The patient
Ann, from Aberdeen, finally got the diagnosis she had been waiting for in January.
After two years of tests it should have been a relief with recovery in sight.
Instead, she feels she has become a victim of the waiting lists controversy, with her operation now delayed until the summer, and all the while she has to endure poor health.
Ann was told in the new year she would need to have her gall bladder removed with her consultant outlining the possibility of an operation within three months in Glasgow, Dundee or Edinburgh.
She received a letter outlining a target date for the operation of April 11.
"Naturally I was very pleased about this as my illness is worsening and resulted in an emergency admittance earlier that month," she said.
Ann, who lives alone, started to make plans for her daughter to come home from Australia to be around at the time.
But her plans were thrown into chaos by a phone call from the health board.
She said: "I was asked if I would go elsewhere in Scotland to have my operation and I said no. I was also asked if I would consider a different surgeon and again I said no as I had confidence in the consultant who said the operation was his speciality.
"I was told that because I was unavailable I would have to wait longer. I pointed out that I was not unavailable and I could go to hospital at short notice or take a cancellation."
She then received a new target date for the operation of June 14 with the letter outlining her "period of unavailability" from March 13 to May 5.
Ann added: "It implies I am responsible for the wait, but I have been available since the date of diagnosis. It wouldn't have been so bad if I had never received the first letter and accepted the wait, but it strikes me as a way to manipulate waiting time statistics."
She said the delay could have cost her dearly given that she was going to pay for her daughter to return to Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article