the information for direct advice.

In being unable to read handwriting, Mr Wells' computer left him at little greater disadvantage than other health workers struggling to interpret a colleague's illegible hand, he said.

Faced with uncertainty, any health practitioner would contact the author, for the safety of the patient.

In response to worries about the risks posed by patients' skin infections, he said he used rubber gloves and would refer patients' concerns to a skin specialist or GP.

Answering concerns about children's toys on the floor, he said hazards were commonplace "and you deal with them if they arise ... I live in a sighted world and have reached the age of 42 without serious injury."