Dr. Atkins killed me, suit says

Cancer victim faulted diet guru's 'quackery'

By HELEN PETERSON and DON SINGLETON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

From beyond the grave, a woman who died of breast cancer is suing the late diet guru Dr. Robert Atkins for giving her the advice that she says ended up costing her life.
The suit, seeking unspecified damages, was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by the estate of Carol Rubick, a woman who died of breast cancer on Jan. 18, 2003, after receiving five years of oncological treatments at the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine.

The plaintiff, Linda Lou Poag, executrix of Rubick's estate, claims that Atkins and two other doctors at the Atkins Center were negligent in treating Rubick's cancer.

In 1995, Rubick, then 39, underwent a lumpectomy of her right breast for treatment of stage two breast cancer, according to court papers. The surgeon - not affiliated with Atkins - referred Rubick to a traditional oncologist for chemotherapy.

Rubick decided instead to pursue "alternative care" with Dr. Atkins, care that consisted of such "quackery" as dietary manipulation, enemas and vitamin therapy, the suit says.

In 2000, a new lump developed in Rubick's right breast and she underwent a mastectomy. Less than three years later, she died.

Poag's suit includes a physician's opinion that Rubick died "as a result of the care and treatment rendered by the defendants," and by their failure to advise her to go for chemotherapy.

An Internet search last week for information on the Atkins Center turned up an undated Web site carrying the following message: "Dr. Atkins is cutting back on his cancer practice - He is only doing cancer prevention and he does have a unique hormonal program for prostate cancer. He is focusing on his diet program."

In last week's published decision, Justice Joan Carey allowed the suit to proceed, granting a renewal of the original complaint, which was filed before the deaths of Rubick and Atkins.

Neither Poag; Rubick's lawyer, Roger Kunkis, nor Dawn Bristol, attorney for Atkins and his co-defendants, Drs. Fred Pescatore and Lawrence Kempf, could be reached for comment yesterday.

A spokesman for Veronica Atkins, Atkins' widow, did not return a reporter's phone calls yesterday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/st...7p-180119c.html

Rubick decided instead to pursue "alternative care"

nuff said.

Lez

Yep. The operative word there is "decided." Atkins did not force the treatment on her. Besides, who's to say she would have survived longer under chemotherapy? Even if she would have, the chemotherapy is like torture anyway. Those patients stay very ill during the treatments and I would suspect there are long term bad effects anyway. The lady made a choice. We all make choices who to believe and not to believe. Does that mean we should sue? Bah!

I agree; she was initially referred to a traditional oncologist by her surgeon, yet made the decision to pursue "alternative" treatment. She had already made her choice, then turned around and sued because she wasn't referred BACK to an oncologist for chemo??? Give me a break.

Let me get this straight. She asks Dr Atkins, "I refuse traditional treatment. What can I do instead?" He tells her. Now it's his fault that it didn't work?!

So what next, will patients sue their doctors because chemotherapy failed and they felt they should have been refered for "alternative" care ?

It's an unfortunate fact that cancer kills people and they are no garanteed treatment. She might have died with chemo also.

It's hard to find valid statistics, but the 5 year survival rate for breast cancer patients with chemotherapy appears to to a little under 75% today. This woman lived 8 years after the surgery for breast cancer. The survival rate for breast cancer was lower 9 years ago.

Incredible how greedy people and their lawyers are.

my thoughts exactly. my aunt went through a mastectomy and chemo, and then hysterectomy and chemo, about three years apart. she died last november of lung and liver cancer. can my aunt's family now sue her doctors for not sending her to alternative care treamtments that DO work for some people? i must have missed the news, but was a cure for cancer recently discovered? this suit is going nowhere!



what happened between her second masteectomy and her death? three years seem to be unaccounted for in the chronology. how did she die? did she receive chemo during that time? if so, can she now sue because it didn't work? if not, I guess she was still convinced it wasn't a option. who's really to blame here?

You know, if Atkins said to her "Carol Rubick, don't get chemotherapy. Instead, follow my diet and take some supplements which will magically cure cancer." I would totally agree with the suit. Such advice would be ridiculously dangerous and irresponsible to the point of quackery.

However, if she went to Atkins and was like "Dr. Atkins, I don't want to go through painful chemo... can I change my lifestyle in such a way as to slow the progression of or possibly cure cancer?" then the suit is completely unwarranted. If she went to Atkins for this specific request (a natural alternative to conventional cancer therapy), how can you blame Atkins if what she requested contributed to her death? Patients refuse therapy all the time, if you want to let cancer kill you (or try alternative and possibly eccentric/ineffective therapy instead) you have the freedom to pursue that choice.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not she was made aware of the possible ramifications of her actions. If she consciously set out to try alternative therapy and for whatever reason did not want traditional therapy, then she can't blame Atkins when it didn't work. However, if she just came to Atkins for her cancer, totally neutral in her preferred methods of treatment, and it was Atkins who was acting as a doctor by prescribing the (admittedly eccentric/unconventional) treatment methods he did... I think Atkins should be liable. Of course, the latter scenario is far less likely. I think it is far more likely that she refused traditional therapy and wanted to exclusively try natural remedies. Atkins did what he could for her, given the limitations (patients own refusal to try chemo).

I am not at all familiar with Atkins cancer practice, but I know there are a lot of non-conventional pseudo-medical treatment centers out there that spew a lot of crap, give people false hope based on fluff, and are responsible for people losing the chance that medical treatment could provide.

It's nearly impossible to sue, of course, because cancer is such an amorphous thing. Thankfully, these treatment centers have been at the very least leaving U.S. shores.

I believe it's fine to supplement medical treatment with alternative treatments, but it is irresponsible to tell people that all they need are a few enemas and multi-vitamins, and they'll be cured.

I don't know if the Atkins cancer treatment is anything like what I've just described, but if it is, I'm glad they've stopped. I know the weight loss diet works, but that doesn't mean that the Dr can do no wrong.

I've talked to people who went through chemo and are better years later, and I've talked to people who didn't and are better years later.

Considering how little we still know, I think it's very much a gray area on treatment that works, since many people do everything their doctors tell them and still succumb.

Now, the doctors cutting off the wrong leg...that's clear negligence. But pursuing your own choices in medical care is a right I support and hate to see denigrated.