Dan Buzzard Writes the Facts; Homeopath Francine Scrayen Threatens With the Law

Dan Buzzard is an Australian skeptic and atheist.  Francine Scrayen is the Australian classical homeopath who "treated" Penelope Dingle prior to Dingle's death from colorectal cancer in 2005.

Backstory

 Penelope Dingle began seeing homeopath Francine Scrayen April 4, 2001, for fertility and other issues, when Dingle was approximately 41. Beginning in October, 2001, Scrayen's treatment reports mention Dingle reporting "blood in her stool" and abdominal pain.  Dingle did not see a medical practitioner for her rectal bleeding until December, 2002; she was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in February 2003.  At that time, Dingle refused surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, and continued "treatment" from Francine Scrayen, which continued through the time Dingle was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery in October 2003.  There is some dispute over whether Dingle offered to sign a letter indemnifying Scrayen, or whether Scrayen asked for such a letter.  At any rate, Dingle severed her relationship with Scrayen.  In November, 2004, Penelope Dingle wrote two heart-wrenching letters to Scrayen, which were published by the Australian Broadcasting Company.

Dingle died August 23, 2005.

Current Issue

On February 16, 2011, Dan Buzzard posted Scammed to death: How Francine Scrayen killed Penelope Dingle.  Late in March, 2012, Penelope Dingle's sister filed suit in Australian court against Francine Scrayen.  On March 31, 2012, Dan Buzzard posted Homeopath Francine Scrayen in Court for the Death of Her "Patient".

On April 5, 2012, Francine Scrayen's attorneys sent Buzzard a "cease and desist" letter, which Buzzard discusses at Francine Scrayen sends me a Cease and Desist.

Responses (I will be updating this silently as more posts are made or found)

• April 5, 2012 Guy Chapman's Blahg: Ms. Scrayen?  Ms. Streisand on Line 1
• April 5, 2012 Reasonable Hank Dangerous Homeopath SLAPPs Dan Buzzard
• April 5, 2012 Keir Liddle at The Twenty-first Floor Homeopath Sues Skeptical Blogger
• April 5, 2012 Adam at Dianthus.com The Harm of Homeopathy
• April 5, 2012 Sharon Hill at Skeptic Homeopath Threatens Blogger with Legal Action
• April 5, 2012 Helen deWitt at Paperpools Bad Science
• April 5, 2012 Noticias criminalogia La homeópata, Francine Scrayen en los tribunales por la muerte de su “paciente”.
• April 5, 2012 Dragonblaze at Steelclaws on Snake Oil Who Was Penelope Dingle and Why What Happened to Her Matters
• April 5, 2012 Michael Simpson at Skeptical Raptor Supporting A Fellow Blogger Who Is Being Attacked by a Homeopath
• April 5, 2012 Angela Meadon at Skeptic Detective Killer Homeopath Doesn’t Understand the Streisand Effect
• April 6, 2012 Chrys Stevenson at Gladly the Cross-Eyed Bear When the Despicable Cry Defamation
• April 6, 2012 Fluxosaurus at Fluxosaurus Bully Tactics by Homeopath Invites Blogging Backlash
• April 6, 2012 Jacques Russeau at Synapes What's The Harm?  Homeopathy Can (Indirectly) Kill You
• April 6, 2012 Dave at Dave D's Blog When Charlatans Attack!
• April 6, 2012 Anarchic Teapot at Short & Spiky Francine Scrayen, The Litigious Liar
• April 6, 2012 Peter Bowditch at Peter Bowditch's Blog: Homeoquack Doesn't Like the Truth
• April 6, 2012 Skandal in Australien: Penelope Dingle ist tot, und ihr Homöopath will einen Blogger verklagen, der darüber schreibt

Sources

• June 10 2010 The Australian Cancer Death Puts Homeopathy in Dock
• June 16 2010 Perth Now Husband: Cancer victim Penelope Dingle 'in awe" of homeopath
• June 18 2010 Perth Now Cancer Victim "Fanatical" About Her Faith
• June 18 2012 Sydney Morning Herald Homeopath Denies Asking for Indemnity
• June 22 2010  WA Today Dingle's Cruel Cancer Remedies
• June 23 2010 Perth Now Coroner Questions Whether Cancer Victim Penelope Dingle "Too Dependent" on Homeopath
• July 30, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald Inquest into Dingle Death
• July 30, 2010 Coronial Inquest Into The Death Of Penelope Dingle (nee Brown) – Alastair Hope, State Coroner of Western Australia.
• November 7, 2011 Penelope Dingle's Letters to Francine Scrayen
• March 31, 2012 The West Australian Woman Sues Homeopath over Sister's Cancer Death

Comments

[Kylie Sturgess]

But it's NOT the facts, certainly not as they currently stand in legal parlance.
The Australian courts did NOT rule that she was killed. The State Coroner said in the link you give at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/:
'Mr Hope said that while Dr Dingle had been an active participant in his wife's decision-making "ultimately the decisions were those of the deceased. The deceased paid a terrible price for poor decision-making."'

I can understand why this has now resulted in legal proceedings, as you cannot make blog-post judgments like that without the potential ramifications. It's up to the courts, not bloggers.

[Michael Simpson]

Kylie,

I think that the point here is that Scrayen pretended to be a medical practitioner, when she most certainly isn't. If she thinks a bottle of water can cure rectal cancer, and not urge her "patient" to seek other advice, just in case, then she is guilty of depraved indifference to human life. That is a crime. Scrayen is, at a minimum, guilty of gross unethical behavior. In either case, she should be charged with a felony and tossed in prison for as long as the Australian legal system can keep her.

I do not know or understand the British/Australian legal system with regards to free speech. In the US, as long as we don't call Scrayen a murderer (which I'll assume she isn't), and if we use public information, we're mostly safe. You should read up on Stanislaw Burzynski and his clinic. He tried to suppress bloggers. That didn't go over well.

And since Australian courts don't have a shot at getting to me here, I'm going to call out Francine Scrayen as an unethical homeopath (kind of redundant) who had a depraved view of human life.

[me]

Incorrect: "Scrayen pretended to be a medical practitioner, when she most certainly isn't."

-- In Australia as wel as in Europe classical homeopathy is licensed, regulated and legal and they are therefore definitely medical practitioners. Whatever your opinion about homeopathy may be, that doesn't change the fact that it has been recognized by governments in several countries around the world as a valid therapeutic form. Therefore your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion, if not hyperbole. Free speech does indeed also protect talking nonsene.

Another major mistake in your narrative: Mrs Dingle wrote heartbreaking letters... and the detail you ignore - but she never sent them... Why? Why not?

Mrs Scrayen is too easy a target in this story that is a bit more complicated than your standard homeopathy is quackery, let's get rid of it.

Several people made several choices and all had their own personal responsability. A bit more balance might go a long way, if you even so much as care about the truth.

[me too]

Dear Me.
Please describe how homeopathy in Australia is licensed and regulated. It's self-regulated, which is different from effective regulation.

Homeopaths therefore CAN decide to treat cancer, because there are no constraints on their practice (the Australian homeopathy peak body has been almost completely silent on the Dingle case). When they decide to treat cancer, their patients are highly likely to end up dead. Hopefully the civil case will set a major precedent so homeopaths stop claiming to be able to treat anything vaguely life-threatening.

[anarchic teapot]

Ah, so "me" is the duty Scrayen shill?

Dear "me": my profession is also licenced, regulated and legal. Does that make me a medical practitioner too?

[DenialWatch]

In the USA, Scrayen could have been sued for "medical malpractice" under this legal criteria:

"A duty was owed: a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient.

"A duty was breached: the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard care.

"The breach caused an injury: The breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury.

"Damage: Without damage (losses which may be pecuniary or emotional), there is no basis for a claim, regardless of whether the medical provider was negligent. Likewise, damage can occur without negligence, for example, when someone dies from a fatal disease."

[Dave Davis]

@ "me",
You write: "Mrs Dingle wrote heartbreaking letters... and the detail you ignore - but she never sent them... Why? Why not?"
Have you considered the possibility that Mrs Dingle was more than a little unwell, and that she had other priorities?
You also write: "Mrs Scrayen is too easy a target in this story".
No, Scrayen is still alive. Mrs Dingle would be the easy target, as she is unable to answer for herself now. Hence the widespread anger.

[Private Schools Australia]

The blog is very interesting. I read the full blog and must say the subject of the blog is very fascinating. Keep up the good work. I would love to read more of your articles.