The Seven-Year Itch to Destroy

It turns out that if you don't visit a doctor for seven years, that doctor is well within his rights to destroy all evidence of your existence... at least, when it comes to his own files. For those of you with long-term, slowly-progressing diseases, this is a handy thing for you to keep in mind. I kinda wish I had known it.

When I was first diagnosed, I went to visit some researchers doing state-of-the-art stuff in Boston. It was an international crew of rogue retina enthusiasts. They were entertaining and only made me want to puke a couple of times. They played with lasers and radioactive dye.

Within five years, that practice had dissolved. I still went for follow-up visits, heading up to Boston every four or five years to see the guy who had been in charge. This, quirky, larger-than-life gentleman tried to speak as quickly as he thought, but it was usually a losing battle. He spoke many words to me but rarely, if ever, told me anything super-useful.

At the end of each visit, he would casually suggest that I come back in four or five years. If I felt like it. He didn't imply that it was all that important. From the usefulness o each visit, and the travel costs of getting to and from Boston, I didn't really disagree.

My last visit there was in the summer of 2002. And then, in February, I got the news about my change in prognosis. I asked the current experts if the old tests results might be helpful to them, and they were interested in seeing them.

Now, we get back to that seven-year issue. I tracked down that retina doctor, the one who had been so casual about my ever coming back. His office, it seems, has dutifully destroyed everything that had my name on it. They must have done so promptly at the seven-year mark. I called twice, and even brought up the fact that I had sent him a letter, at his office, in mid-2003. Nothing.

I called my current, regular ophthalmologist, hoping they had sent him my records back in the day. They sent him a letter. No hard data, no images: just a letter.

It's amazing to me that someone would engage in a field that involves long-term study, watching cases over years and decades, and still would have no clue about the importance o archives. Sure, the law allows you to get rid of your files after a while... but the law also allows banks to foreclose on people who have filed for medical bankruptcy. It allows men to walk out on their families and do nothing but pay child support. It doesn't make either one the right thing to do.

So much for my latest contribution to science. On the bright side, I now have a reason to hold on to all my bank statements from 1998. Someone might need them for science.