Where the Management make the patients look sane :)
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, 6 July 2009
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Dr Helen Bright on Whistleblowing
Dr Helen Bright who authors the excellent GMC Human Rights website stated as follows
Sphere: Related Content
"Nobody protects whistleblowers. Courts have no respect for law as they serve the government so if one is criticising event (s) within the state industry forget it.
It is worth remembering that many people have been promoted to their level of incompetence (Peter Principle) and one discovers it to one's cost.Professional regulators do not investigate, call witnesses but persecute critical professionals to the bitter end.There is no mercy for the whistleblowers and eventually one looses everything.It is completely irrelevant that whistleblower acts in public interest as good public is disregarded by the epowerful, except at the times of election"
Friday, 3 July 2009
Dr J Fielden and Ann Keen. Both Divorced from Reality.
The Times has an amusing piece on whistleblowing recently.
Sphere: Related Content
Dr J Fielden states the following "The General Medical Council needs to give the message that as long as you act reasonably, following guidelines set by your organisation, then you are not going to fall foul of the regulator"
And they are going to give that message are they? They are the driftnet to catch all whistleblowers. Every whistleblower I know has fallen foul of the General Medical Council on frivolous allegations. For Raj Mattu in Coventry, it was "Bullying", for me it was a "typographical error and "link", for Peter Wilmshurst it was " placing the profession into disrepute" and so on. Besides it is not your regulator you need to watch out for in the first instance. Resentment and disapproval comes first from colleagues who find themselves inconvenienced by a whistleblower .Even if they personally have done nothing wrong, the attention a whistleblower attracts to their department/practise etc is almost always unwelcome. Enhanced scrutiny inevitably leads to additional work. Reports need to be written, statistics compiled, rugs turned back and the dirt swept out from underneath. It is messy, difficult work and who likes extra work. Those same colleagues quickly become disgruntled and take their displeasure out on the whistleblower. Before long, they become the butt of every joke, the cause of every problem and the scapegoat for every difficulty - referrals to regulators are inevitable, even though the whistleblower may have done nothing but try and improve the services.
Ann Keen on the other hand should be referred to the NMC for misleading the public. She states
All the research on PIDA shows that it is ineffective. The government have been concealing that.
Ann Keen on the other hand should be referred to the NMC for misleading the public. She states
"If a member of staff does not feel comfortable about raising concerns with their employer, there are other routes that still afford the protection of PIDA. These include raising the matter with a legal adviser, their union or staff organisation, their MP or the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission"
All the research on PIDA shows that it is ineffective. The government have been concealing that.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Cure the NHS
Cure the NHS is a distinctly innocent group of campaigners. I spotted one of them today on the Politics Programme. Apparently, they were shocked and startled that the government had refused Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. What Julie fails to understand is her hospital is not the only hospital with such poor care. It is simply a hospital that was noticed. Other hospitals simply go unnoticed due to the lack of community spirit etc.
Their campaign is laudable. After ten years they will find themselves in the same state. They will also find that there is no justice, or improvement of healthcare or anything of the sort. The only people that make money and fame out of the deaths of patients are the MPs and the lawyers. I suspect a lot of money will be spent on various clauses through litigation. These scandals simply follow a re-run much like ground hog day. We have to ask ourselves what happened to the Thameside Group who promised so much but delivered so little. After 18 months Julie Bailey is exasperated. It has only been 18 months. After a decade, no doubt the hospital will simply be as it used to be - because that is the culture of the NHS.
In the meantime just down the road in Stoke on Trent, Dr Ahmed has persuaded the Express to support him. He is featured in the papers again today. The CQC have apparently taken up his concerns which is a step in the right direction. Of course, the CQC are rather capricious.
Sphere: Related Content
Their campaign is laudable. After ten years they will find themselves in the same state. They will also find that there is no justice, or improvement of healthcare or anything of the sort. The only people that make money and fame out of the deaths of patients are the MPs and the lawyers. I suspect a lot of money will be spent on various clauses through litigation. These scandals simply follow a re-run much like ground hog day. We have to ask ourselves what happened to the Thameside Group who promised so much but delivered so little. After 18 months Julie Bailey is exasperated. It has only been 18 months. After a decade, no doubt the hospital will simply be as it used to be - because that is the culture of the NHS.
In the meantime just down the road in Stoke on Trent, Dr Ahmed has persuaded the Express to support him. He is featured in the papers again today. The CQC have apparently taken up his concerns which is a step in the right direction. Of course, the CQC are rather capricious.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Mr Shiban Ahmed, Circumcisions, Suspensions and Intrigue
Mr S Ahmed suspended by North Staffordshire NHS Trust was featured recently by the Express Newspapers. Hailed as the whistleblower and I suspect the media are hoping for another Bristol. Quite a different spin is given by This is Staffordshire. Moreover, there appears to be some litigation afoot.
Richard Dawkins website has an interesting discussion. Sphere: Related ContentIn it the consultant, whom The Sentinel is not identifying, said: "As I think you are aware, Mr Ahmed is currently suspended, but the reason for this is not entirely clear."
He added: "There seems a perception that Mr Ahmed is causing the concerns to be raised and that this in some way serves his own interest.
"I believe that he is answering both his conscience and professional duty, possibly at some significant personal cost."
Monday, 22 June 2009
North Staffs Management "fibbing" Again
So there is apparently another whistleblower at North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The Express lists a article.
"AN NHS trust has been accused of victimising an eminent paediatrician who claimed that a baby’s death and at least 28 botched operations on children were caused by unskilled doctors"
Apparently, North Staffs are saying "He has mental health problems". Fascinating. So, the fact that they grabbed my poetry and said the samething about me in 1998 when I raised concerns on Ward 87 is merely a coincidence. The fact that that rumour settled within the GMC is probably also a coincidence. Or we could say that North Staffordshire management just has a way with whistleblowers. That way is to say they are bonkers so no one believes them.
This is what North Staffs had to say
This is what North Staffs had to say
"A spokesman for the UHNS NHS Trust said: “No one has ever been, or would be, suspended for blowing the whistle at University Hospital of North Staffordshire. The trust cannot comment on issues relating to individual members of staff.”
ROFL. The Trust attempted to discipline me after I had raised concerns in 1998. They failed miserably of course. This case will be interesting to watch. The good thing is that consultants are normally considered right despite the fact there are no independent figures backing this doctor. Nevertheless, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is all looking bleak from here because thats the way it goes at North Staffordshire. The management is a bit like a cesspit of poisonous snakes. If you don't get out, they devour you. It is a simple message for our whistleblower - time to extract himself from the Trust before the Trust extracts him from medicine.
No doubt the GMC will be sniffing around here wondering whether they should get their clawed hand into this fiasco just to ensure a fair mix. Mind you, he is a brave whistleblower for giving data to the media given the GMC's new guidance on confidentiality.
Sphere: Related Content
No doubt the GMC will be sniffing around here wondering whether they should get their clawed hand into this fiasco just to ensure a fair mix. Mind you, he is a brave whistleblower for giving data to the media given the GMC's new guidance on confidentiality.
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Dedicated to all my ex lawyers
"Queen's Counsel" by Stuart & Francis Staff :
Sphere: Related Content
"Who lost the case?" "Not I said the eminent silk, my junior let me down." "Not I said the Junior, my instructing solicitor was to blame" "Not I said the solicitor, my associate dropped the ball." Not I said the Associate. I was never supposed to work on this case. no one explained it to me, and anyway, I'm getting out of here in three weeks".
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
I recently wrote a piece called " After Bristol". During its research I discovered some interesting facts about PIDA [ Public Interest Disclosure Act]. The upshot of the research is this - the government says it is working but the research says it isn't. So is the government misleading us all?
In the media, the government's position is as follows
A spokesman for the Department of Health insisted that the law did not need to be changed and that anyone who raised concerns about patient care would be protected.
He said: "Whistleblowers already have full protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
"We expect that any member of staff who reports concerns about the safety or quality of care to be listened to by their managers and action taken to address their concerns"
The main research has been done by Middlesex University
Professor Dave Lewis wrote the following some years ago.
"Although PIDA has been commended for skilfully balancing the interests of the public and of employers’, it could be argued that in reality employers' interests have been given prominence. Indeed, some would argue that internal whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures can work against the public interest in that they facilitate cover–ups and deprive the public of information about wrongdoing.In the light of our conclusion that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers we make the following suggestions for reform. Firstly, in accordance with the basic approach to rights taken by HRA 1998, workers should be given a positive right to report concerns. This should be afforded to all those who work for and receive remuneration from another person or the State. Instead of excluding the security services altogether, it would be preferable to devise special rules for the protection of information about international relations and intelligence."
Then a review was done for 10 years of PIDA, the conclusions were as follows
"Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the operation of the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) during its first 10 years and to consider its implications for the whistleblowing process. Method The article sets the legislation into context by discussing the common law background. It then gives detailed consideration to the statutory provisions and how they have been interpreted by the courts and tribunals. Results In assessing the impact of the legislation’s approach to whistleblowing both in the UK and elsewhere, the author draws upon empirical research. Conclusion The author concludes that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers and makes 12 recommendations for change. Despite the European Commission’s acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that common standards for their protection still seem a long way off"
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Anonymous Medical Blogging
An interesting case in the Register for all those who wish to remain anonymous is this one.
A large number of medical bloggers are anonymous. Those bloggers are Dr Crippen, Jobbing Doctor, Witchdoctor et al. All of whom provide a good service for the rebel blogsphere.
They are anonymous mostly because they do not want the General Medical Council to deeply breathe down their neck. It is an uncomfortable feeling and believe me - not a pleasant experience. The entire judgment can be read here.
A large number of medical bloggers are anonymous. Those bloggers are Dr Crippen, Jobbing Doctor, Witchdoctor et al. All of whom provide a good service for the rebel blogsphere.
They are anonymous mostly because they do not want the General Medical Council to deeply breathe down their neck. It is an uncomfortable feeling and believe me - not a pleasant experience. The entire judgment can be read here.
"The Times has overturned a court order which sought to protect the anonymity of a police blogger known as NightJack.
The blog, which has now been deleted, detailed the life and views of a serving police detective. Earlier this year it won an Orwell prize for political writing"
The blogger is Richard Horton a 45-year old detective constable with Lancashire Constabulary. When contacted by Murdoch's organ he sought an injunction to protect his privacy. But Justice Eady ruled he had no right to anonymity"
Well, of course Richard Horton was going to be outed as the writer. Afterall he applied for the injunction! Well at least he got the Common Purpose prize for his blog.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust Whistleblower
Mid Staffordshire Lawyers Lawyers in Stafford are being paid large amounts of money to prevent whistleblowers from talking to the media. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust is insecure. We know why they are insecure. They know the death rate [ if monitored adequately] would have shown how thousands died in the last 27 years. Similar quality of care is seen in North Staffordshire NHS Trust, the Trust who sported a 3 million compensation bill in comparison to the £600,000 for Mid Staffordshire. We don't talk about things like that do we? Not in England we don't.
Anyway, here is Pradip Singh, an admirable man who is raising concerns after the concerns have been investigated :). No doubt the Telegraph does not think he had a axe to grind, a honour they bestowed upon me in the year 2000 when I attempted to tell them about North Staffordshire NHS Trust. We don't talk about that in England do we? I know the history of the Telegraph though. I also know that their journalist was so disappointed that it was not featured in the British paper, he wrote the article up in a piece called The Whistleblower, featured in the Calcutta Telegraph. So, as a British Citizen, I had to rely on India to feature an issue relevant to the UK. The Telegraph have nothing to say of course. Two years ago, they spent a great deal of time removing everything about Ward 87 from My Telegraph.
They currently run a Heal the NHS Campaign. Well, its too late for that now. Lots of people are dead. The Telegraph should ask themselves - had they featured the poor quality of care at the Health Authority covering Staffordshire in the year 2000, would these deaths be prevented? Now that is the million dollar question.
From the Telegraph
Sphere: Related ContentSenior consultant Pradip Singh has used the protection of the House of Commons all-party Health Committee to tell his story of what went wrong at Stafford Hospital.
In documents lodged with the select committee, Dr Singh, 48, reveals how he first warned managers and fellow consultants of dangers as long ago as 2005.
And he claims that problems persist three months after the publication of a damning report by the Healthcare Commission which described standards of care at the hospital as "appalling and chaotic".
Dr Singh, a gastroenterologist, says in his evidence to MPs: "Over the years, many clinicians had noticed deterioration in the standards of patient care which became particularly acute approximately three years ago when major cut backs were made in staffing numbers.
"This included a savage reduction in the number of nursing staff.
"Sadly, despite the recent talk of transformation, and the damning Healthcare Commission report, the ground realities have not changed much."
He claims that following budget cuts, his department experienced "dozens of serious adverse clinical incidents resulting from abysmal secretarial support".
In one case, he says, a patient who had a treatable tumour in his pancreas ended up developing inoperable cancer after a report into his condition got lost.
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the hospital, last night called the allegations of adverse incidents "unsubstantiated" and invited the consultant to provide evidence.
Internal email exchanges, submitted by Dr Singh to the Commons committee, show that his continuing concerns are still shared by fellow doctors.
One email sent by a consultant at the hospital to Dr Singh on March 23, days after the publication of the watchdog's report, described the pressure on doctors to discharge inpatients.
It said: "Despite the Healthcare Commission report, it is clear that the management is still chasing targets.
"The patients are clearly aware that our main intention is to get them out of hospital at the first opportunity.
"Over the last 27 years I have seen the care available in Stafford fall from pretty good to abysmal."
At least 400 more people died at Stafford Hospital than would have been expected in the course of three years, with seriously-ill patients neglected amid pressures to cut costs and hit Government waiting targets, the Healthcare Commission report found.
After its publication, Alan Johnson, then the health secretary, said he was "amazed" that no clinical staff had blown the whistle on the way patients were being treated.
Dr Singh said that he and other consultants had complained to senior medical managers and the trust's management, but the complaining doctors had been ignored and branded as troublemakers.
He said a "palpable culture of intimidation" in the Trust deterred others from speaking out publicly.
One concern raised repeatedly by Dr Singh was the absence of nurses from ward rounds.
Having nurses on ward rounds is seen as important to ensure that a doctor's instructions are being carried out, and the arrangement is normal in most hospitals.
However, Dr Singh, who has been a consultant at Stafford Hospital for 14 years, says that the situation has remained unchanged even after the publication of the Healthcare Commission report, which criticised the absence of nurses.
He told MPs: "It has now become the accepted practice not to expect nurse presence as a matter of course on the ward rounds.
"This situation puts the consultants in an unacceptable, invidious, and extremely frustrating position."
In March, two weeks after the watchdog's report was published, Dr Singh was suspended from work for allegedly verbally abusing a nurse. He was reinstated a week later.
He claims that his suspension was an attempt by the Trust to intimidate him. He and the British Medical Association are fighting to get the charges against him quashed.
At a meeting of the Commons committee this month, MPs questioned Eric Morton, the interim chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, who denied that Dr Singh's suspension had been an attempt to "suppress" his views.
Responding to the consultant's allegations, Mr Morton last night pointed to Professor Sir George Alberti's report in April which identified "major improvements" at the trust.
Mr Morton said that he had written to all staff reminding them of their responsibility to raise concerns.
He said that nursing numbers had increased, making it easier for nurses to accompany consultants on ward rounds. He said that clinical staff had shown their willingness to adapt to new ways of working.
He added: "We have already publicly apologised for the fact that the care provided did not meet the standards that our patients have a right to expect.
"Improvements have already been made and further improvements are continuing to be introduced."
More than 4,800 people have backed The Sunday Telegraph's Heal Our Hospitals campaign, which is calling for an independent inquiry into the regulation and supervision of NHS hospitals.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Elderly Helped to Die?
In April 2000, I told the Sunday Times the following
Of course, no one believed me. At the time, the General Medical Council wrote :-
Then Gosport Hospital happened.
Brunel University found some startling figures
So I was right? Now what GMC? No one has anything left to say.
"THE callous treatment of the elderly in NHS hospitals has been exposed by a doctor who claims patients are denied life-saving treatment, are grossly neglected and are given drugs which hasten death." 2nd April 2000. Sunday Times.
Of course, no one believed me. At the time, the General Medical Council wrote :-
" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"
Then Gosport Hospital happened.
"In April, a jury inquest at Portsmouth Coroner's Court decided that in the cases of GWMH patients Robert Wilson, 74, Geoffrey Packman, 66, and Elsie Devine, 88, the use of painkillers had been inappropriate for their condition.Arthur Cunningham, 79, and Elsie Lavender, 83, were prescribed medication appropriate for their condition but in doses which contributed to their deaths, jurors found"
Brunel University found some startling figures
"A third of the 584,791 people who died in 2004 - 192,000 patients - had their deaths "accelerated" by doctors using pain relief"
So I was right? Now what GMC? No one has anything left to say.
While I managed to get the DNR policy changed via the Department of Health in the year 2000, I didn't manage to get Diamorphine regulated post Shipman. This is because doctors, and other health professionals are broadly in denial about the reckless prescribing of diamorphine by those who view the elderly and disabled with a narrow spectrum subjective view. No doctor kills. They justify the value of a person's life.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, 8 June 2009
Knee Jerk Reactions
Automatic Reflex
"Jobbing Doctor for instance keeps his emails down to one line in fear of what could happen, may happen and might happen. Of course, nothing will happen but their paranoia isn't my problem"
Jobbing Doctor has now written a long email.
He is also convinced the Department of Health has pinned him up on the trouble maker list. I doubt it.
Jobbing Doctor and Pulse are reeling around flapping away after they both conducted a spectacular male f*** up by failing to check my GMC status and history! The tale and rumours of an accidental mention of a suspension continues :). Yes, now much of the internet are of the view I was suspended - and this is rather a fascinating phenomena. It shows us how one inaccurate comment on a sheet of paper can spread. This is much like one inaccurate comment written by the GMC. Suddenly, fiction becomes fact due to the wildfires of gossip and few people actually take the time to read or check the facts.
I had to laugh about the fact that one lovely GP and one superbly straight editor [who keeps avoiding the story of Ward 87 like the plague] could get such a basic thing wrong. At present, both John Robinson and JD are running around like headless chickens in an attempt to placate me. They do remind me of Laurel and Hardy. Of course, I have no intention on pouncing on any of them. It is simply fascinating to observe what one misunderstanding turns into.
All they technically had to do was look on the GMC Register - they would have found out that I wasn't suspended but administratively erased :). That would mean, I didn't pay my GMC fees. Actually, this is all anyone has to do.
I don't hold it against JD because he is lovely and as he points out, has been amazingly supportive of me. Then while Boardman has had to do little to garner the support, I have had to work pretty damned hard. That is because consultants are believed by default and it takes a bit of time for juniors to be believable. I do though get the mention on the back of Shrine Boardman. Much like I get the mention on the back of Margaret Haywood.
Despite being the longest running whistleblower, the tale has to be run on the back of others stories. I often find this a tad insulting actually. That is probably why I hardly do media appearances. Seriously, who wants to play second fiddle after working so hard and surviving such a hard road? Certainly not me. This is by no means a dig at JD, just an observation of the status quo. Dr Pal is the afterthought - a kind of " Isn't it awful it happened to Madge, it also happened to Rita". And after a decade, Ward 87 becomes a secondary afterthought and I have never understood why the reports do not stand on their own.
John Robinson is being a typical man who hasn't a clue what to do in this situation apart from try and sooth my perceived ruffled feathers. Sure John, how about naming me in Pulse and covering the Ward 87 story? Pulse is for doctors right? Ward 87 is a medical whistleblowing tale right? Pulse could cover the fact I was shovelled off into General Practise in 1998-1999 because Ward 87 was too dangerous?!
You can see them going OMG OMG, we can't do that because the only whistleblower in the NHS is Madge Haywood. Pulse has never mentioned Ward 87 in the many years they have known about it. This was the same pattern followed by their sister publication, Hospital Doctor who opted not to feature it. Then the BMJ opted not to feature it. Of course, we have to ask whether systems would have improved had they featured it. It must give them a headache to even accept that huge levels of evidence exist about Ward 87. So John Robinson, how about actually featuring a medical whistleblowing tale as opposed to tagging me at the bottom of Margaret Haywood.
How about telling doctors what the GMC have done not only to Peter Wilmshurst but to me? I know Pulse will flap about the potential of libel - and in reverse I shall say that all the material has been online for a decade or more and no one has sued.
So thats the behaviour of boys who fear something that never happens. Fears of close associations with whistleblowers, fear for themselves, fear for everything that just doesn't exist in reality. It does though exist in their minds as a second thought. For Pulse, it has existed for years. For JD, it has existed for one year.
JD admits that he has been warned about me and despite that he has featured the odd link here and there. Well, if we all listened to empty threats and warnings, nothing would get done in the world.
Pulse may well be a little miffed at this blunt narrative. Then, I am of the view that publications should tell their doctors what the actual risk of medical whistleblowing is. The actual risk is the reversal of a GMC investigation on the whistleblower.
By comparison, Liz Miller has written as follows - as everyone will note, Miller is still functional and happy and the Department of Health have not strapped her up to their railings and forced her not to associate with me :). The material below is not about her compliments but about how she does not fear all the things feared by the boys above.
And that is the difference between faith and illogical manifestations of the pariah effect. There are perceptions of whistleblowers that are stuck within the medical profession. These perceptions have no origins in logic. It is a mentality that casts the whistleblower out to sea while the rest of the audience watch him or her sail the stormy seas. It becomes much like a spectacle. Everyone knows about them but will consistently deny their existence. My existence is denied by the vast majority of medical publications. We ask ourselves why?
The above men don't have faith, they certainly do not have faith in the evidence in front of them - preferring to believe the cosmetically created whistleblower over me because the media eg Panorama tells them to. So for Pulse, it is more "acceptable" to write about Margaret Haywood and tag me as an afterthought without a name. Ward 87 deserved better really. The issues deserved to stand on their own to be counted and to serve to improve the NHS.
Miller as we all know is a different kettle of fish.
Thank you Rita, I am overwhelmed by your kind words. And I proud to call myself your friend
There are a few qualities that I believe are important if we are to be human beings rather than animals with snouts in the collective trough.
It is important to know what we believe, to speak up for those beliefs and to be willing to debate those beliefs.
It is important to support those beliefs with actions. There is nothing worse than saying one thing and doing the opposite. Any grasping loudmouthed politician can do that and there are plenty of those, in and out of medicine.
Most important is the qually of standing up for those people who have less rights, privileges and opportunities than you yourself have.
Rita, you have all of those qualities in abundance, and for those and other reasons I am proud to call you my friend.
And best of all, you make me laugh on a regular basis, which is great I love your artwork and your unique view on life.
Lizzie
Fairweather Friends
I had a phone call yesterday informing me that one of the people I worked with in my PRHO or F1 years has their first consultant post. Well, the Trust had to get someone cheap to do the clinically risky job. Apparently, this person decided to say " I knew Dr Pal in 1999" and then started to make all sorts of excuses about her behaviour 10 years ago.
Yes, we all knew Ms Fairweather Friend - once the phone was dropped on her by me, I never went back. The reason the phone was dropped on her was she never backed me up during the whistleblowing period. She spent the rest of the years plagued with guilt. Even to this day, she remembers what I don't even recall. As I reminded her in 1999, it would remain etched in her mind for good. I also reminded her that cowards aren't friends.
Quite frankly it takes me a lot to walk about on people - but I did walk out on her. Am I happy she is a consultant? Well, whatever social status means these days and I suppose she will be important in the circles she revolves in. What can I say about that? Did she develop as a person, probably not.
To be quite frank, I moved away from the medical fraternity of self perceived superiority many years ago and never returned back. It is a bit like those doctors who love writing their degrees and titles at the bottom of any documentation as if to " gloat" over it. As if it makes them any different than the rest of the world.
Apparently, the guilt has still festered around her for the last decade given her flustering effects yesterday. That isn't my problem. Her efforts to creep back by email a number of years ago failed. They are likely to fail in the future. She calls it a misunderstanding, they all do. I call it a betrayal. The other assumption of many people is that a whistleblower will settle for anything in terms of friendship. The perception is that they are somehow desperate in some way. Well, this whistleblower ain't desperate and unlike the rest of the population, I can exist independently without the need for company for quite sometime. Social dependance or acceptance is not my thing - then it never has been.
To top it all off, I note that this one wrote a paper with the very man who penned a hate missive with Professor John Temple to the Department of Health - regarding me. Seriously, for some reason these hateful people assume that they can pen any untruths and circulate it around the health service. And that is what happens when you are a whistleblower. Those in power derive great satisfaction in dissing you for no reason - then your ex friends go and write papers with them.
The circular effect of fate never ceases to amaze me. I wonder what this decade is going to bring - a gaggle of ex colleagues and friends all apologizing because they were yellow livered in 1998-9. I do recall, Dr Aloke Sen and his quipps during his marriage invites "Ah Rita, let bygones be bygones"? Really, so I am supposed to forgive the fact that he rang me up in 1999 and told me he didn't want to associate with a whistleblower because it wasn't good for his career. So how about saying " Sorry Rita, I was completely wrong and out of order". Of course, words like that are far too much for this GP. I suspect as they get older, they start to develop some kind of guilt for their conceited and selfish behavior. For some reason, the expectation is that I shall let bygones by bygones and forget. I believe the issue they forget is this - I have moved on, I no longer require idiots plaguing my life, I no longer have to listen to their superiority complex and I no longer have to put up with selfish people.
Sphere: Related Content
Yes, we all knew Ms Fairweather Friend - once the phone was dropped on her by me, I never went back. The reason the phone was dropped on her was she never backed me up during the whistleblowing period. She spent the rest of the years plagued with guilt. Even to this day, she remembers what I don't even recall. As I reminded her in 1999, it would remain etched in her mind for good. I also reminded her that cowards aren't friends.
Quite frankly it takes me a lot to walk about on people - but I did walk out on her. Am I happy she is a consultant? Well, whatever social status means these days and I suppose she will be important in the circles she revolves in. What can I say about that? Did she develop as a person, probably not.
To be quite frank, I moved away from the medical fraternity of self perceived superiority many years ago and never returned back. It is a bit like those doctors who love writing their degrees and titles at the bottom of any documentation as if to " gloat" over it. As if it makes them any different than the rest of the world.
Apparently, the guilt has still festered around her for the last decade given her flustering effects yesterday. That isn't my problem. Her efforts to creep back by email a number of years ago failed. They are likely to fail in the future. She calls it a misunderstanding, they all do. I call it a betrayal. The other assumption of many people is that a whistleblower will settle for anything in terms of friendship. The perception is that they are somehow desperate in some way. Well, this whistleblower ain't desperate and unlike the rest of the population, I can exist independently without the need for company for quite sometime. Social dependance or acceptance is not my thing - then it never has been.
To top it all off, I note that this one wrote a paper with the very man who penned a hate missive with Professor John Temple to the Department of Health - regarding me. Seriously, for some reason these hateful people assume that they can pen any untruths and circulate it around the health service. And that is what happens when you are a whistleblower. Those in power derive great satisfaction in dissing you for no reason - then your ex friends go and write papers with them.
The circular effect of fate never ceases to amaze me. I wonder what this decade is going to bring - a gaggle of ex colleagues and friends all apologizing because they were yellow livered in 1998-9. I do recall, Dr Aloke Sen and his quipps during his marriage invites "Ah Rita, let bygones be bygones"? Really, so I am supposed to forgive the fact that he rang me up in 1999 and told me he didn't want to associate with a whistleblower because it wasn't good for his career. So how about saying " Sorry Rita, I was completely wrong and out of order". Of course, words like that are far too much for this GP. I suspect as they get older, they start to develop some kind of guilt for their conceited and selfish behavior. For some reason, the expectation is that I shall let bygones by bygones and forget. I believe the issue they forget is this - I have moved on, I no longer require idiots plaguing my life, I no longer have to listen to their superiority complex and I no longer have to put up with selfish people.
Elizabeth Miller hits the Telegraph
She is lookin good!
Here is the link
"Mind's chief executive, Paul Farmer, says that Miller is a "fantastic role model", working in a demanding profession yet finding time to be a passionate mental health campaigner."
Nice plug for forthcoming book :)
"In a new book called Mood Mapping, to be published later this year, Miller will demonstrate how people can manage their own mental wellbeing, based on her experiences of the past 10 years. She has not taken medication for six years now. "I used to go off sick because I was ill. Now, I go off sick to stop myself getting ill," she says. "My illness will not come back because I know what the triggers are and I have support networks. No one's going to ruin my day again"
Of course, Miller is more than the above. She is a great friend, a witty and brave person. She is also an extremely kind and generous lady. Apart from the cosmetics of the media, that is the most important aspect of her persona. That is what sets her apart from the rest of the selfish and conceited and sometimes arrogant world of medicine.
From my own side, she doesn't deal with whistleblowers like me as if they are a pariah or someone to be wary of. That is the impression given by the entire blogsphere of doctors or GPs. I cannot say I am ever impressed with this half paranoid effect of the blogsphere but there you go - it is simply another aspect of the cultural treatment of whistleblowers we all have to learn to accept.
Miller though has always been brave enough to associate with me and to be my friend. Indeed, it should be an example to other doctors - that she hasn't been "got at" or attacked and hasn't disappeared because of her association with me. People do associate with me - just that doctors have second, third and fourth thoughts about it. Jobbing Doctor for instance keeps his emails down to one line in fear of what could happen, may happen and might happen. Of course, nothing will happen but their paranoia isn't my problem.
By contrast, other medical bloggers have been wary, questioning and suspicious and today I came to the conclusion that I really cannot change anyone's perception or minds. They simply have to work it out for themselves as Miller did.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
BMA Lipstick
BMA Cosmetics.Snouts in the establishment trough
The British Medical Ass has shown itself to be doing much as they did in the year 2000. - Cosmetically restructuring the failing reputation of the medical profession.
They carried out a survey of various hospital consultants who obviously represent the entire medical profession [ NOT] and now present their study in the Independent.
This is supposed to give the appearance that our dear old trade union actually gives a damn about whistleblowers. We know the BMA actually doesn't give a damn about grass root doctors. They should also acutely remind themselves of their efforts to extract Harold Shipman from his trial. The BMA would call this an " accident" but I wouldn't. They knew exactly what they were doing and when caught with their pants down, attempted to slither away.
We should also remember that the BMA/BMJ have been anti Remedy UK refusing an advert and going against them at the last judicial review against the Department of Health. You could say that Remedy UK were raising concerns about the MMC and were therefore whistleblowers of their time in a manner of speaking. As for myself, the BMJ has more or less banned me in the past from posting comments, the BMA were sent documentation concerning Ward 87 last year, they did not respond. As a trade union representing the medical profession, they really do stink to high heaven. We must not forget the admission of freemasonry within the organisation either.
"The register lists Sir Sandy Macara, the former British Medical Association (BMA) chair; Dr Simon Fradd, a negotiator for the BMA's GPs' committee; Dr Ronald Zeegen" BBC
In the year 2000, in response to the Bristol Inquiry findings, the BMA had a Whistleblower Conference. The BMA then moved on and nothing changed. I love this
"But, despite negative experiences, most doctors questioned said they were still determined to speak out".Wow really?! When was that then?
Of course, no one has ever heard of these doctors. In any case, it is far easier for consultants to blow the whistle because unlike juniors, they have long term jobs, they have that stability and they don't have to depend on references. So BMA, just questioning your BMA members is not a reflection of the real world of medicine out there. It is simply a measurement of club culture.
This study does not appear to be a reflection of a cross sectional view of all medics. I certainly was never asked to complete the questionnaire. But then I am not a esteemed consultant who can sit in their office and look down on all of those who try and get on with life post whistleblowing. Consultants though have a strange definition of whistleblowing. Richard Smith Editor of the BMJ once called himself a whistleblower. Perhaps it is just a trendy name now. I broke out in laughter when he did so.
I love this amount of rubbish from the BMA Telegraph.
"The BMA's Dr Jonathan Fielden said: "No doctor, no nurse, no porter, anywhere in the NHS should be made to feel that speaking up for their patients is a bad career move. Their concerns must be taken seriously and acted upon, and ideas for improvements should always be encouraged. It is worrying that some trusts seem to be stifling professional voices. This culture of inactivity and despair is preventing issues from coming to light and putting patient care at risk."
Perhaps we should survey the effectiveness of the BMA in swiftly acting for junior doctors. The BMA were never active in representing doctors in the past. They never represented the doctors for the MMC. If they had been effective, Remedy UK would never have been born. I am of the view that everyone should resign their membership of the BMA. They have failed more doctors over the years than I care to remember. I have no idea why the new generation don't set up a new trade union - doctors would join in droves and the BMA would be left by the wayside as it should be.
I believe their treatment of me was beyond contempt. They are lazy, ineffective, incapable and judgmental. Any effort to tell the world that they support whistleblowers is a down and out lie. It is also done to fight off the criticisms against the seniors of the profession who DON'T support whistleblowers. The way the UK does it is to build this lovely image of how great the medical establishment is. The truth is that it isn't great, it bullies more junior doctors than any other country. It has a high rate of racism and lets face it, the wrong pigs are in charge.
Afterall, no one has ever heard of a PIDA case succeeding courtesy of the BMA have they?
Here is the Department of Health
"A Department of Health spokesperson said:
"All doctors have a professional duty to act... If they have used the reporting processes to no avail, they should blow the whistle with full protection under the law"Is that Right Department of Health?. We won't mention the collusion between yourselves and the GMC to remove said whistleblower from the workplace then.
In my own case, the Department of Health acted in tandem with the General Medical Council in an attempt to character assassinate me. When they were faced with a complaint against Professor Griffiths, the GMC blamed the Department of Health who blamed the GMC.
The Department of Health wrote
" The HSE are actively seeking to prosecute a doctor as an example"Here are the Department of Health lawyers sticking the knife in the GMC's back when pinned against the wall
" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"
It is therefore important to understand that the main problem with the system isn't the junior doctors, the problem lies directly with the conceited Department of Health and the General Medical Council. It also lies with the British Medical Association who remain unsupportive of many whistleblowers. They have certainly been unhelpful with regards to Ward 87.
At present, these problems are not recognised. Once the doctor has whistleblown, they then find out about the murky waters of the Department of Health and the GMC. It is not a pleasant sight. My view - never whistleblow - always walk away. No one is going to be there when you have to deal with the post whistleblowing crap. The path is long, it is also hard.
A better study with a cross section of doctors is the one done by Doctors.net.uk . It is probably the only good thing Neil Bacon ever did in his time with them.
Doctors.net.uk carried out a survey in which 2,500 doctors responded. The majority view, according to this survey, is that doctors would prefer to log an error in an independent internet site.
"81% said they did not report errors because they did not trust their NHS Trust. They said the Trust would not be impartial enough to manage a blame-free system (for reporting errors). They said the same of the UK Department of Health"
I think this would be a more accurate reflection of grass root doctors on the shop floor who are trying to do their job.
We should note that the BMA has not requested that the Health Select Committee take the time to investigate whistleblowing by actually interviewing real whistleblowers. That is because none of them wish to discover the truth about the silencing effect of senior doctors and management.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Shoot the Messenger
Of late, we have had a number of academics who have found themselves in hot water due to libel laws. One person is Dr Peter Wilmshurst and the other person is Dr Simon Singh. Bad Science's Ben Goldacre has also been subjected to the silencer. Those are the big names. Libel of course is one form of silencing, the GMC is another form. The combination provides an excellent silencing technique that may suppress scientific debate and whistleblowers for good.
I wanted to point out the smaller fry - ie me. The issue surrounded a link I had made to a public document hosted by Furious Seasons. The reason I raised this issue was because Dr Trevor Friedman had been making a "diagnosis" without examining the person. In this case it was Lisa Blakemore Brown. The complainant in the case related to Lisa Blakemore Brown was none other than Penny Mellor. Many other bloggers raised the issue and linked to the document in 2007. The only one who fell foul of the GMC's draconian processes was me. Facing GMC complaints is probably fairly traumatic only because the General Medical Council are quite bizarre.
Lisa Blakemore Brown was cleared on appeal at the British Psychological Society. That means we were all right about Dr Trevor Friedman. That didn't make an ounce of difference to the GMC. They didn't run after Trevor, they did though run after me. I watched them spent pots of money defending the case concerning a "link".
The complaint of a breach of confidentiality had been made by Penny Mellor who starred recently in Panorama. Mellor is a serial complainer, a lady who silences debate and one who uses all available resources to terminate criticism against her. On this occasion, it didn't quite work. Indeed, as Panorama clearly shows, this Scientology award winner is no longer the darling of the media.
The allegation at the GMC was that I had "published the BPS minutes" on http://www.nhsexposed.com . Of course, I never had published it. When this was pointed out to the GMC, they moved the goal posts to cite " Dr Pal had published a link". The language here is interesting. Of course, those who are technical minded know that links aren't "published". They already exist.
So, the movement of this allegation is interesting. The lawyers for the GMC then amusing cited that I owed " Article 8 HRA rights" to the British Psychological Society. Of course, it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that I was an individual and not a statutory body or authority and did not owe any Article 8 HRA rights to anyone. It was clear that the GMC lawyers had not read their human rights law book.
At that point, the GMC fast tracked the complaint, and cleared me. The side effect of their negligence was the loss of my locum post and subsequent fibs by both parties to conceal what happened.
Anyway, the matter was challenged in court to examine the rights to free speech for doctors. We were in court recently after two years. I wasn't really impressed with my lawyers. Then those who never read or listen never win. And that is what happened to them both.
Mark Shaw WC was the better illusionist on the day. The GMC had funded the case with doctors's subscriptions millions in order to obtain a judgment that essentially silences all of them.
Permission had been granted for judicial review in 2008- to balance the interests of doctors and complainants. This was effectively a test case. Interestingly, the balance was never properly discussed at all in the main hearing. Perhaps it didn't concern Collins J. Or perhaps it was just a sunny day.
What interested me more was the interaction between the main players. I won some points and lost some but then the Royal Courts of Justice is much like a Casino.
Anyway, I wanted to present an extract from the courts :-
Apparently, I cannot claim Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 according to Collins J. Despite not being a risk to the public [as specified by the GMC] - because the GMC commenced a silencer investigation on a article I wrote "linking" to a document, the Medical Act 1983 gives the GMC complete rights to violate the Human Rights Act.
This is what Collins J had to say in the judgment R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. 2009 [Unfortunately, due to some serious factual errors made by Collins J where he failed to get the dates right, kept calling Lisa Blakemore Brown a "He" and far more, I am not about to publish the entire transcript just yet. There are no less than 25 or more factual errors within this judgment, that includes the wrong dates placed on the order of the court. It may have been good for the eminent judge to have read the documents. Then again, reading is something that is far too hard for any judge on a "sunny day".]
Lisa Blakemore Brown was cleared on appeal at the British Psychological Society. That means we were all right about Dr Trevor Friedman. That didn't make an ounce of difference to the GMC. They didn't run after Trevor, they did though run after me. I watched them spent pots of money defending the case concerning a "link".
The complaint of a breach of confidentiality had been made by Penny Mellor who starred recently in Panorama. Mellor is a serial complainer, a lady who silences debate and one who uses all available resources to terminate criticism against her. On this occasion, it didn't quite work. Indeed, as Panorama clearly shows, this Scientology award winner is no longer the darling of the media.
The allegation at the GMC was that I had "published the BPS minutes" on http://www.nhsexposed.com . Of course, I never had published it. When this was pointed out to the GMC, they moved the goal posts to cite " Dr Pal had published a link". The language here is interesting. Of course, those who are technical minded know that links aren't "published". They already exist.
So, the movement of this allegation is interesting. The lawyers for the GMC then amusing cited that I owed " Article 8 HRA rights" to the British Psychological Society. Of course, it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that I was an individual and not a statutory body or authority and did not owe any Article 8 HRA rights to anyone. It was clear that the GMC lawyers had not read their human rights law book.
At that point, the GMC fast tracked the complaint, and cleared me. The side effect of their negligence was the loss of my locum post and subsequent fibs by both parties to conceal what happened.
Anyway, the matter was challenged in court to examine the rights to free speech for doctors. We were in court recently after two years. I wasn't really impressed with my lawyers. Then those who never read or listen never win. And that is what happened to them both.
Mark Shaw WC was the better illusionist on the day. The GMC had funded the case with doctors's subscriptions millions in order to obtain a judgment that essentially silences all of them.
Permission had been granted for judicial review in 2008- to balance the interests of doctors and complainants. This was effectively a test case. Interestingly, the balance was never properly discussed at all in the main hearing. Perhaps it didn't concern Collins J. Or perhaps it was just a sunny day.
What interested me more was the interaction between the main players. I won some points and lost some but then the Royal Courts of Justice is much like a Casino.
Anyway, I wanted to present an extract from the courts :-
Apparently, I cannot claim Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 according to Collins J. Despite not being a risk to the public [as specified by the GMC] - because the GMC commenced a silencer investigation on a article I wrote "linking" to a document, the Medical Act 1983 gives the GMC complete rights to violate the Human Rights Act.
This is what Collins J had to say in the judgment R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. 2009 [Unfortunately, due to some serious factual errors made by Collins J where he failed to get the dates right, kept calling Lisa Blakemore Brown a "He" and far more, I am not about to publish the entire transcript just yet. There are no less than 25 or more factual errors within this judgment, that includes the wrong dates placed on the order of the court. It may have been good for the eminent judge to have read the documents. Then again, reading is something that is far too hard for any judge on a "sunny day".]
Anyway, this is an extract of the judgment related to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
"Mr Garlick sought to raise an argument — one of the grounds upon which he was given permission — relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, freedom of speech is important, but the regulation of medical practitioners and professionals in general is something which is clearly in accordance with the law in this country and is necessary for the protection of the public. There can be no question that regulation by the GMC in circumstance such as this is proportionate and thus would mean that there was no breach of the Article 10 rights"
What does this mean? Well this means that the above academics [ not Dr Singh] can be referred to the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council is able to take up the complaints because these days "misconduct" means anything in a doctors life.
A "link" was capable of being misconduct by way of questioning a person's integrity. In Collins J's mind, disobedience of authority is essentially an integrity issue.
Dr Friedman's integrity in diagnosing a person and violating their human right's was not questioned or observed by Collins J. Again, here we observe the methodology used to effectively "shoot the messenger" on a minimal level of "linking" to a document.
It follows that if any authority objects to the "linking" of material, the scientist/doctor cannot claim the right to free speech if investigated by the GMC. So however bizarre the investigation, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot ever be claimed to be a defence.
It should be noted that the GMC does not require a complainant to instigate a complaint.
That doctor will not have the opportunity for a civil rights defence. It should be noted that even those arrested by the police have a Human Rights defence. Doctors don't have that right.
This follows that even if they are not a risk to the public, simply by instigating an investigation, the GMC does not have to pay any heed to the European Convention of Human Rights ie Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That argument was put forward and won by Blackstone Chambers Mark Shaw WC. The chamber prides itself in Human Rights. Interesting, Lord Woolf is also at Blackstone Chambers. Lord Woolf being the grand father of British Justice and infamous for the Woolf Reforms.
The above by Collins J makes a mockery of the overriding objective set by Lord Woolf. Justice was not seen to be done. The judge simply provided the GMC with maximum immunity to sink any doctor in the name of an invisible " public interest".
Nevertheless, in Collins J's view, I was indeed small fry and small fry need to be silenced. Of course, practically nothing is ever completely silent forever.
Effectively, the judgment means that health professional linking to a potentially libellous document online eg Dr Singh's article could potentially be investigated by the GMC . All the organisation or regulatory body had to do is object to the link. The BCA has obviously objected to the piece. Therefore, by default that objection would be enough to question a doctor's integrity.
The link in Collins J's eyes is equivalent to a publication. At least that is what was argued in court. Collins J is essentially telling all of us " Link at your Peril".
This would also mean that any doctor linking to the McBride emails could theoretically fall foul of the GMC if 10 Downing Street complained. It follows that Parliament can complain to the GMC against any doctors linking to the public documents exposing the MP's expenses. Parliament had originally complained that the documents were"confidential".
So, Collins J's judgment has wider implications. The implications are so wide as to effective silence any doctor and prevent them from raising any concerns online or otherwise.
Collins J is affectionately dubbed "Injustice Collins" by many people. I didn't quite believe the rumours until I saw him at work myself. He speculated about Margaret Haywood in the case then proceeded to rule against raising concerns - in this case by way of a link - which is the minimalist way of raising such concerns.
During the case above he stated
I nearly fell off my chair. I wondered what innocent men in prison do in circumstances where the judge is just too lazy to read what is in front of them. I understood on that day what Penny Mellor meant by the courts failing those who are indeed wrongly accused.
I wasn't in prison thankfully. But those who use the courts may well be in prison. What then? Do they have to tolerate errors after two years of waiting for a hearing?
Are we going to tolerate the fact it was a "Sunny Friday afternoon" and quite frankly Collins J had better things to do. No wonder there are so many innocent men trapped within the prisons. I wasn't concerned about the legal aspects of guffawing lawyers, I was concerned about the utter carelessness in the court room. It was rather like a circus of fools all making judgments as supposedly educated men on aspects of the internet that none of them had a clue about.
This is why we have the result that a link is equivalent to a publication and that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act can be run over for what the GMC deems is the " public interest".
The background on Collins J is the following - his brother Mark Collins is a rich Priory Group Consultant Psychiatrist who once had a run in with the General Medical Council. Well, Dr Mark Collin's past is rather interesting. Boy was that a run in!
Collins J faced a formal complaint at the Office of Judicial Complaints sometime ago but was cleared [related to the Private Eye piece below]. This was made by the group opposing Chai Patel. Despite his close medical connections, Collins J sits on numerous medical cases. Is this in line with Lord Woolf's overriding objective?
Scientific Challenge is dead. Those who have dared to challenge - brave men like Peter Wilmshurst or Ben Goldacre are seeing their days numbered. Because most doctors live with their heads in the sand, they will never realise what the current dangers really are. All you need is one enemy.
Of course, the usual attitude would be " Ah but this does not apply to me". Doesn't it?
Addendum - Private Eye - Collins J.
A "link" was capable of being misconduct by way of questioning a person's integrity. In Collins J's mind, disobedience of authority is essentially an integrity issue.
Dr Friedman's integrity in diagnosing a person and violating their human right's was not questioned or observed by Collins J. Again, here we observe the methodology used to effectively "shoot the messenger" on a minimal level of "linking" to a document.
It follows that if any authority objects to the "linking" of material, the scientist/doctor cannot claim the right to free speech if investigated by the GMC. So however bizarre the investigation, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot ever be claimed to be a defence.
It should be noted that the GMC does not require a complainant to instigate a complaint.
That doctor will not have the opportunity for a civil rights defence. It should be noted that even those arrested by the police have a Human Rights defence. Doctors don't have that right.
This follows that even if they are not a risk to the public, simply by instigating an investigation, the GMC does not have to pay any heed to the European Convention of Human Rights ie Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That argument was put forward and won by Blackstone Chambers Mark Shaw WC. The chamber prides itself in Human Rights. Interesting, Lord Woolf is also at Blackstone Chambers. Lord Woolf being the grand father of British Justice and infamous for the Woolf Reforms.
The above by Collins J makes a mockery of the overriding objective set by Lord Woolf. Justice was not seen to be done. The judge simply provided the GMC with maximum immunity to sink any doctor in the name of an invisible " public interest".
Nevertheless, in Collins J's view, I was indeed small fry and small fry need to be silenced. Of course, practically nothing is ever completely silent forever.
Effectively, the judgment means that health professional linking to a potentially libellous document online eg Dr Singh's article could potentially be investigated by the GMC . All the organisation or regulatory body had to do is object to the link. The BCA has obviously objected to the piece. Therefore, by default that objection would be enough to question a doctor's integrity.
The link in Collins J's eyes is equivalent to a publication. At least that is what was argued in court. Collins J is essentially telling all of us " Link at your Peril".
This would also mean that any doctor linking to the McBride emails could theoretically fall foul of the GMC if 10 Downing Street complained. It follows that Parliament can complain to the GMC against any doctors linking to the public documents exposing the MP's expenses. Parliament had originally complained that the documents were"confidential".
So, Collins J's judgment has wider implications. The implications are so wide as to effective silence any doctor and prevent them from raising any concerns online or otherwise.
Collins J is affectionately dubbed "Injustice Collins" by many people. I didn't quite believe the rumours until I saw him at work myself. He speculated about Margaret Haywood in the case then proceeded to rule against raising concerns - in this case by way of a link - which is the minimalist way of raising such concerns.
During the case above he stated
"Yes, Sunny Friday Afternoon, its a bit late. I am sorry that I had to do it by extempore judgment. It could perhaps have been more polished if I had had the time to consider it more"More polished? Bravo! I am small fry and my view doesn't really matter in the grand scale of the world but that of the Court of Appeal judges do :- [ From the recent cases at the Court of Appeal]
“Overturning two of Collins J’s rulings in cases against the General Medical Council (GMC), Lord Justice Chadwick said: “In my judgement the evaluation which [Collins] applied is, with deference, not serviceable or passable.”Chadwick concluded that “there was not in either of these cases any appropriate basis established for overturning the sanctions establish near the [GMC’s] adaptation to go over panel.” Lord Justice Laws and Sir Peter Gibson, besides get-together, concurre”
I nearly fell off my chair. I wondered what innocent men in prison do in circumstances where the judge is just too lazy to read what is in front of them. I understood on that day what Penny Mellor meant by the courts failing those who are indeed wrongly accused.
I wasn't in prison thankfully. But those who use the courts may well be in prison. What then? Do they have to tolerate errors after two years of waiting for a hearing?
Are we going to tolerate the fact it was a "Sunny Friday afternoon" and quite frankly Collins J had better things to do. No wonder there are so many innocent men trapped within the prisons. I wasn't concerned about the legal aspects of guffawing lawyers, I was concerned about the utter carelessness in the court room. It was rather like a circus of fools all making judgments as supposedly educated men on aspects of the internet that none of them had a clue about.
This is why we have the result that a link is equivalent to a publication and that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act can be run over for what the GMC deems is the " public interest".
The background on Collins J is the following - his brother Mark Collins is a rich Priory Group Consultant Psychiatrist who once had a run in with the General Medical Council. Well, Dr Mark Collin's past is rather interesting. Boy was that a run in!
Collins J faced a formal complaint at the Office of Judicial Complaints sometime ago but was cleared [related to the Private Eye piece below]. This was made by the group opposing Chai Patel. Despite his close medical connections, Collins J sits on numerous medical cases. Is this in line with Lord Woolf's overriding objective?
Scientific Challenge is dead. Those who have dared to challenge - brave men like Peter Wilmshurst or Ben Goldacre are seeing their days numbered. Because most doctors live with their heads in the sand, they will never realise what the current dangers really are. All you need is one enemy.
Of course, the usual attitude would be " Ah but this does not apply to me". Doesn't it?
Addendum - Private Eye - Collins J.
FROM PRIVATE EYE
31 March 2006
In The Courts
“WHY has Mr Justice Collins apparently been keeping the recent spate of of contentious appeals from the General Medical Council, including the cases of Labour good samaritan Dr Chai “Diddums” Patel and Professor Sir Roy Meadow, to himself?
The GMC no question thought it had the reaction when it came to extreme thirty days’s steep yard hall interview auditory rang into the GMC finding to strike off Sir Roy, over the deeplyflawed evidence he presented in the case of Sally dark, wrongly jailed in1999 over the deaths of her two sons, three-month-old Christopher andtwo-month-old Harry.Lawyers for the GMC asked the umpire appraiser provided he should excuse himself from hearingMeadows’ prayer because the GMC had sat in intelligence on the judge’s brother -”towering excessive society psychiatrist” Dr Mark Collins, ancient history allegations of sensual faux pas with a vulnerable female patient.
While the GMC cleared Dr Collins of humourless professional malversation and found the sexual allegations unproven, it did publicly criticise him for crossing patient-doctor boundaries prep along meeting the philosophical outside of job and “allowing his head to be turned” over a attractive patient. GMC lawyers further pointed out that the barrister representing his relative, Nicola Davies QC, was also representing Sir Roy. Mr Justice Collins could behold no potential collision resulting from his brother’s clearing prep along the GMC and said that he did not know Ms Davies.
He then went on to give up a judgment which not only circumscribed the powers of the GMC to regulate doctors who give inaccurate and deceitful declaration to courts, on the other hand also gave greater custody from approval from any old “buff”who gives evidence, no business how dodgy. The discernment has approach in for disparaging scrutiny and is being appealed by way of the GMC.
But should Mr Justice Collins hold removed himself from hearing the GMC casket against Labour benefactor Chai Patel, who continues to stamp his feet at not getting a titled classes? Eye readers are well clued-up that the box in defiance of Dr Patel accompanying to Lynde House in west London, then dart near his firm Westminster Care Homes, where there were popular allegations of leave alone. It was the first experiment of whether a cobble should inhabit disciplined accomplished the care of patients who he was not exactly treating. But it was thrown elsewhere over Mr Justice Collins in advance of it by any chance got underway on the grounds that the charges brought averse to Dr Patel by the GMC were a “corrupt prosecution” and looked like scapegoating. As the whole world knows, Dr Patel is the male later than at the botto the Priory group of haleness and rehabilitation clinics… and Mr Justice Collins’ brother, Dr Collins, was a clinical director at the Priory clinic in dominant London and now, according to its website, mill at the Priory Hospital in Roehampton” .
Miller Talks Back
Elizabeth Miller is cool. She also understands what other doctors don't. This is what she wrote to me this morning while munching on her cornflakes.
"Hi Rita,I am beginning to seriously rethink my position as to whether doctors should bother to fight the GMC at all. It may be better to walk away as soon as the GMC announces that you will have a hearing
1 - Once a hearing has been arranged, sanctions are inevitable.
2 -Once sanctions are in place, if you do not have a job or have lost your job, you become unemployable for several reasons
3 - Modern HR forms include a question as to whether you have been ever had any investigation into your practice, warnings, conditions, sanctions, suspensions. Once you have reached such a situation - ie a hearing, HR will exclude your application at the screening stage. Your application will not even be presented to the doctors making the shortlist.
4 The MDU will not indemnify you. The MPS say it is negotiable. This may not be critical if you are working for the NHS, but it means you have no means of defending yourself against further attacks from the GMC
5 Without medical indemnity, you cannot work in the private sector, either independently, through a locum agency or in a private clinic
6 Finally and most importantly, you waste years of your life fighting for justice in a setting that has the skills of Stalinist Russia, Chinese communism and The Establishment at its disposal.
Surely it is better just to walk away? and look for an alternative career at the earliest stage before the damage has been done to your career. Let the GMC try you in your absence, but if no one turned up for a hearing, how long would the gravy train last?
The multitude of panelists, expert witnesses and lawyers would find themselves out of work, as doctors refused to be involved in this circus.
Just leave and with no one to crucify, the GMC would whither on the vine? The GMC only survives because we play its game. Perhaps we should stop playing?"
I should make one comment, once the Fitness to Practise procedures commence within conduct, voluntary erasure is impossible. In addition, non payment of fees does not result in an erasure once there is a conduct hearing due. It is true that doctors such as David Jarman have hopped off the GMC Register despite having a conduct hearing due but this isn't possible now. So walking away either has to happen before GMC proceedings or after GMC proceedings are complete.
Overall, I am of the view that revalidation and appraisal is not something the GMC should be dealing with because they are malicious and incompetent. No one has to believe me on this, it is likely to happen to most people in about two years. The discovery of how incompetent the GMC is may be quite an eye opener. The ostritch effect is endemic in the medical profession with the attitude " It couldn't happen to me". This attitude has got them a regulatory body that is essentially unfit to practise but only exists due to a good public relations company and their peppered influence on leading medical journals.
Sphere: Related Content
Overall, I am of the view that revalidation and appraisal is not something the GMC should be dealing with because they are malicious and incompetent. No one has to believe me on this, it is likely to happen to most people in about two years. The discovery of how incompetent the GMC is may be quite an eye opener. The ostritch effect is endemic in the medical profession with the attitude " It couldn't happen to me". This attitude has got them a regulatory body that is essentially unfit to practise but only exists due to a good public relations company and their peppered influence on leading medical journals.
Shortage of Shrinks
Mad about Foreign Trained DoctorsThe Royal College of Psychiatrists are apparently in its pre whinge state and moaning that they have no UK Graduates applying for their jobs.
The Guardian asks
"So why is it that only one in eight trainee psychiatrists are of UK origin? What exactly is putting British medical students off if services have improved?"
So lets ask ourselves why the Royal College of Psychiatrists has encouraged a foreign graduate from Uganda with a criminal record while two British graduates are left out. Here is Dinesh encouraging him. We also have to ask ourselves the question - why two British Graduates were denied Section 12[2] Approval under the Mental Health Act 1983 in 2005 while the Ugandan graduate was approved by none other than Royal College of Psychiatrist rep. This is despite the two British graduates having considerably more post Registration experience than the Ugandan. Apparently, in the old days, the Royal College wanted to encourage foreign doctors and went out of their way to pamper them. The fact that few of them could speak to patients properly escaped them. Personally, I used to be sick to death of covering for doctors who had just landed in the UK.
So while we are asking these questions, we have to examine why I as ex Psychiatrist was firstly fired off my job courtesy of a GMC Investigation on the strength of a link. Having shattered my Fitness to Practise record into pieces by vexatious complaints, the GMC takes no responsibility and the Royal College of Psychiatrists simply look over and ponder. Because that is all they can do. Being supportive is not within their makeup.
We also have to ask ourselves why I have not worked as a Psychiatrist since 2007? Something to do with harassment by the GMC?! Has the Royal College of Psychiatrists done a thing? No of course not. Incidentally, they do provide GMC assessors who are paid handsomely to diagnose Aspergers in doctors without Asbergers :).
We then have to ask ourselves why Dr X a capable psychiatrist and British graduate is currently stuck within the Interim Order Panel despite everyone admitting he was never a risk to patients. We have to ask ourselves why he has been stuck there for about 3 years.
So we have to ask ourselves what role the General Medical Council plays in dissuading British graduates.
Essentially, we are both British graduates. What has the Royal College of Psychiatrists ever done to support/encourage us? Sweet FA.
So there is absolutely no point in the Royal College of Psychiatrists moaning that British Graduates are not coming into the shrink profession. Are they encouraged?
Well, here we are - 2 British graduates. What is the Royal College of Psychiatrists going to do to encourage us ? Sweet FA again then?
Sphere: Related Content
So while we are asking these questions, we have to examine why I as ex Psychiatrist was firstly fired off my job courtesy of a GMC Investigation on the strength of a link. Having shattered my Fitness to Practise record into pieces by vexatious complaints, the GMC takes no responsibility and the Royal College of Psychiatrists simply look over and ponder. Because that is all they can do. Being supportive is not within their makeup.
We also have to ask ourselves why I have not worked as a Psychiatrist since 2007? Something to do with harassment by the GMC?! Has the Royal College of Psychiatrists done a thing? No of course not. Incidentally, they do provide GMC assessors who are paid handsomely to diagnose Aspergers in doctors without Asbergers :).
We then have to ask ourselves why Dr X a capable psychiatrist and British graduate is currently stuck within the Interim Order Panel despite everyone admitting he was never a risk to patients. We have to ask ourselves why he has been stuck there for about 3 years.
So we have to ask ourselves what role the General Medical Council plays in dissuading British graduates.
Essentially, we are both British graduates. What has the Royal College of Psychiatrists ever done to support/encourage us? Sweet FA.
So there is absolutely no point in the Royal College of Psychiatrists moaning that British Graduates are not coming into the shrink profession. Are they encouraged?
Well, here we are - 2 British graduates. What is the Royal College of Psychiatrists going to do to encourage us ? Sweet FA again then?
Doctor in Trouble
I was amused by the antics of the General Medical Council in the last week. One of their psychiatrists from Leeds rolled into GMC Towers last week and exclaimed that a doctor who had passed medical school exams and had been working in the NHS for years had Asbergers :). When I was told this on the phone I burst into laughter.
Only six months ago, the doctor was accused of having a personality disorder. When the GMC felt that could not be sustained, they moved to Asbergers syndrome. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this doctor apart from the fact he sent some emails to the GMC showing up how incompetent they are. The GMC are apparently plotting to send this doctor to a Fitness to Practise hearing on the strength of inappropriate emails and storming off out of a consultants room. Fascinating!
What was even more hilarious is that the General Medical Council sent Dr Findus a form requesting that he confirm that he "understands the conditions". So, lets see, the GMC moots Asbergers syndrome then progresses forward to request that this doctor complete a form and understand complex material!? They can't have it both ways - understanding documents and having a learning disability.
This is of course real a tale from GMC Towers.
Well, I suppose it is a better tale than the junior GP who got lost one day on her way to the patient, was subsequently referred to the GMC because she could not read an A to Z. She was subsequently given various cognitive assessments and reviews by neurologists etc. Following that, she was forced to take Haloperidol despite the GMC admitting she had no problems. The GMC stated that if she did not take the Haloperidol, she would be forwarded to a Fitness to Practise hearing. The lady still remains on conditions 10 years later.
Well, this is the kind of medical regulatory body the rest of the doctors ignore. The impression is that I must in someway be fibbing or exaggerating. There is no exaggeration at all. These are from transcripts and first hand knowledge.
At 5 doctors per day going down at the Interim Order Panel, I wonder if there will be any doctors left in the NHS soon :).
Sphere: Related Content
Only six months ago, the doctor was accused of having a personality disorder. When the GMC felt that could not be sustained, they moved to Asbergers syndrome. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this doctor apart from the fact he sent some emails to the GMC showing up how incompetent they are. The GMC are apparently plotting to send this doctor to a Fitness to Practise hearing on the strength of inappropriate emails and storming off out of a consultants room. Fascinating!
What was even more hilarious is that the General Medical Council sent Dr Findus a form requesting that he confirm that he "understands the conditions". So, lets see, the GMC moots Asbergers syndrome then progresses forward to request that this doctor complete a form and understand complex material!? They can't have it both ways - understanding documents and having a learning disability.
This is of course real a tale from GMC Towers.
Well, I suppose it is a better tale than the junior GP who got lost one day on her way to the patient, was subsequently referred to the GMC because she could not read an A to Z. She was subsequently given various cognitive assessments and reviews by neurologists etc. Following that, she was forced to take Haloperidol despite the GMC admitting she had no problems. The GMC stated that if she did not take the Haloperidol, she would be forwarded to a Fitness to Practise hearing. The lady still remains on conditions 10 years later.
Well, this is the kind of medical regulatory body the rest of the doctors ignore. The impression is that I must in someway be fibbing or exaggerating. There is no exaggeration at all. These are from transcripts and first hand knowledge.
At 5 doctors per day going down at the Interim Order Panel, I wonder if there will be any doctors left in the NHS soon :).
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Pulse Rumours and Students
I was sent a discussion on Students Room. It quite rightly detailed the issues related to whistleblowing. What it didn't get right was the issues regarding me. This is what the post stated
The rumour about my so called suspension was first propagated by Jobbing Doctor. This was partially due to his misunderstanding of the situation and partially due to Pulse's failure to check their facts.
The fact remains I was never suspended.
I was though fired from my last post once a GMC investigation commenced in 2007 but was subsequently cleared. As for being hauled in front of the GMC, I have never been to Fitness to Practise hearing ie I was never hauled. The GMC though have instigated a number of vexatious non medical related complaints against me and have done so for about 9 years now. These vexatious complaints which they instigated with some glee terminated in 2008 when I was administratively erased from the GMC Register.
Contrary to popular belief, the GMC has never been able to suspend me, place sanctions on me, never taken me to an IOP hearing or any kind of hearing. Every investigation has been cleared and there is nothing outstanding.
What they have done is instigate a cloud of aspersions on the factual accuracy of what happened. Despite the cloud of confusion that exists, because no one bothers to read, I will have to tolerate this kind of defamation on my name. Thanks to Jobbing Doctor for misunderstanding the situation in the first place. It isn't his fault - it just shows you that no one reads - not Jobbing Doctor, not journalists, not lawyers and certainly not judges.
Indeed, it isn't the whistleblowing that is the problem but the entire system of accountability. Actually, there isn't any accountability at all even at judiciary level. We therefore conclude that, due to the UK's failing system, no doctor should ever raise concerns at any level.
Sphere: Related Content
"Actually, the Rita Pal case was about being suspended, sacked and hauled in front of the GMC if you speak out..."
The rumour about my so called suspension was first propagated by Jobbing Doctor. This was partially due to his misunderstanding of the situation and partially due to Pulse's failure to check their facts.
The fact remains I was never suspended.
I was though fired from my last post once a GMC investigation commenced in 2007 but was subsequently cleared. As for being hauled in front of the GMC, I have never been to Fitness to Practise hearing ie I was never hauled. The GMC though have instigated a number of vexatious non medical related complaints against me and have done so for about 9 years now. These vexatious complaints which they instigated with some glee terminated in 2008 when I was administratively erased from the GMC Register.
Contrary to popular belief, the GMC has never been able to suspend me, place sanctions on me, never taken me to an IOP hearing or any kind of hearing. Every investigation has been cleared and there is nothing outstanding.
What they have done is instigate a cloud of aspersions on the factual accuracy of what happened. Despite the cloud of confusion that exists, because no one bothers to read, I will have to tolerate this kind of defamation on my name. Thanks to Jobbing Doctor for misunderstanding the situation in the first place. It isn't his fault - it just shows you that no one reads - not Jobbing Doctor, not journalists, not lawyers and certainly not judges.
Indeed, it isn't the whistleblowing that is the problem but the entire system of accountability. Actually, there isn't any accountability at all even at judiciary level. We therefore conclude that, due to the UK's failing system, no doctor should ever raise concerns at any level.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
BMA - YOU ARE FULL OF SH**T
BMA - Same Sh*t Different Day
That title was one taken out of Dr Rant's book of words. Every junior doctor is aware that the BMA are as much use as a limp lettuce leaf. We must remember that the BMA were embroiled in the Harold Shipman saga and nearly placed the trial in jeopardy. They were also the organisation who backed Viagra when they should have been backing cancer drugs etc. They have never represented whistleblowers adequately. In the old days, even their lawyers were found guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society.
Here they are swanning around in the Health Service Journal telling the world how much they support us whistleblowers. This is the BMA's study
"Nearly half of hospital doctors who reported a patient safety, malpractice or bullying concern to trust managers were left in the dark about whether anything had happened as a result, a British Medical Association survey has found.The BMA said three quarters of the 565 doctors surveyed for a report, Speaking up for patients, had experienced a concern at some point in their careers.But of the 70 per cent who raised the concern with their trust, 46 per cent said they were unaware anything had happened as a result, 15 per cent were not approached for further information and 9 per cent said the information they provided was shared more widely than they were comfortable with.And 16 per cent said they had been warned that by speaking up, their employment could be negatively affected".
And what did the BMA ever do to assist me? Ah yes, we do remember that. They left me in North Staffordshire NHS Trust and watched while the entire management attempted to eat me up for dinner. To this day, they have never done anything to represent me and the issues related to Ward 87 despite my requests to them. Indeed, their action is to summarily to ignore me. We can understand why. It can't be great for a Trade Union to be seen as being unsupportive to a whistleblower and for that whistleblower to have been right [ No thanks to them].
And this is what the BMJ/BMA wrote in the year 2000. That was nine years ago and quelle surprise, there has been no change in the system. Why is that we wonder? Lets recap shall we of how the BMA deals with whistleblowers. They are the worst trade union this side of the UK.The original documentation can be reviewed here.
Membership number at the time 7512239 Dr Rita Pal . BMA RECORDS
16.11.1998 " Dr Pal came in to see at 11 and discussed probs at N Staffs. Wld like me to deal with matter on her behalf and with Trust" ( Rox Kozar)
28.11.1998 " There is a formal investigation being held into "needlestick injury". The Trust is going back on their word"
28.11.1998 " Cleaner has needlestick injury and made a formal complaint. Two investigations will be taking place. MPS has stated wil not provide representation. Dr P wants me to ring Annette Stevens stating that she wants transfer or will resign. Had stated that Dr P comes back for 5 days and the will organise transfer. Tomorrow is last day.
14.12.1998 " Sorry Rox, took this call a little while ago, so Dr Pal may have already called you back and go through. Says she has been ringing since last week, ad is returning a call.
14.1.1999 " Has been trying to speak to Rox for sometime Re information faxed to her on 30.11.98. Said sent Rox a statement regarding problems she had which was also copied to her PG tutor Re post she resigned from last year as HO at City General. Wants to know legal standing on issues raised-said she would get back her ( or Rona would once had found file - I knew nothing about the case ( Jenny Cavalot)
19.1. 1999 " She wants proper legal advice and assistance in respect of the Trusts dealing on this matter. This sounds like a potential constructive dismissal claim although I did not raise this with her. She is a difficult member, complained of lack of advice from and support from the BMA. "( Gary Tobin)
21.1.1999 " Advised that Rona Miller CD not deal with this issue as potential conflict of interest. Therefore as Dr P does not want RK, to deal with it I hope to confirm tomorrow whether DM in Manchester can deal with it or alternatively MAP. She will not wait, wants advice now as meeting with consultant tomorrow and BMA have done nothing for months ( Gary Tobin)
26.1.1999 " MAP telephone Dr Pal on 21.1.1999. Lengthy conversation with Dr Pal. House officer at North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust. Got a problem concerning H and S regarding disposal of needles. A cleaner pricked herself. Investigation both by Trust and by HSE. Additionally complained about lack of supervision, lack of staff, lack of support and difficult working conditions. Requested transfer. Eventually resigned. Now a PRHO in General Practice. Appears to have made herself most unpopular with the Trust. Has no right to claim unfair dismissal because she has only worked worked for a few months.
"This seems to be on the basis of the conversation with Dr Pal to be a genuine case of a young doctor who should be protected for sticking up for her rights or in the alternative perhaps she is genuinely a pain in the backside- impossible to judge at the moment"( Sally McGranaghan BMA)
4.4.2000 Member has now resigned
Just for the record, I was also one of the doctors who was left in the dark about the outcome of the investigations into my concerns. The GMC and the Trust purposely concealed the three reports from me until I forced it out of them in 2005 with great difficulty. The Trust and the GMC were quite happy to make everyone including the media assume that there were no basis to my concerns. Even now, the only copy I have is a redacted copy of the 2001 report. Pages have been blacked out. The Department of Health and the Trust refuse to allow me to review the entire copy.
Should the crappy BMA wish to represent me in the above, they are welcome to. Of course, they won't but then the next time I am on TV, I am going to advertise the contempt with which the BMA deals with junior doctors/whistleblowers. If anyone finds the Sky News footage in April 2000 - I tell the interviewer there that the BMA did not assist in the issue of Ward 87.
In my view, writing about them is a much better way of accountability than actually suing them and having a gagging clause put on me. Litigation is no justice of course - not for the useless reps at the BMA anyway.
Blears. The Salford Bint.
Blears has lost her rag and resigned from the Cabinet. Thankgod. One wonders if she will have enough money to buy her usual red hair dye. It is a real shame she has not joined the rest of the population who are on the dole.Blears high water mark of complete idiocy was the following
Here is what the Independent stated
"Political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy," she said. Conservative grandee Lord Baker has described the comments as "extraordinary". He said: "She needs to tune into the modern world. People have a right to say what they think and if she doesn't like it she can blog back". However, Blears maintains that: "Until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."We can of course be sure that Blears is not giving Guido her last Rolo today. Apart from the fact the poverty stricken Blears lives in the squalor of two houses, she will be remembered for her unprecedented attack on the poor defenseless blogger Guido.
Blears has problems and I for one don't think Salford should vote for her at the next general election. These tantrums may suit her Loreal hair dye but they certainly don't suit democracy or human rights. The above statement shows her to be a lady/bint who silences those who criticize the government. There is no room in the corridors of power for anyone like that.
Her Salford constituents should pack her up in a 1985 Ford Cortina, give her enough supply of Loreal and send her packing. Lancashire is the land of tough guys and bravehearts. It certainly has no place for someone with such a high level of greed.
Andrew Mitchell MP. Making Himself Useful
Meanwhile at the Boys Common Room I have always considered Andrew Mitchell MP to be somehow ineffective. Andrew Mitchell has always been of the view that the issues concerning Ward 87 are largely irrelevant. When asked to raise the matter in Parliament, he refused. Andrew Mitchell MP is probably the reason why Ward 87 never quite saw the light of day. A product of Conservative and Labour neglect. Their crowings of how the Conservatives plan to assist whistleblowers were simply words. Mitchell has never acted on it. I should give him credit in that he does write lip service letters. Letters that mean nothing and continue to provide the image that he is actually doing something in his life.
It is acutely true that Andrew Mitchell likes to represent his constituents but he cherry picks the ones that provide him with the most publicity. Mitchell likes to put on a show. So far, he has remained relatively unscathed by the MP expenses revelations. This was Mitchell squirming around at the media after being caught with his large nose in the trough. So while he was not representing the interests of Ward 87, this is what the midlands newspaper said.
Anyway, Mitchell has made himself useful with AVMA to review how much publicity he can get. I find Andrew Mitchell to be largely unintelligent, fails to read his documentation in detail, matters have to be repeated to him on many occasions and he does of course purposefully. In the last decade, he has never sat down and actually read the reports on Ward 87.
So for all the troughing away, do we get our money's worth from our MPs. I think not. Andrew Mitchell certainly failed those on Ward 87. I have repeatedly asked whether I can drop him as my MP. Apparently, no one else can represent me. Anyhow, three weeks ago, I wrote to Mitchell telling him that I had no intention of approaching him again. My reason was that I considered the constant chase ups and his inability to read to be a waste of my time.
Sphere: Related Content
It is acutely true that Andrew Mitchell likes to represent his constituents but he cherry picks the ones that provide him with the most publicity. Mitchell likes to put on a show. So far, he has remained relatively unscathed by the MP expenses revelations. This was Mitchell squirming around at the media after being caught with his large nose in the trough. So while he was not representing the interests of Ward 87, this is what the midlands newspaper said.
"Other claims highlighted by the newspaper included £9,000 in cleaning and garden maintenance bills claimed at the constituency home over four years, and £12,000 for “repair and renewals” including a new boiler, wallpaper and redecoration"The Telegraph further quoted
"Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, billed the taxpayer for £18,800 for “research and secretarial services” between April 2006 and July 2008"In 2004, he claimed a grand total of £125,641 in expenses. Wow.
Anyway, Mitchell has made himself useful with AVMA to review how much publicity he can get. I find Andrew Mitchell to be largely unintelligent, fails to read his documentation in detail, matters have to be repeated to him on many occasions and he does of course purposefully. In the last decade, he has never sat down and actually read the reports on Ward 87.
So for all the troughing away, do we get our money's worth from our MPs. I think not. Andrew Mitchell certainly failed those on Ward 87. I have repeatedly asked whether I can drop him as my MP. Apparently, no one else can represent me. Anyhow, three weeks ago, I wrote to Mitchell telling him that I had no intention of approaching him again. My reason was that I considered the constant chase ups and his inability to read to be a waste of my time.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
The Priory. A Lack of Cardiac Arrest Equipment
Priory Croissants I noted that Susan Boyle has been admitted to the Priory. Much is said about stress and its treatment. I have no idea why Susan could not have been managed with the Home Treatment Team in the NHS. I suppose stars are rather different. Then again, I am fed up of some aspects of the tabloids calling her the Hairy angel or the fact that she is somehow less than anyone else because she doesn't have a model figure. I often find the fake concepts of beauty in the UK rather disturbing. Susan Boyle is an incredibly beautiful person. I think journalists should stop judging others by their own fake yardstick of what women should look like. Beauty is not just by appearance but the entire package. There is nothing wrong with Susan - she is like each one of us - an individual and lovely just the way she is. She is the way we all look like in the normal world.
Anyway, reading a piece about the Priory reminded me of the time I worked at Priory Bartle Lane Preston. It was a bizarre place where appearances were everything. In reality, the food was good but it stopped there. Now that I am no longer on the medical register administratively, I can say that I was called to attend a cardiac arrest out of hours. The difference between a Private and NHS hospital - is this. The NHS hospital has a cardiac arrest team but the in a Private Hospital - you are it as the doctor.
This is what happened on that fateful day when I was asked to save a patient then discovered that the hospital had no equipment. It was about 7am and I was having a shower. Soap was in my eyes, shampoo in my hair and I hadn't quite woken up. A few minutes later, one of the nurses appeared in my shower room, had opened the shower door and was waving her hands up in the air screaming. This was a truly surreal experience. Not only was a completely naked but I didn't understand what she was saying due to the noise of the water. She mentioned " suicide".
I ran out, trying to wear some clothes while running, I got to the room of a patient who had hung himself. Not only did the place not have any ligature cutters but it had nothing. It was the only time, I dialled 999 from my mobile phone while resuscitating this man with my own bare hands. I gave him direct mouth to mouth resuscitation. I noted that he had turned blue/ then grey and the oxygen saturations were not improving with the minimal oxygen during mouth to mouth resuscitation. One of the risks of mouth to mouth resuscitation is that the patient may vomit blood and indeed this is what happened. Without a airway, things were proving impossible. The main aspect I focused on was that he still had a pulse however weak. Just that the anoxic episode due to hanging was the most serious problem and he wasn't breathing. If anyone wants to know about Resus, the Resuscitation Council is the best website.
I was told there was no oxygen, no rebreather bag, no adrenaline - nothing. While I was trying my best to resuscitate him, I knew I was losing him because there was no oxygen. The Paramedics were late but nevertheless, I tried again with them discovering that the heart rhythm was VF [ Ventricular Fibrillation] and that meant I could have got him back had we had some oxygen initially.
Everything was so delayed in that hospital. It was the only time I have never been fearful of the substandard care of a patient during a cardiac arrest. That day, despite working so hard on resuscitation, I lost a patient. It also showed that a doctor was essentially useless without equipment.
I added this lack of equipment in my statement to the Coroner. I was asked to delete it by management and was stopped by the hospital from discussing the matter with the relatives.I suspect the family have no idea that he could have been saved. And I think he could have or at least should have been given the best chance possible. I cannot to this day believe that the place had no equipment.
He is the only person I have not been able to save following a hanging. I have even saved a 77 year old in an NHS hospital with the same findings. The patient in Bartle lane was only in his 40s.
I did though instigate a mechanism where the entire staff ran around obtaining a resuscitation trolley, equipment and ligature cutters. So the material they have there now is probably the material sorted out by all of us following the death of this patient. So that's something.
After I left Bartle Lane, I tried to contact his relatives but sadly never managed to make contact. I am sure the Priory would be happy about that.
Private hospitals are great for elective issues, slow things that can be done over time. Emergencies are not their strong point. The above was hidden quite well from the world at large. I am sure not everything is bad about the Priory - the Croissants are nice, shame about the quality of resuscitation equipment. Actually, lets get back to basics - there was no resuscitation equipment and this was essentially unacceptable. The point is that emergencies do happen to Psychiatric patients and Private Hospitals are woefully ill equipped to deal with these. The admission fees privately go into hundreds per night. I wonder if those who attend private hospital know their failings. I believe the excellent Richard Ennals was the first person to expose the neglectful care in Private Hospitals. He wrote a fascinating piece about Private Hospitals.
The other issue I found out about Private Hospitals is their registration as Registered Nursing homes. It isn't compulsory to have the same equipment as the NHS. Regulation may well have changed since the early 2000s.
Sphere: Related Content
Anyway, reading a piece about the Priory reminded me of the time I worked at Priory Bartle Lane Preston. It was a bizarre place where appearances were everything. In reality, the food was good but it stopped there. Now that I am no longer on the medical register administratively, I can say that I was called to attend a cardiac arrest out of hours. The difference between a Private and NHS hospital - is this. The NHS hospital has a cardiac arrest team but the in a Private Hospital - you are it as the doctor.
This is what happened on that fateful day when I was asked to save a patient then discovered that the hospital had no equipment. It was about 7am and I was having a shower. Soap was in my eyes, shampoo in my hair and I hadn't quite woken up. A few minutes later, one of the nurses appeared in my shower room, had opened the shower door and was waving her hands up in the air screaming. This was a truly surreal experience. Not only was a completely naked but I didn't understand what she was saying due to the noise of the water. She mentioned " suicide".
I ran out, trying to wear some clothes while running, I got to the room of a patient who had hung himself. Not only did the place not have any ligature cutters but it had nothing. It was the only time, I dialled 999 from my mobile phone while resuscitating this man with my own bare hands. I gave him direct mouth to mouth resuscitation. I noted that he had turned blue/ then grey and the oxygen saturations were not improving with the minimal oxygen during mouth to mouth resuscitation. One of the risks of mouth to mouth resuscitation is that the patient may vomit blood and indeed this is what happened. Without a airway, things were proving impossible. The main aspect I focused on was that he still had a pulse however weak. Just that the anoxic episode due to hanging was the most serious problem and he wasn't breathing. If anyone wants to know about Resus, the Resuscitation Council is the best website.
I was told there was no oxygen, no rebreather bag, no adrenaline - nothing. While I was trying my best to resuscitate him, I knew I was losing him because there was no oxygen. The Paramedics were late but nevertheless, I tried again with them discovering that the heart rhythm was VF [ Ventricular Fibrillation] and that meant I could have got him back had we had some oxygen initially.
Everything was so delayed in that hospital. It was the only time I have never been fearful of the substandard care of a patient during a cardiac arrest. That day, despite working so hard on resuscitation, I lost a patient. It also showed that a doctor was essentially useless without equipment.
I added this lack of equipment in my statement to the Coroner. I was asked to delete it by management and was stopped by the hospital from discussing the matter with the relatives.I suspect the family have no idea that he could have been saved. And I think he could have or at least should have been given the best chance possible. I cannot to this day believe that the place had no equipment.
He is the only person I have not been able to save following a hanging. I have even saved a 77 year old in an NHS hospital with the same findings. The patient in Bartle lane was only in his 40s.
I did though instigate a mechanism where the entire staff ran around obtaining a resuscitation trolley, equipment and ligature cutters. So the material they have there now is probably the material sorted out by all of us following the death of this patient. So that's something.
After I left Bartle Lane, I tried to contact his relatives but sadly never managed to make contact. I am sure the Priory would be happy about that.
Private hospitals are great for elective issues, slow things that can be done over time. Emergencies are not their strong point. The above was hidden quite well from the world at large. I am sure not everything is bad about the Priory - the Croissants are nice, shame about the quality of resuscitation equipment. Actually, lets get back to basics - there was no resuscitation equipment and this was essentially unacceptable. The point is that emergencies do happen to Psychiatric patients and Private Hospitals are woefully ill equipped to deal with these. The admission fees privately go into hundreds per night. I wonder if those who attend private hospital know their failings. I believe the excellent Richard Ennals was the first person to expose the neglectful care in Private Hospitals. He wrote a fascinating piece about Private Hospitals.
The other issue I found out about Private Hospitals is their registration as Registered Nursing homes. It isn't compulsory to have the same equipment as the NHS. Regulation may well have changed since the early 2000s.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
FRANK COOK MP. MARK FISHER MP. LYING FOR LABOUR
Frank Cook is currently squealing through the media trying to get out of his £5 donation expenses claim. Apparently, he can't remember claiming it. Sure we believe him [ NOT]. The material below is a earlier post all about Frank Cook's crooked little ways. He and his mate Mark Fisher MP tried to obstruct an investigation by the Health Commission into Ward 87. They both have a new concept ICD 10 Code - it is called Selective Memory Loss.
Here is the tale........
Written in 2008.
I have finally received confirmation that two MPs belonging to the Labour Party LIED about referring the issue of Ward 87 onto the Health Commission. Those MPs were Mr Mark Fisher of Stoke on Trent and his colleague Mr Frank Cook.
In 2005/2006 both MPs were approached about Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Both wrote to me offering their support and collectively agreed to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. This is confirmed by their emails below.
When the Health Commission did not write to me, I began to seek confirmation of this referral. Mark Fisher MP refused to provide me with a copy of the referral. His colleague Frank Cook MP also failed to provide a copy. In three years, they have failed to locate the referral letter.
The failure of the referral in due time effectively sabotaged any meaningful investigation that could be conducted by the Health Commission. The two MPs had of course planned this in meticulous detail. I assume it was because the Labour Party had its own agenda regarding the cover up methodology used for patient neglect.
We therefore ask a further question, why would two MPs purposefully lie to me about a simple referral? Both MPs colluded and purposefully decided that they were not going to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. They both purposefully sought to initially engage me implying they were offering some lip service support. This masquerade continued for a number of years while I tracked down the evidence of their dishonest behaviour.
Following that, they both sat down hoping that no one would discover their plan to effectively conceal the matter of Ward 87 from independent scrutiny. Their plan was to hoodwink me into believing they had referred the matter to the Health Commission and that something was being done. In reality, no referral was ever made.
The two MPs continued to blatantly and shamelessly lie to me collectively for many years . In November 2008, Mr Cook denied any involvement with the matter [ see emails below]. His prior emails are evidence that he blatantly lied yet again.
The Standards Commissioner questioned Mr Mark Fisher and he stated he did not have the paperwork related to the Ward 87 issue anymore :). I believe this is a similar defence used today by Frank Cook. Mr Fisher's Etonian education clearly taught him to be proficient in the art of lying. That is about all he is proficient in.
Here are the various assertions by the two MPs.
---- Original Message -----
From: FISHER, Mark
To: Rita Pal
Cc: COOK, Frank
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Confirmation
Dear Dr Pal
I did indeed refer your complaint, on behalf of Frank Cook and myself, to the Health Commission and am, as I think I have already said to you, still awaiting their reply.
I did not refer this to the Health Select Committee as their brief is to monitor and scrutinise Government policy, not operational matters.
With best wishes
Mark Fisher
----- Original Message -----
From: "COOK, Frank"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL UK PLAYS PASS THE PARCEL
Dear Dr. Pal,
I took the opportunity to discuss your various E-mails in the most general terms with my colleague Mark Fisher MP --- his reaction was that he thought at first glance overall you probably had a case to be answered and he was looking at it --- I promptly offered my support for whatever initiative he might decide to adopt --- he thanked me for that, told me I could let you know of our conversation and said he would keep me informed of any future developments.
Best regards, good luck and God bless fc.
----- Original Message -----
From: COOK, Frank
To: Rita Pal
Cc: peterdodsonmedia@aol.com ; STONEHOUSE, Billy
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: RE: Confirmation
Does it make a difference? -- Yes it does! I have insufficient knowledge of your case, though I did discuss your allegations briefly on a number of occasions, with both Mr Fisher and the Chairman of the Health Select Committee. I made no commitment to make any referral to any commission , or any other person for that matter.
--------------------
Frank Cook
EMAIL FROM THE HEALTH COMMISSION
dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
19th December 2008
Request Reference: 37-263752524
Dear Dr Pal,
Thank you for your emails of 5th and 12th December 2008, in which you request access to information.
In your emails you requested confirmation that a referral had been received by the Healthcare Commission regarding Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust, from Mark Fisher MP and Frank Cook MP.
The Information Access team, in line with the statutory deadlines under Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation, is currently processing your request. The deadline for a request of this kind is twenty working days from the date we received your request. This means that you should expect to receive our response by 16th January 2008.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Tallulah Sutherland-Spedding
Information Access Officer
Message
Here is the tale........
Written in 2008.
I have finally received confirmation that two MPs belonging to the Labour Party LIED about referring the issue of Ward 87 onto the Health Commission. Those MPs were Mr Mark Fisher of Stoke on Trent and his colleague Mr Frank Cook.
In 2005/2006 both MPs were approached about Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Both wrote to me offering their support and collectively agreed to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. This is confirmed by their emails below.
When the Health Commission did not write to me, I began to seek confirmation of this referral. Mark Fisher MP refused to provide me with a copy of the referral. His colleague Frank Cook MP also failed to provide a copy. In three years, they have failed to locate the referral letter.
The failure of the referral in due time effectively sabotaged any meaningful investigation that could be conducted by the Health Commission. The two MPs had of course planned this in meticulous detail. I assume it was because the Labour Party had its own agenda regarding the cover up methodology used for patient neglect.
We therefore ask a further question, why would two MPs purposefully lie to me about a simple referral? Both MPs colluded and purposefully decided that they were not going to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. They both purposefully sought to initially engage me implying they were offering some lip service support. This masquerade continued for a number of years while I tracked down the evidence of their dishonest behaviour.
Following that, they both sat down hoping that no one would discover their plan to effectively conceal the matter of Ward 87 from independent scrutiny. Their plan was to hoodwink me into believing they had referred the matter to the Health Commission and that something was being done. In reality, no referral was ever made.
The two MPs continued to blatantly and shamelessly lie to me collectively for many years . In November 2008, Mr Cook denied any involvement with the matter [ see emails below]. His prior emails are evidence that he blatantly lied yet again.
The Standards Commissioner questioned Mr Mark Fisher and he stated he did not have the paperwork related to the Ward 87 issue anymore :). I believe this is a similar defence used today by Frank Cook. Mr Fisher's Etonian education clearly taught him to be proficient in the art of lying. That is about all he is proficient in.
Here are the various assertions by the two MPs.
---- Original Message -----
From: FISHER, Mark
To: Rita Pal
Cc: COOK, Frank
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Confirmation
Dear Dr Pal
I did indeed refer your complaint, on behalf of Frank Cook and myself, to the Health Commission and am, as I think I have already said to you, still awaiting their reply.
I did not refer this to the Health Select Committee as their brief is to monitor and scrutinise Government policy, not operational matters.
With best wishes
Mark Fisher
----- Original Message -----
From: "COOK, Frank"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL UK PLAYS PASS THE PARCEL
Dear Dr. Pal,
I took the opportunity to discuss your various E-mails in the most general terms with my colleague Mark Fisher MP --- his reaction was that he thought at first glance overall you probably had a case to be answered and he was looking at it --- I promptly offered my support for whatever initiative he might decide to adopt --- he thanked me for that, told me I could let you know of our conversation and said he would keep me informed of any future developments.
Best regards, good luck and God bless fc.
----- Original Message -----
From: COOK, Frank
To: Rita Pal
Cc: peterdodsonmedia@aol.com ; STONEHOUSE, Billy
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: RE: Confirmation
Does it make a difference? -- Yes it does! I have insufficient knowledge of your case, though I did discuss your allegations briefly on a number of occasions, with both Mr Fisher and the Chairman of the Health Select Committee. I made no commitment to make any referral to any commission , or any other person for that matter.
--------------------
Frank Cook
EMAIL FROM THE HEALTH COMMISSION
dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
19th December 2008
Request Reference: 37-263752524
Dear Dr Pal,
Thank you for your emails of 5th and 12th December 2008, in which you request access to information.
In your emails you requested confirmation that a referral had been received by the Healthcare Commission regarding Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust, from Mark Fisher MP and Frank Cook MP.
The Information Access team, in line with the statutory deadlines under Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation, is currently processing your request. The deadline for a request of this kind is twenty working days from the date we received your request. This means that you should expect to receive our response by 16th January 2008.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Tallulah Sutherland-Spedding
Information Access Officer
Sphere: Related Content
Richard Horton and The Lancet
Sexy :)The Lancet is actually my fav medical journal. I read that and the New England Journal of Medicine. I have done this since my days as a medical student. It is quite sad that the public do not have easy access to these journals. It causes a gap between the medical profession and the public. Nevertheless, that is how it has been for many years.
I like the editorials written by the very intelligent and articulate Richard Horton. I have to thank him for unmasking Andrew Wakefield some years ago. Richard Smith ex editor of the BMJ was just too smitten with Andrew's good looks to even spot the issue. We can still hear Richard huffing away about how wonderful Andrew was. There isn't a peep out of Richard these days. Cat got his tongue I suppose. There is certainly a Richard Smith on the supporters list for Wakefield. Mind you, the world and his dog is called Smith these days.
Horton's book Science and Fiction is well worth a read. Horton has a clear and logical head unlike his competitor and dizzy BMJ editor Fiona Godlee. Horton has his finger on the pulse most of the time although I often think that the furore surrounding MMR surprised him. As the icing on the cake, Horton is also pretty good looking as editors of straight journals go. Some things are important to the naked eye no doubt.
Talking of charming men, I do have to thank Alistair on Panorama for some interesting correspondence. David Southall can be watched on Panorama this Monday at 8.30. The answer to the programme is - yes, David has been the victim of a dysfunctional group complete with accessory personality disorders.
No doubt, the world of women will throw darts at the television and the rest of us will observe whether he has learned anything in the last few years.
The fight to steal David Southall's fame continues through Jayne Bryant and Lisa Blakemore Brown, two women who don't quite assess matters in a straight line but nevertheless have interesting views from the hill.
There is no doubt that David is an irritating man on many occasions but that's just because I often out argue him and think seven steps ahead.
David has two groups of women - those who love him without questioning him, and those who hate him with a vengeance. There is no middle ground at all.
David needs five more years to develop a more balanced view of the social perception of issues involving child protection. That is because he has spent too much time with his child protection mates and not enough time with real people. I do have to say that in Penny Mellor's own skewed view, she is right about the lack of solutions for those who are accused but innocent. A GMC erasure though isn't vindication or a solution. Mellor for some reason has never concentrated on changing the system to address the allegations that remain on a file despite the person being deemed innocent. I would say the focus of her campaign has been wrong from the start but then no one can teach a dogmatic arrogant self congratulatory campaigner.
The lack of a reality check for David has resulted in the views developed by Lisa Blakemore Brown and Jayne. I just don't think David is very good at dealing with women who challenge him. His solution is to avoid them. I suspect this inability to focus on how other people percieve him has resulted in his erasure. David is a straight line thinker, a man who doesn't deal in emotions or feelings or the needs of others. David has a job in front of him, he does it to the best of his ability. That is the way he approaches the protection of a child. Blakemore Brown and Jayne are rather different creatures - rather more emotive, considerate, heartfelt. The world of David Southall therefore clashes with Blakemore Brown and Jayne - and quite frankly neither understands the other's thought processes.
The bottom line is this - neither women are on the shop floor dealing with child abusers and probably have no idea what it is like making a decision to protect the child. Everyone has an opinion about it - but the buck does not stop with us.
There is though no doubt all that David Southall is one of the best child protection specialists this side of the UK. No child has died out of neglect on David's on call. That remains a fact whether anyone likes it or not.
Anyway, I wanted to feature the best piece so far in relation to child protection in the Lancet.I like the editorials written by the very intelligent and articulate Richard Horton. I have to thank him for unmasking Andrew Wakefield some years ago. Richard Smith ex editor of the BMJ was just too smitten with Andrew's good looks to even spot the issue. We can still hear Richard huffing away about how wonderful Andrew was. There isn't a peep out of Richard these days. Cat got his tongue I suppose. There is certainly a Richard Smith on the supporters list for Wakefield. Mind you, the world and his dog is called Smith these days.
Horton's book Science and Fiction is well worth a read. Horton has a clear and logical head unlike his competitor and dizzy BMJ editor Fiona Godlee. Horton has his finger on the pulse most of the time although I often think that the furore surrounding MMR surprised him. As the icing on the cake, Horton is also pretty good looking as editors of straight journals go. Some things are important to the naked eye no doubt.
Talking of charming men, I do have to thank Alistair on Panorama for some interesting correspondence. David Southall can be watched on Panorama this Monday at 8.30. The answer to the programme is - yes, David has been the victim of a dysfunctional group complete with accessory personality disorders.
No doubt, the world of women will throw darts at the television and the rest of us will observe whether he has learned anything in the last few years.
The fight to steal David Southall's fame continues through Jayne Bryant and Lisa Blakemore Brown, two women who don't quite assess matters in a straight line but nevertheless have interesting views from the hill.
There is no doubt that David is an irritating man on many occasions but that's just because I often out argue him and think seven steps ahead.
David has two groups of women - those who love him without questioning him, and those who hate him with a vengeance. There is no middle ground at all.
David needs five more years to develop a more balanced view of the social perception of issues involving child protection. That is because he has spent too much time with his child protection mates and not enough time with real people. I do have to say that in Penny Mellor's own skewed view, she is right about the lack of solutions for those who are accused but innocent. A GMC erasure though isn't vindication or a solution. Mellor for some reason has never concentrated on changing the system to address the allegations that remain on a file despite the person being deemed innocent. I would say the focus of her campaign has been wrong from the start but then no one can teach a dogmatic arrogant self congratulatory campaigner.
The lack of a reality check for David has resulted in the views developed by Lisa Blakemore Brown and Jayne. I just don't think David is very good at dealing with women who challenge him. His solution is to avoid them. I suspect this inability to focus on how other people percieve him has resulted in his erasure. David is a straight line thinker, a man who doesn't deal in emotions or feelings or the needs of others. David has a job in front of him, he does it to the best of his ability. That is the way he approaches the protection of a child. Blakemore Brown and Jayne are rather different creatures - rather more emotive, considerate, heartfelt. The world of David Southall therefore clashes with Blakemore Brown and Jayne - and quite frankly neither understands the other's thought processes.
The bottom line is this - neither women are on the shop floor dealing with child abusers and probably have no idea what it is like making a decision to protect the child. Everyone has an opinion about it - but the buck does not stop with us.
There is though no doubt all that David Southall is one of the best child protection specialists this side of the UK. No child has died out of neglect on David's on call. That remains a fact whether anyone likes it or not.
Urgent: a UK Commission on Child Protection
Last week, three contradictory decisions made a mockery of child protection in the UK and Ireland by further adding to the confusion around how best to protect vulnerable children.
On May 20, Judge Sean Ryan released the final report of Ireland's commission into child abuse, which revealed that over the past few decades, more than 30 000 children were repeatedly raped, beaten, and molested by priests and nuns in Catholic church-run schools and orphanages. Now aged 50—70 years, none of the victims will have the justice that they deserve because none of their abusers will be prosecuted.
Then on May 22, the second review into the death of Baby Peter—who died in August, 2007, aged 17 months after repeated abuse—was released and stressed that his mother's continuous cover-up of his abuse was no excuse for the multiple agencies and individuals involved for failing to protect him. Indeed, after a media campaign, the General Medical Council (GMC) suspended the paediatrician who did not detect signs of repeated abuse immediately before his death. This second review states that professionals should use their judgment and instincts to pursue the investigation of potential child abuse, even in the knowledge that they may be mistaken.
Therefore, it is incomprehensible that on the same day as the second review was released and the UK Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families, Ed Balls, said that all professionals involved in child protection should act to put the child first and not be deceived by parents, the High Court upheld the GMC's decision to strike the paediatrician and child protection expert, Dr David Southall, off the medical register for doing just that. Mr Justice Blake threw out Southall's appeal against the GMC's decision, which was based on him allegedly accusing a mother of killing her son. Justice Blake confirmed the decision of a GMC panel and upheld the view that the mother was “an impressive, credible, and reliable witness in the central issues of the case”. In a press statement, the advocacy organisation, Professionals Against Child Abuse, said that this decision will be a further deterrent to paediatricians and other health professionals from getting involved in child protection work.
So, in light of all these conflicting messages, what are professionals committed to protecting children supposed to do? Child protection in the UK and Ireland is a disastrous mess and it is clear that no amount of reflex retribution, retraining, and tinkering around the edges will be enough to fix it.
One group of paediatricians and child protection workers believes that different types of child abuse need different ways of dealing with it. Premeditated child maltreatment by perpetrators who are deceptive, so this group argues, may need more and earlier involvement of specialist police units since the police cannot be intimidated by dangerous child abusers and can protect social workers and paediatricians.
A different view emerged from evidence reviewed in our child maltreatment Series. The Series authors argued that a change towards earlier police involvement may actually cause more harm to the large number of children who come from chaotic and incapable families with social instability. They advocated a comprehensive child and family welfare approach, where the emphasis is on addressing need, rather than a safety approach, which focuses on determining culpability. In their view, the welfare emphasis means that more maltreated children are likely to receive therapeutic and supportive services. And although they agreed that some types of child maltreatment do require criminal prosecution, the difficulty remains for paediatricians at the frontline to diagnose the different types of child abuse and refer to the appropriate services. Clearly there is no overall consensus among professionals on how to best serve the very people they try to protect—children.
Paediatricians need to speak up loudly and take the lead in a concerted effort to change the current, clearly inadequate system in the most appropriate way. The government should put the Children's Commissioner in charge to urgently set up a National Child Protection Commission that reviews all the evidence emerging from national and international data and devise evidence-based recommendations on how best to protect vulnerable children. Society has the collective responsibility to do justice to the memories of 30 000 Irish victims, Baby Peter, Victoria Climbié, Ainlee Labonte, and all the other countless and nameless victims of damaging and life-threatening child abuse.
There is a PDF on the website as well.
There is a PDF on the website as well.
Friday, 29 May 2009
BMJ " What's a "Lawyer"?
Gooderham Appears Not to have Reached Maximum Shark Status
I had to smirk while reading the BMJ today. This is supposed to be the highest ranking medical journal in the UK, yet it has had to remove Raj Persaud's material because it didn't understand the issue about cut and paste. To put it another way, they overlooked it.
Now they have been peddling law tutor Peter Gooderham as a "Expert in whistleblowing". Last night I noted a Podcast. This is the BMJ's efforts at being " trendy", being "in with the crowd". Of course, it doesn't work because all of us who know this journal, know that it has been sailing downwards for quite a while. It is a shame it doesn't crash and burn to allow other more open minded journals to take over. Even the Lancet has more teeth than the BMJ.
Anyway, back to the Podcast - it is called Whistle Down the Archives. This is what they say :-
"Rebecca Coombes talks to lawyers Peter Gooderham from Cardiff University and Chris Cox from the Royal College of Nursing about the legal implications of whistleblowing"
The question therefore remains, is Peter Goodherham a lawyer?
For that, we go to Peter's website which states as follows
We therefore assume that he has not done the Legal Practise Course. At least he does not appear to have done it. The Dictionary cites the definition of a Lawyer as
"a member of the legal profession who can advise clients about the law and represent them in court"
We know Gooderham is not a solicitor or a barrister. He is a Law Tutor. He does not have the qualifications to represent clients in court. Is is therefore strictly a lawyer?
Does that qualify him into giving legal advice? For that, we may go off to the Solicitors Act
Well, Gooderham is not on the Law Society's list and is not a solicitor. He does not appear to be on the Bar Council list either so can't be a barrister. The question then remains, what is he? And does he have the capacity to provide advice on legislation/employment/PIDA in the media with the title " lawyer". He is certainly a law tutor, there is no doubts about that. There is of course a world of difference between teaching it and doing it. It appears that Gooderham has never applied the law practically in the real world. He has never advised on PIDA so why is the BMJ peddling him as an "Expert" and a "Lawyer"?
Is this misleading the mainstream audience? That is the question isn't it. And does the lay audience know the difference between a law tutor and a person who is a lawyer and is able to practise law?
Sphere: Related Content
"Mr Donne said the British Medical Journal (BMJ) was forced to issue an "unequivocal retraction" in September 2005 after publishing an article by Dr Persaud in which he failed to correctly attribute his work"
Now they have been peddling law tutor Peter Gooderham as a "Expert in whistleblowing". Last night I noted a Podcast. This is the BMJ's efforts at being " trendy", being "in with the crowd". Of course, it doesn't work because all of us who know this journal, know that it has been sailing downwards for quite a while. It is a shame it doesn't crash and burn to allow other more open minded journals to take over. Even the Lancet has more teeth than the BMJ.
Anyway, back to the Podcast - it is called Whistle Down the Archives. This is what they say :-
"Rebecca Coombes talks to lawyers Peter Gooderham from Cardiff University and Chris Cox from the Royal College of Nursing about the legal implications of whistleblowing"
The question therefore remains, is Peter Goodherham a lawyer?
For that, we go to Peter's website which states as follows
"After several years in General Practice he obtained First Class Honours in the Open University LLB and first came to Cardiff to do the Legal Aspects of Medical Practice course in 2002, graduating LLM in 2004. Also in 2004 he became an International Fellow of the American College of Legal Medicine. He is a Council Member of the Section of Clinical Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine"
We therefore assume that he has not done the Legal Practise Course. At least he does not appear to have done it. The Dictionary cites the definition of a Lawyer as
"a member of the legal profession who can advise clients about the law and represent them in court"
We know Gooderham is not a solicitor or a barrister. He is a Law Tutor. He does not have the qualifications to represent clients in court. Is is therefore strictly a lawyer?
Does that qualify him into giving legal advice? For that, we may go off to the Solicitors Act
1. No person shall be qualified to act as a solicitor unless— Qualifications
(a) he has been admitted as a solicitor, and for practising
as solicitor.
(b) his name is on the roll, and
(c) he has in force a certificate issued by the Society in
accordance with the provisions of this Part authorising
him to practise as a solicitor (in this Act referred to as
a "practising certificate ").
(a) he has been admitted as a solicitor, and for practising
as solicitor.
(b) his name is on the roll, and
(c) he has in force a certificate issued by the Society in
accordance with the provisions of this Part authorising
him to practise as a solicitor (in this Act referred to as
a "practising certificate ").
Well, Gooderham is not on the Law Society's list and is not a solicitor. He does not appear to be on the Bar Council list either so can't be a barrister. The question then remains, what is he? And does he have the capacity to provide advice on legislation/employment/PIDA in the media with the title " lawyer". He is certainly a law tutor, there is no doubts about that. There is of course a world of difference between teaching it and doing it. It appears that Gooderham has never applied the law practically in the real world. He has never advised on PIDA so why is the BMJ peddling him as an "Expert" and a "Lawyer"?
Is this misleading the mainstream audience? That is the question isn't it. And does the lay audience know the difference between a law tutor and a person who is a lawyer and is able to practise law?
Peter Gooderham. An Expert in What?
LLB. Making You An Expert in Everything.Previously on Ward 87 I wrote about the BMJ and their limp piece on Whistleblowing written by a default "expert" in whistleblowing Peter Gooderham.
I have this morning discovered where the word "expert" as used in the BMJ piece this week and featured by the media. It originated from the BMJ Press Releases. The title of said press release is " Culture change to encourage whistleblowing needed, says expert".
So the BMJ itself is peddling a Tutor from Cardiff University as an " Expert in Whistleblowing". How did that happen then?
If we look closely at the Peter Gooderham's website he tells us " His particular interests are in clinical negligence, medical regulation, and the role of expert witnesses." . So where is the word "whistleblowing" then?
So essentially, he is a doctor turned law tutor. His research does not appear to be on whistleblowing. He has never whistleblown in his life. He does not appear to be a leading researcher in all things whistleblowing. He knows nothing about whistleblowing apart from what he has read in the papers and the BMJ peddles him as an " Expert".
Geez, it must be going through their usual "desperado" days in searching high and low for someone they can mislead the media about. It is quite a nice trick to essentially advertise ones law degree which by default apparently means you become an expert in whistleblowing. Unbelievable! So what happened to the likes of Raj Mattu or Aubrey Blumsohn, men who are established whistleblowers? Not good enough for the BMJ then?
So lets see, the man who has never whistleblown, never researched whistleblowing, has no idea about whistleblowing is now consulted by the media as an "expert" on the subject. Wow, nice work if you can get it eh.
My God, I eat chocolate, I must be an expert in it :).
Sphere: Related Content
I have this morning discovered where the word "expert" as used in the BMJ piece this week and featured by the media. It originated from the BMJ Press Releases. The title of said press release is " Culture change to encourage whistleblowing needed, says expert".
So the BMJ itself is peddling a Tutor from Cardiff University as an " Expert in Whistleblowing". How did that happen then?
If we look closely at the Peter Gooderham's website he tells us " His particular interests are in clinical negligence, medical regulation, and the role of expert witnesses." . So where is the word "whistleblowing" then?
So essentially, he is a doctor turned law tutor. His research does not appear to be on whistleblowing. He has never whistleblown in his life. He does not appear to be a leading researcher in all things whistleblowing. He knows nothing about whistleblowing apart from what he has read in the papers and the BMJ peddles him as an " Expert".
Geez, it must be going through their usual "desperado" days in searching high and low for someone they can mislead the media about. It is quite a nice trick to essentially advertise ones law degree which by default apparently means you become an expert in whistleblowing. Unbelievable! So what happened to the likes of Raj Mattu or Aubrey Blumsohn, men who are established whistleblowers? Not good enough for the BMJ then?
So lets see, the man who has never whistleblown, never researched whistleblowing, has no idea about whistleblowing is now consulted by the media as an "expert" on the subject. Wow, nice work if you can get it eh.
My God, I eat chocolate, I must be an expert in it :).
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Dr Peter Gooderham plus BMJ
This is the link to the BMJ piece on whistleblowing. I discussed it briefly yesterday. I only realised today that it was written by Peter Gooderham, the man who wonderfully missed out the leading regulatory body case on Whistleblowing from his talk on the GMC. The header to the piece states
"Statutory protection, support from
regulatory bodies and a culture change are required"
regulatory bodies and a culture change are required"
Support from the regulatory bodies? What does Gooderham mean by this? Does he mean that it happens overnight and the Witch hunters in medicine suddenly cease to act? Does he think that just by a BMJ header, the GMC will say " Ah, we have been wrong, we are here to protect whistleblowers". I think not. Is Gooderham about to address the contamination of the GMC by groups like freemasonry? The GMC has admitted to freemasonry. Ah, that is a prickly subject for the brotherhood. And the role this group plays against whistleblowers? Has anyone bothered to examine that?
Some writers refer to Gooderham as an " expert". And expert in what? Has he ever whistleblown? No, I suspect not.
Some writers refer to Gooderham as an " expert". And expert in what? Has he ever whistleblown? No, I suspect not.
He concludes.
"A start would be for those in official positions to recognise the risks of whistleblowing. Then they might begin to limit the damage wrought by the next scandals which are probably already happening"
And how is that going to happen when the author himself does not raise the vital concerns regarding the witch hunts conducted by our great and good General Medical Council. Gooderham exists in a world of his own. It is a theoretical world where matters are analysed, quoted by reference and all of a sudden the world assumes that the medical profession is doing something about whistleblowing. The article in the BMJ is effectively meaningless and pointless. It essentially rolls in the media being quoted by the Telegraph so that those who debate can sit there like Churchill dogs and go "Ah yeees".
The theory is that if you write in measured terms as the BMJ would accept, they must be saying something important. In reality, if you read the piece, it says nothing important. It does not provide us with new information or problem solving measures. It is a lip service piece written to join in the party of media articles on whistleblowing.
In reality, the majority of senior doctors are the main problem in the culture to prevent whistleblowing. This just is not recognised. This can be viewed by the total lack of support from leading medical journals for vital issues raised by whistleblowers. Peter Gooderham is no stranger to neglecting Ward 87. He has remained tight lipped about it for 9 years.
The theory is that if you write in measured terms as the BMJ would accept, they must be saying something important. In reality, if you read the piece, it says nothing important. It does not provide us with new information or problem solving measures. It is a lip service piece written to join in the party of media articles on whistleblowing.
In reality, the majority of senior doctors are the main problem in the culture to prevent whistleblowing. This just is not recognised. This can be viewed by the total lack of support from leading medical journals for vital issues raised by whistleblowers. Peter Gooderham is no stranger to neglecting Ward 87. He has remained tight lipped about it for 9 years.
Lets get to the bottom of the problem - the problem remains a cultural misconception and misunderstanding of whistleblowers. They are historically deemed trouble makers and I suspect in the end they do become trouble makers due to the consistent system failings to address the important concerns. Most whistleblowers become pariahs. Having forced them into that state, the profession will tend to punish them by default. Trouble makers need to be taught a lesson and that lesson is normally taught by senior doctors who love making an example of whistleblowers. As soon as any senior doctor finds out that a doctor is a whistleblower - there is a certain protocol of that is followed. This includes making life impossible for that doctor. Many seniors engage in this behaviour.
The medical profession is extremely good at isolating whistleblowing doctors. It is a kind of " Hey look, lets see if they survive. We can't publicly be seen to associate with them because it might have a detrimental effect on my career". Character assassination quests then continue through the dark corridors of medicine. Perhaps it gives them that certain satisfaction to make life difficult for the whistleblower.
The medical profession is extremely good at isolating whistleblowing doctors. It is a kind of " Hey look, lets see if they survive. We can't publicly be seen to associate with them because it might have a detrimental effect on my career". Character assassination quests then continue through the dark corridors of medicine. Perhaps it gives them that certain satisfaction to make life difficult for the whistleblower.
Gooderham presents rather a predictable media stance on moaning that something should be done to "protect" whistleblowers. Well, this has been narrated by various articles for the last 20 years. He provides no constructive solutions about the future much like his predecessors. Whistleblowing becomes an intellectual debate and a discussion over tea. Then it is forgotten. This has been seen in the Shipman Inquiry and the Bristol Inquiry. There are reams of documents on the subject of whistleblowing - all of which are ignored. In reality, it is extremely difficult for a single whistleblower to report their concerns and for their concerns to be taken seriously.
Gooderham makes no advances about improving the legal support for whistleblowers, or trade union representation or indeed defence union representation. He makes no suggestions that there should be a Health Select Committee review into Whistleblowing to come to a set of solutions after interviewing a number of whistleblowers. He does not suggest that PIDA should be reassessed and reviewed so that protection is guaranteed for doctors within their job not after they have been dismissed and whistleblown. He offers no suggestion of trauma support for whistleblowers or a Whistleblower Support group or medical school education on the subject. That is because Gooderham does live in his ivory tower. It is a legal ivory tower. Those that live in it are divorced from reality and practicality.
I should say Gooderham has known about Ward 87 since the early 2000. I note he fails to mention it in any article.
Ward 87 is a thorn in the BMJ's side. It can't be easy to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 2000 people. But the finger should be pointing at the BMJ? They should ask themselves what they were doing while people were dying?
North Staffordshire and Staffordshire and what could have been done to prevent deaths? That is a question isn't it? What could the medical journals have done to prevent this catastrophy?
The link is of course forgotten yet the link between Haywood and Staffordshire is the commonest one. Haywood though isn't outspoken, she is a meek nurse who does the victim role quite well. Being a media constructed whistleblower is of course a little different from a real one :). The confort zone of media support, legal support and payments from Panorama are not something in the armory of every whistleblower. Real whistleblowers happen to be quite the opposite - they also happen to stand on their own two feet without various crutches given to a media styled whistleblower.
Tea and sympathy and debate is not what the whistleblowing world requires. It requires the Medical Journals to look at themselves to see what they could have done to support each and every whistleblower in the United Kingdom. It requires inquiries and practical solutions.
The BMJ remains unsupportive of Ward 87 to this day. They minds are clouded by the image of a " trouble maker" who has now probably become a trouble maker because she finds it unacceptable that 2000 people died because her concerns were neglected by them .
They were neglected by the BMJ because she did not fit the image that the BMJ has of whistleblowers. Image is everything of course. Facts and evidence mean nothing for the land of the BMJ. Essentially, you have to be a good little whisteblower and you can only be those if you are Margaret Haywood. The rest of the whistleblowers are hard hitting, outspoken tough guys who play to win.
Gooderham makes no advances about improving the legal support for whistleblowers, or trade union representation or indeed defence union representation. He makes no suggestions that there should be a Health Select Committee review into Whistleblowing to come to a set of solutions after interviewing a number of whistleblowers. He does not suggest that PIDA should be reassessed and reviewed so that protection is guaranteed for doctors within their job not after they have been dismissed and whistleblown. He offers no suggestion of trauma support for whistleblowers or a Whistleblower Support group or medical school education on the subject. That is because Gooderham does live in his ivory tower. It is a legal ivory tower. Those that live in it are divorced from reality and practicality.
I should say Gooderham has known about Ward 87 since the early 2000. I note he fails to mention it in any article.
Ward 87 is a thorn in the BMJ's side. It can't be easy to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 2000 people. But the finger should be pointing at the BMJ? They should ask themselves what they were doing while people were dying?
North Staffordshire and Staffordshire and what could have been done to prevent deaths? That is a question isn't it? What could the medical journals have done to prevent this catastrophy?
The link is of course forgotten yet the link between Haywood and Staffordshire is the commonest one. Haywood though isn't outspoken, she is a meek nurse who does the victim role quite well. Being a media constructed whistleblower is of course a little different from a real one :). The confort zone of media support, legal support and payments from Panorama are not something in the armory of every whistleblower. Real whistleblowers happen to be quite the opposite - they also happen to stand on their own two feet without various crutches given to a media styled whistleblower.
Tea and sympathy and debate is not what the whistleblowing world requires. It requires the Medical Journals to look at themselves to see what they could have done to support each and every whistleblower in the United Kingdom. It requires inquiries and practical solutions.
The BMJ remains unsupportive of Ward 87 to this day. They minds are clouded by the image of a " trouble maker" who has now probably become a trouble maker because she finds it unacceptable that 2000 people died because her concerns were neglected by them .
They were neglected by the BMJ because she did not fit the image that the BMJ has of whistleblowers. Image is everything of course. Facts and evidence mean nothing for the land of the BMJ. Essentially, you have to be a good little whisteblower and you can only be those if you are Margaret Haywood. The rest of the whistleblowers are hard hitting, outspoken tough guys who play to win.
I have no doubts that Gooderham will be grossly unhappy with this write - up and aim to justify himself. In the end, my patience has run out with those who purport to support whistleblowers in theory but in practise would walk past them and make no comment.
Gooderham has his position to maintain much like his favourite medical colleagues. Between 2000 and 2006 despite knowing about Ward 87 Gooderham has never so much as dropped me a line of support.
Gooderham has his position to maintain much like his favourite medical colleagues. Between 2000 and 2006 despite knowing about Ward 87 Gooderham has never so much as dropped me a line of support.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
BMJ. You have to be White, Middle Aged and An Establishment Whistleblower
Sharp Suit. White Face. BMJ Backed The problem with reading newspapers at 5 am in the morning is that there is a huge risk of choking on my cornflakes. Liz Miller introduced me to this choking effect. It is often developed when utterly shocked at certain statements made by the various publications and the media. A few weeks ago, I asked why the medical journals were so slow in raising concerns on whistleblowing. We asked why no medical journals backed whistleblowing doctors within the NHS. Well, the BMJ have apparently been slow to react but better late then never. I suspect, Fiona Godlee felt her Carbon obsession had come to an end and it may have been a slow story day.
Now, the history between me and the BMJ goes back centuries. We have to go back to old bats like Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi and their attitude to junior medical whistleblowers. Richard Smith backed Andrew Wakefield 100 percent. Indeed, there are column inches dedicated to him. That was his whistleblower of choice. Andrew was white, middleclass, wore tweed jackets, smiled at the camera with that Colgate twinkle. We remember the days Richard Smith hailed Andrew Wakefield as a whistleblower undermined by the establishment. Indeed, Richard crowed so much about it, it was amazing. No crowing now though because Richard has done a U turn since Wakefield has ended up at the GMC. Isn't it amazing how fickle ex BMJ editors can be.
By comparison, there was me - a junior doctor whom few people paid any heed to during the early days. I had gone to Richard Smith and repeatedly told him about Ward 87. He summarily ignored me. When the evidence filtered out, he ignored me then as well. That was the sole reason for commencing http://www.nhsexposed.com . I was a bit tired of tolerating this behaviour. And sure I resented it. Why shouldn't I resent it? The leading medical journal ignored junior doctors concerns, failed to raise issues on the failure of supervision and continued as if Ward 87 never existed. People were dying and Richard was into personalities. I didn't quite fit in. I was that little different - different sentence structure, outspoken. I am a little uncomfortable for the BMJ. Someone who never quite went away and continued to question them.
So what have the BMJ featured instead?
For a start we have to congratulate Fiona Godlee and team for allowing the anti msbp group the oxygen of publicity. Rapid Responses were directly responsible for David Southall's downfall by the mere nature of connecting people with dubious alliances. Of course, while giving these vexatious GMC complainants the oxygen of publicity, they ignored the real concerns in the NHS eg patient deaths.
So that is the BMJ all over for you. When Fiona Godlee came to the helm of the BMJ, she believed what the rest of the world said about me including Dr Neil Bacon. We have to admit the Doctors Only website and their connections did a fantastic job of character assassinating a whistleblower. I noted that this Doctors Only website supported Margaret Haywood. The reality of course is that it has never supported any whistleblowers.
By comparison, there was me - a junior doctor whom few people paid any heed to during the early days. I had gone to Richard Smith and repeatedly told him about Ward 87. He summarily ignored me. When the evidence filtered out, he ignored me then as well. That was the sole reason for commencing http://www.nhsexposed.com . I was a bit tired of tolerating this behaviour. And sure I resented it. Why shouldn't I resent it? The leading medical journal ignored junior doctors concerns, failed to raise issues on the failure of supervision and continued as if Ward 87 never existed. People were dying and Richard was into personalities. I didn't quite fit in. I was that little different - different sentence structure, outspoken. I am a little uncomfortable for the BMJ. Someone who never quite went away and continued to question them.
So what have the BMJ featured instead?
For a start we have to congratulate Fiona Godlee and team for allowing the anti msbp group the oxygen of publicity. Rapid Responses were directly responsible for David Southall's downfall by the mere nature of connecting people with dubious alliances. Of course, while giving these vexatious GMC complainants the oxygen of publicity, they ignored the real concerns in the NHS eg patient deaths.
So that is the BMJ all over for you. When Fiona Godlee came to the helm of the BMJ, she believed what the rest of the world said about me including Dr Neil Bacon. We have to admit the Doctors Only website and their connections did a fantastic job of character assassinating a whistleblower. I noted that this Doctors Only website supported Margaret Haywood. The reality of course is that it has never supported any whistleblowers.
The BMJ has spent years banning anything I have written even innocent comments on Rapid Responses. Cleverly, colleagues posted comments on my behalf to test this and low and behold what I wrote under their names was published! You have to laugh really because the BMJ is so predictable. You have to understand the BMJ, it has a committee controlled by those with vested interests. One such large amphibian is Dr Brian Keighley, a man with a dubious personal life but nevertheless a doctor on the committees of both BMA and GMC. These dual interests have an influence on how editorials are featured and what is written.
The Telegraph featured the BMJ piece recently. Yes, we know that the whistleblowing story is milked dry until journalists have to squeeze what little they understand of it into a new format. And this is what you see in the Telegraph. Nevertheless, we must applaud Fiona Godlee with a slow clap for finally coming to terms with the world's view that only one whistleblower exists in the entire NHS. That person is Margaret Haywood. The BMJ states
We have to ask ourselves some salient but uncomfortable questions about the BMJ? Where were the BMJ when Ward 87 happened? Where were the BMJ when the evidence came out for Ward 87? If the BMJ had done their job, would more than 2000 people have died in Staffordshire? Is it so uncomfortable for them that after 10 years, I was proven right. Just happens that I don't quite fit into to the "victim whistleblower role".
Then we have to ask ourselves what the Telegraph did in the year 2000. Yes, we know they had substantial amounts of information provided to them by Amit Chaudhari, their then journalist. What was it that the Telegraph had to say - to quote the editor here " It is all very medical and I don't understand it. Dr Pal probably has a axe to grind?" So we have to ask ourselves whether the deaths of 2000 people may have been prevented?
So, yes let us question the conduct of these publications and be outspoken about it. Let us ask about the role of journals and the media in raising important concerns. Let us ask whether they play a role in actively silencing whistleblowers - they certainly silenced me. Lets say something uncomfortable and tell them that North Staffordshire was about 10 minutes away from Stafford. In the old days, it was all run by the same health authority. So, lets ask why the medical media walked passed Ward 87 in 1998?
"An editorial in the journal warns that the "next" hospital scandal like that of Stafford, where up to 1,200 patients died as a result of poor care, is "probably already happening" because staff are too frightened to speak out"
We have to ask ourselves some salient but uncomfortable questions about the BMJ? Where were the BMJ when Ward 87 happened? Where were the BMJ when the evidence came out for Ward 87? If the BMJ had done their job, would more than 2000 people have died in Staffordshire? Is it so uncomfortable for them that after 10 years, I was proven right. Just happens that I don't quite fit into to the "victim whistleblower role".
Then we have to ask ourselves what the Telegraph did in the year 2000. Yes, we know they had substantial amounts of information provided to them by Amit Chaudhari, their then journalist. What was it that the Telegraph had to say - to quote the editor here " It is all very medical and I don't understand it. Dr Pal probably has a axe to grind?" So we have to ask ourselves whether the deaths of 2000 people may have been prevented?
So, yes let us question the conduct of these publications and be outspoken about it. Let us ask about the role of journals and the media in raising important concerns. Let us ask whether they play a role in actively silencing whistleblowers - they certainly silenced me. Lets say something uncomfortable and tell them that North Staffordshire was about 10 minutes away from Stafford. In the old days, it was all run by the same health authority. So, lets ask why the medical media walked passed Ward 87 in 1998?
And these are uncomfortable questions that no one wishes to respond to do they - Fiona, Richard, Kamran and the Telegraph editors? Because in the end it is all about assessing personalities, character assassinations and degrading whistleblowers - as opposed to understanding what they are trying to tell you :).
2000 plus people are dead aren't they Richard Smith? What is your role in it? :)
Sphere: Related Content
2000 plus people are dead aren't they Richard Smith? What is your role in it? :)
Fairy God Mother
I was editing a piece by Angus Dei early this morning and it reminded me of the student I had funded many years ago. I remembered that she was in dire need of finances and without it she would have had to have pulled out of her college course. For the sake of this piece, we will call her Mary Ann.
Mary Ann was a teenager, her mother worked hard to support both children. Mary Ann had been desperate enough to fight the status quo and do something for herself. She struck at the government policy on student debts publicly and requested funding. Apparently, no one had come forth to fund her so I did. So for three years I funded her and during Christmas, a little extra went her way.
Sadly, once I was fired in 2007 courtesy of the GMC, that funding stopped in the last three months of her education. Nevertheless, Mary Ann made it to graduation and I was glad to have helped her on a monthly basis. She obtained her degree in the Arts and is probably now working at an excellent place. I am very proud of her actually. I think that amongst all the people I have assisted, she was one of the very best. A young lady with self belief and confidence to take strides into the future to beat the system. A system that was set up to fail her.
Now, it shouldn't have been up to me to have supported her. I believe the small grant of £100 per month for her at the time plus extras was enough to tide her through. When we read about the greed of the MPs, we should ask them why they did not fund Mary Ann. Mary could have been any student in the UK. Why should MPs be able to comfort spend when people are suffering like this?
Mary Ann's name for me was Fairy God Mother. I recall her being utterly elated when the funding was agreed. This amused me greatly but I was in admiration of the fact she picked herself up and went in search for help in order to fix her life. She wanted to better herself and be the best. Indeed, in the end she achieved that with a little help from me. Perhaps the MP with the duck pond house could think about this issue. They should think about why someone had to fund this young lady and why students often live in poverty.
In my time in medicine, I funded many patients out of my own pocket for basics such as food. Crisis Loans are slow and painful for them and in the meantime, people need food, water and shelter. The point is though, we shouldn't have to do this. It should be the government's job. Perhaps it is the silent poverty that remains unnoticed by the government. Or perhaps, that world is irrelevant to the MPs today.
Sphere: Related Content
Mary Ann was a teenager, her mother worked hard to support both children. Mary Ann had been desperate enough to fight the status quo and do something for herself. She struck at the government policy on student debts publicly and requested funding. Apparently, no one had come forth to fund her so I did. So for three years I funded her and during Christmas, a little extra went her way.
Sadly, once I was fired in 2007 courtesy of the GMC, that funding stopped in the last three months of her education. Nevertheless, Mary Ann made it to graduation and I was glad to have helped her on a monthly basis. She obtained her degree in the Arts and is probably now working at an excellent place. I am very proud of her actually. I think that amongst all the people I have assisted, she was one of the very best. A young lady with self belief and confidence to take strides into the future to beat the system. A system that was set up to fail her.
Now, it shouldn't have been up to me to have supported her. I believe the small grant of £100 per month for her at the time plus extras was enough to tide her through. When we read about the greed of the MPs, we should ask them why they did not fund Mary Ann. Mary could have been any student in the UK. Why should MPs be able to comfort spend when people are suffering like this?
Mary Ann's name for me was Fairy God Mother. I recall her being utterly elated when the funding was agreed. This amused me greatly but I was in admiration of the fact she picked herself up and went in search for help in order to fix her life. She wanted to better herself and be the best. Indeed, in the end she achieved that with a little help from me. Perhaps the MP with the duck pond house could think about this issue. They should think about why someone had to fund this young lady and why students often live in poverty.
In my time in medicine, I funded many patients out of my own pocket for basics such as food. Crisis Loans are slow and painful for them and in the meantime, people need food, water and shelter. The point is though, we shouldn't have to do this. It should be the government's job. Perhaps it is the silent poverty that remains unnoticed by the government. Or perhaps, that world is irrelevant to the MPs today.
David Southall to Appeal
Anti Msbp Group Hunting Down David SouthallRumour on the grapevine is that David Southall is due to appeal his judgment. It is a real tragedy that the real case was never heard and evidence not considered. I love the way Ms M is portrayed as some innocent bystander when Dora Black says something completely different about her. Then North Staffordshire NHS Trust know about that :). It is quite amusing that the GMC portrays a witness in an angelic manner. The anti msbp group has gone some way into concealing the actual documentation on Ms M. Indeed, the hapless North Staffordshire NHS Trust weighed in to threaten me with litigation if the details were found on the internet. I didn't have to feature it of course and indeed I didn't. Nevertheless, it isn't my problem if their legal team can't track down the actual person[s] responsible for data leaking. Afterall, everything leaks these days.
So we ask ourselves, what could they all be concealing? That would be Dora Black's comments and internal documentation perhaps?. I am very surprised that his two QCs did not use this documentation to challenge the credibility of the main witness. This case of course means that chaperones will not be believed in any setting. So it is quite a damaging verdict.
I think it is great that David Southall is appealing. I should though say that his campaign group PACA has been a catastrophic failure in defending him or making the public understand child protection. The holier than thou approach that exudes the arrogance of senior doctors clearly has not worked at all.
Any failure in these court hearings should be laid partly at their door because it is clear they have been unable to communicate the importance of child protection to the general public which include the judiciary. PACA have stuck to their safe haven ie the BMJ and failed to progress out of the BMJ to communicate the importance of the child protection with the outside world. I suspect progress by them is measured by how many articles are printed by Fiona Godlee but in truth few people read it now apart from die hard academics. The world has indeed changed when it comes to communication. This lack of insight of PACA will cause the downfall of David Southall but I suspect David would want it that way. For some reason there does not appear to be an approach to examine the faults in their own campaign. Their aim is to examine the faults of the rest of the system. The system may be faulty but the biggest problem at present lies in the lack of communication between child protection professional and the public. More importantly, PACA's failure to address the catastrophic problems faced by those who are cleared by the courts ie the post child protection investigation effects have not placed them in a good light. What we have here is an campaign group living in their own ivory tower with a failure to understand what the public need to understand. Without that communication, children will continue to die.
I have written on David Southall throughout all his previous hearings bar this one. My logic was that PACA should be able to fight their own battles for once. I was very saddened to hear of the verdict only because everyone deserves a fair trial and David Southall did not get one due to a multiplicity of factors such as prior vilification by the media, negligence in due process by the General Medical Council, failures by his defence union to curb negative publicity and the list could go on. Whats my perspective on this?
Well, I believe that David Southall has been a victim of a well coordinated and orchestrated campaign led by Penny Mellor. Her technique which is very effective is to coordinate multiples of complaints against one doctor. The GMC's logic is that the more complaints a doctor has, the more likely they are to take that doctor down the fitness to practise processes. The GMC manufactures facts, often lies outrageously and cobbles together cases for a proper hanging in the public fora. This satisfies the public appetite. The complexity of child protection makes matters worse since David Southall's case is full of misunderstandings, factual inaccuracies, faulty assessments and to top it all off a faulty legal system. Essentially, David didn't stand a chance, not without a effective campaign by PACA. As that didn't happen, it wasn't possible to dispel myths created in the case. As matters progress down the GMC's inept procedures, a lie becomes a fact and the progress of this is amazing. So, the above processes provide those with a vendetta with an open season of repeated complaints with nothing at the GMC to prevent them. The methodology used by the anti msbp group is also used by Scientology. It is probably a mere coincidence that Penny Mellor is a Scientology award winner. The yodas there have taught her well - well enough to render straight line thinkers such as PACA redundant. PACA fail to understand that the greatest challenge to the Scientology methodology is opposition publicity.
So overall, the anti msbp group led by Penny Mellor is a tactical campaigning group which takes advantage of the system faults and is very effective in doing so. This is one example but while we could lay the blame at her door [ and I frequently do], the broader picture is a system problem. She simply accentuates the system flaws for us, a catalyst if you like. It has taken me a while to understand that Mellor could be anyone. There are many other people with personality disorders who abuse the system. The problem lies with the General Medical Council and the very nature of the courts - both systems just do not work effectively at all.
The Independent has the best write up on child protection. Lawrence has some insight into the matters at play. I probably have more insight because I have been caught in the crosswinds of the methods used by the anti msbp group. I can therefore confirm that a complaint in its simplest form causes undue questions in the mind of those uneducated in the ways of medicine or medical careers. Therefore from a misinterpretation by the complainants, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC legal team, to a lack of knowledge by counsel for the GMC.
The complaint by Mellor was that I cannot call myself a Psychiatrist because I was not on the specialist register. This was interesting as she failed to understand that more than 1000 doctors are deemed Psychiatrists without being on the specialist register.
Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC fell head first when he admitted that I was a "psychiatric doctor" [Adjournment application]. A few days late the GMC stated in a email to a different person
That is simply a mild description of how a simple allegation can be blown out of proportion. What really amused me was that following this issue, the Trust I was working at changed the titles to Staff Grade Practitioner :) :)>. And that is what happens with a series of numskulls running the GMC plus the NHS. They follow each other around like Pavlovs dogs, digging one hole after another.
This example is a simple one that clearly shows how allegations without merit can be blown out of proportion as they progress down the systems - from the GMC to the Courts. Then, you have to witness the stupidity of the GMC to really believe it.
Sphere: Related Content
So we ask ourselves, what could they all be concealing? That would be Dora Black's comments and internal documentation perhaps?. I am very surprised that his two QCs did not use this documentation to challenge the credibility of the main witness. This case of course means that chaperones will not be believed in any setting. So it is quite a damaging verdict.
I think it is great that David Southall is appealing. I should though say that his campaign group PACA has been a catastrophic failure in defending him or making the public understand child protection. The holier than thou approach that exudes the arrogance of senior doctors clearly has not worked at all.
Any failure in these court hearings should be laid partly at their door because it is clear they have been unable to communicate the importance of child protection to the general public which include the judiciary. PACA have stuck to their safe haven ie the BMJ and failed to progress out of the BMJ to communicate the importance of the child protection with the outside world. I suspect progress by them is measured by how many articles are printed by Fiona Godlee but in truth few people read it now apart from die hard academics. The world has indeed changed when it comes to communication. This lack of insight of PACA will cause the downfall of David Southall but I suspect David would want it that way. For some reason there does not appear to be an approach to examine the faults in their own campaign. Their aim is to examine the faults of the rest of the system. The system may be faulty but the biggest problem at present lies in the lack of communication between child protection professional and the public. More importantly, PACA's failure to address the catastrophic problems faced by those who are cleared by the courts ie the post child protection investigation effects have not placed them in a good light. What we have here is an campaign group living in their own ivory tower with a failure to understand what the public need to understand. Without that communication, children will continue to die.
I have written on David Southall throughout all his previous hearings bar this one. My logic was that PACA should be able to fight their own battles for once. I was very saddened to hear of the verdict only because everyone deserves a fair trial and David Southall did not get one due to a multiplicity of factors such as prior vilification by the media, negligence in due process by the General Medical Council, failures by his defence union to curb negative publicity and the list could go on. Whats my perspective on this?
Well, I believe that David Southall has been a victim of a well coordinated and orchestrated campaign led by Penny Mellor. Her technique which is very effective is to coordinate multiples of complaints against one doctor. The GMC's logic is that the more complaints a doctor has, the more likely they are to take that doctor down the fitness to practise processes. The GMC manufactures facts, often lies outrageously and cobbles together cases for a proper hanging in the public fora. This satisfies the public appetite. The complexity of child protection makes matters worse since David Southall's case is full of misunderstandings, factual inaccuracies, faulty assessments and to top it all off a faulty legal system. Essentially, David didn't stand a chance, not without a effective campaign by PACA. As that didn't happen, it wasn't possible to dispel myths created in the case. As matters progress down the GMC's inept procedures, a lie becomes a fact and the progress of this is amazing. So, the above processes provide those with a vendetta with an open season of repeated complaints with nothing at the GMC to prevent them. The methodology used by the anti msbp group is also used by Scientology. It is probably a mere coincidence that Penny Mellor is a Scientology award winner. The yodas there have taught her well - well enough to render straight line thinkers such as PACA redundant. PACA fail to understand that the greatest challenge to the Scientology methodology is opposition publicity.
So overall, the anti msbp group led by Penny Mellor is a tactical campaigning group which takes advantage of the system faults and is very effective in doing so. This is one example but while we could lay the blame at her door [ and I frequently do], the broader picture is a system problem. She simply accentuates the system flaws for us, a catalyst if you like. It has taken me a while to understand that Mellor could be anyone. There are many other people with personality disorders who abuse the system. The problem lies with the General Medical Council and the very nature of the courts - both systems just do not work effectively at all.
The Independent has the best write up on child protection. Lawrence has some insight into the matters at play. I probably have more insight because I have been caught in the crosswinds of the methods used by the anti msbp group. I can therefore confirm that a complaint in its simplest form causes undue questions in the mind of those uneducated in the ways of medicine or medical careers. Therefore from a misinterpretation by the complainants, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC legal team, to a lack of knowledge by counsel for the GMC.
The complaint by Mellor was that I cannot call myself a Psychiatrist because I was not on the specialist register. This was interesting as she failed to understand that more than 1000 doctors are deemed Psychiatrists without being on the specialist register.
Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC fell head first when he admitted that I was a "psychiatric doctor" [Adjournment application]. A few days late the GMC stated in a email to a different person
"A psychiatric doctor – or psychiatrist – is a doctor who has undergone basic medical training then specialises in psychiatry, that is treating people affected by mental illness"In the end, the judge in the case R v GMC Ex Parte Pal was so confused that he never ruled on this point. If Mr Shaw's logic and Penny Mellor's logic is right then 1000 plus doctors would be investigated by the GMC :) on Stream 1 in order to make up for the lack of knowledge of those initially assessing a complaint at the GMC. Lets face it, the airhead Anna Neill much like Mellor had no idea that Psychiatrists don't have to be on the specialist register. And we know that because Ben Goldacre isn't on the specialist register :). I am positive Ben would object to being dragged down Stream 1 because the Registrar had no idea about the definition of a Psychiatrist.
That is simply a mild description of how a simple allegation can be blown out of proportion. What really amused me was that following this issue, the Trust I was working at changed the titles to Staff Grade Practitioner :) :)>. And that is what happens with a series of numskulls running the GMC plus the NHS. They follow each other around like Pavlovs dogs, digging one hole after another.
This example is a simple one that clearly shows how allegations without merit can be blown out of proportion as they progress down the systems - from the GMC to the Courts. Then, you have to witness the stupidity of the GMC to really believe it.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Reinstate the Nadine Dorries Blog.
I had never heard of Nadine Dorries. That is probably because she is a Conservative MP and I pay little attention to MPs these days. Everyone knows why, I consider most of them [ especially mine] to be a waste of space and largely ineffective. I may be indifferent to Nadine, nevertheless news in the blogsphere is that she has been shut down or silenced.
On May 22nd 2009 Nadine Dorries called the expenses scandal, a Witch hunt. Well, she ought to ask her party how much actual assistance they have ever given whistleblowers then she would know what a witch hunt really was. Nadine also wrote various comments on her blog. Apparently, the Telegraph have ensured that no blog exists. That is curious for heavy weight lawyers since they forgot the cache.
No one approved of Nadine's remarks but we live in a democracy - supposedly and she is entitled to say whatever she wishes without interference from the powers that be. NHS Blog Doc makes a few rufflings. His boy pals stick around in a clique protecting free speech. Only when it applies to them I suspect. The rest of us are branded " outspoken". And NHS Blog doc should remember that when his own colleague was taken down by the GMC due to a "LINK" he failed to support or feature it. I always think we need some reality check here for the boys and their Spartacus Syndrome. How far do they go to protect free speech. Actually, not that far.
Dizzy has the best summary on this subject.
I certainly know that while many of us support Dorries' Article 10 HRA rights, if any of us were smited down by the great gods of the planet UK, Dorries would have done nothing about it. We know that because she is an MP. MPs do nothing about anyone. In general, I believe they don't consider bloggers to be " real writers".
Anyway, this is good case law for the fat lawyers.
"REDMOND-BATE Appellant - and -DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Case No: CO/188/99
The quote is
As for the Telegraph, I have had many blogs on My Telegraph related to Ward 87 matters removed by the moderators.
A quote on My Telegraph "Rita Pal's blogs were deleted in minutes for far less offensive content "
Well, I wasn't willing to cope with the dysfunctional Telegraph moderators hence I left.
Sphere: Related Content
Anyway, this is good case law for the fat lawyers.
"REDMOND-BATE Appellant - and -DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Case No: CO/188/99
The quote is
"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy"
As for the Telegraph, I have had many blogs on My Telegraph related to Ward 87 matters removed by the moderators.
A quote on My Telegraph "Rita Pal's blogs were deleted in minutes for far less offensive content "
Well, I wasn't willing to cope with the dysfunctional Telegraph moderators hence I left.
Saturday, 23 May 2009
Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership Admits Shortfalls in Care
Worcestershire Mental Health Trust Management :)
Today is a rather lovely sunny day. I really should not be writing in the garden while sunning myself but us ethnic minority whistleblowers need to keep those melanocytes active. The post was interesting today. I was sent a letter from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust moaning like a bunch of old women. They apparently don't want me to write about them. I understand that but I can ignore them. The more they whinge, the more I plan to write about it.
So here I am writing about them again. For those who don't know about it, Worcestershire Mental Health Trust is one I had locumed for in 2006 and 2007. A GMC investigation put me on their number one hit list. Well, I can't blame them really. It must be awful to be a Trust responsible for so many fatalities, having to tell the media how great you are when the staff know that the Trust management is a resounding "thumbs down". Worcestershire Mental Health Partnerships has problems. I have always held the view that you get more sense out of the patients there than the management. The Trust didn't take well to the GMC investigation. They panicked and fired me then stood in silence while I was cleared six months later. Having fired me, the great nellies decided to run around like headless chicken concealing their misdemeanors. They decided that firing me would mean huge liability consequences for them. This may be so but it is almost laughable watching this Trust react with the motive of preserving their money.
So here I am writing about them again. For those who don't know about it, Worcestershire Mental Health Trust is one I had locumed for in 2006 and 2007. A GMC investigation put me on their number one hit list. Well, I can't blame them really. It must be awful to be a Trust responsible for so many fatalities, having to tell the media how great you are when the staff know that the Trust management is a resounding "thumbs down". Worcestershire Mental Health Partnerships has problems. I have always held the view that you get more sense out of the patients there than the management. The Trust didn't take well to the GMC investigation. They panicked and fired me then stood in silence while I was cleared six months later. Having fired me, the great nellies decided to run around like headless chicken concealing their misdemeanors. They decided that firing me would mean huge liability consequences for them. This may be so but it is almost laughable watching this Trust react with the motive of preserving their money.
You can see Ros switching on the broken record and telling everyone how great the Trust is. She does it each time the Trust is criticised. Her poor leadership is of course the reason why Worcestershire Mental Health Trust colluded with their pals at GMC Towers in a case that didn't actually concern them. It is this sheer keeness that amuses me on occasion. I use the term Pavlov's dogs because the GMC can train any Trust to follow them. That is the beauty of having a GMC panellist at the Trust in question. It didn't do any of them much good really. It did though provide more writing fodder.
This is an examination of what happens to many doctors subject to GMC processes. The Trust automatically defaults to the GMC. The fact that the GMC has actually pitched them to be the fall guy in the liability stakes escapes them. Nevertheless, I always watch these patterns of behaviour with a good dose of popcorn. It is a bit like a large drama unfolding slowly. Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership are so predictable of course. It is a great shame for them that I have been sent patient notes of one who committed suicide. The patient is someone other than the person below. It is amazing how much information you can get from people who work at the Trust.
A case that struck me about Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership is this one.
This piece was presented in the Kidderminister Shuttle.
WORCESTERSHIRE Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust has admitted there were shortfalls in the services provided to Leon Laga, who died outside Kidderminster Police Station three years ago.
Mr Laga, of Bewdley Hill, suffered from mental illness since he was 17. He was found slumped on the police station steps with a cigarette in one hand and a lighter in the other after taking an overdose on January 15, 2005.
A coroner’s inquest yesterday recorded a narrative verdict on his death.
Mick Mather, director of integrated mental health services at the trust, said:
“We recognise that the documentation in relation to Leon’s care fell short of the standards we aim to provide. We also accept that there were shortfalls in the communication between the professional staff involved and systemic failures in regard to care planning and review.”
Mr Laga had a history of self harming and had a problem with alcohol, which he would drink in a binge fashion, the inquest heard.
Dr Ros Keeton, chief executive of the mental health trust, said: “We offer our most sincere apologies to Leon’s family and friends. We hope they can accept our assurance that the trust has made substantial improvements in the years since Leon’s death.
“We would like to point to the recent Healthcare Commission report, which stated that the quality of our services is now excellent. We hope this will reassure other service users that our support structures and services are now fit for purpose.”
So just for Ros Keeton, the hapless Chief Executive, we had to put together a nice little feature detailing their more recent efforts. There was of course the series of suicides that happened up until 2008.
The Trust is a little coy about their suicide rate :).
Ranting Writes
Dr Rant has the right idea. This was such a good post that I had to write about it. This is what Rant babe had to say.
Poor little Tory MP (and former nurse) Nadine Dorries has been bleating about the effect of the recent expenses fraud furore is having on the MPs themselves. They don't like being tarred with the same brush as everyone else, and she's worried that some might commit suicide.
Let's recap shall we?Over the years there have been a number of medical scandals (Bristol, Alder hey, Shipman, Stafford). Often MPs and ministers have been the first to leap onto the bandwagon, condemning everyone involved BEFORE all of the facts are known. There has then usually been a knee jerk reaction 'to stop it ever happening again' which has been invariably ill thought out or positively bad for medicine, research and the public.
And lets recap further, the suicide rate and mental health problems for doctors who faced the MMC fiasco was phenomenally high.1 in 5 doctors thought about committing suicide during this fiasco. Most people forget the leading Royal College of Psychiatrists study. Indeed, Liam Donaldson and cronies are directly responsible for this and should be held to account by the GMC. I am not sure Remedy UK added this argument within their case but they should.
"Almost 700 doctors were questioned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about how their wellbeing was affected by the botched recruitment process.
More than 30,000 doctors are fighting for around 22,000 training posts, and the online selection procedures have been strongly criticised.
Preliminary results from the survey found that 21 per cent of junior doctors have had suicidal thoughts as a result of the scheme.
Some 94 per cent reported higher stress levels than normal, and 90 per cent of these put this down to the recruitment process.
A third said they had drunk more in the past six months and others have shown symptoms of anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, a sense of hopelessness, less fulfilling sex, lack of appetite and tearfulness"
I have been meaning to write about the above for a while now. I think many people underestimate the detrimental impact of the MMC on a large proportion of junior doctors. I know the GMC certainly do not have an idea about the catastrophic impact on juniors. At present, the senior doctors responsible have not been held accountable despite more than two reports criticising their negligent management.
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Dr Liz Miller
Well, we all know Liz is a damned good doctor. The above book is essential reading.No doubt her first buyer will be Prof Graeme Catto who is a big fan of hers.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Say Sorry. Get Struck Off
The BMJ presented a piece early this morning about the guidance from the NHS Litigation Authority. It urges doctors to apologise.
Over the last two years we have known two doctors to apologise because they felt it was the decent thing to do. One is S Boardman and the other is Dr Pakistan. The half crazed Trust in Leamington Spa dismissed Boardman and the General Medical Council used the apology to justify their illegal warning on Dr Pakistan. The warning was given for 5 years due to a few emails sent out of work hours to the Royal College of Surgeons.
Both S Boardman and Dr Pakistan are actually innocent hard working doctors trying to do their job. Let that be a lesson regarding the impact of an apology. I have no problem with an apology if it is an admission of severe guilt and the doctor is willing to face the repercussions but I do have a problem with an apology when innocent doctors feel they are obliged to do it. Most have a preconceived idea that an apology will result in some kind of forgiveness. Most often than not, the Trusts or the GMC do not have enough evidence to prosecute therefore they extract an apology to bolster their case.
One of the most idiotic apologies came from Dr Scot Jnr following his post on Doctors.net.uk. If emergency mass defence mechanisms had not been put in place, Scotty would be out of a job today. His misguided apology had all of us running around. We all had to forgive him of course because surgeons often think only in straight lines and not laterally.
So before apologising - think before you act. It may save you some disastrous consequences in the long run. In a complaint described by Jobbing Doctor, an apology would signify an admission of liability and if that is done in a complaint that has no evidence to sustain it, it would be a complete and utter disaster for the doctor.
Sphere: Related Content
Over the last two years we have known two doctors to apologise because they felt it was the decent thing to do. One is S Boardman and the other is Dr Pakistan. The half crazed Trust in Leamington Spa dismissed Boardman and the General Medical Council used the apology to justify their illegal warning on Dr Pakistan. The warning was given for 5 years due to a few emails sent out of work hours to the Royal College of Surgeons.
Both S Boardman and Dr Pakistan are actually innocent hard working doctors trying to do their job. Let that be a lesson regarding the impact of an apology. I have no problem with an apology if it is an admission of severe guilt and the doctor is willing to face the repercussions but I do have a problem with an apology when innocent doctors feel they are obliged to do it. Most have a preconceived idea that an apology will result in some kind of forgiveness. Most often than not, the Trusts or the GMC do not have enough evidence to prosecute therefore they extract an apology to bolster their case.
One of the most idiotic apologies came from Dr Scot Jnr following his post on Doctors.net.uk. If emergency mass defence mechanisms had not been put in place, Scotty would be out of a job today. His misguided apology had all of us running around. We all had to forgive him of course because surgeons often think only in straight lines and not laterally.
So before apologising - think before you act. It may save you some disastrous consequences in the long run. In a complaint described by Jobbing Doctor, an apology would signify an admission of liability and if that is done in a complaint that has no evidence to sustain it, it would be a complete and utter disaster for the doctor.
Disgraceful
I was reading The Lawyer today over lunch while munching on my ciabatta bread. I found this extract which was quite shocking really :-
"The internal complaints system is being undermined by an increasing public awareness of cases such as Dr D, which involved a village GP whose career was effectively wrecked by the maladministration of a futile complaint surrounding a short reprimand by the GP to a patient who had been rude to a nurse.10-month inquiry followed. Seven years - and a mental breakdown on the part of the GP - later, the Health Ombudsman found that the GP had been the victim of ”significant injustice” perpetrated by the two primary care trusts that dealt with the complaint.
And this is what I mean by the impact of inertia by the medical profession. It takes one minute to fall accidentally into trouble and a decade to sort the problem out. I hope Jobbing Doctor features the above to support his fellow GP. I suspect no manager was held accountable. Nothing new then.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, 18 May 2009
MMC. Skeletons in the Closet
Liam's Date for the Evening Remedy UK have made some excellent progress in discovering what a malicious, lying, manipulative medical hierarchy we have living at the Department of Health. Nothing new of course. We all knew that ten years ago. Indeed, us older docs were rather surprised that the MMC was even allowed to be implemented despite objections.
Perhaps this new information will act as an incentive to the GMC to exercise their discretion in investigating the conduct of Liam Donaldson and pals. Infact this behaviour is an attitudinal problem that is currently bringing the profession into disrepute and as the GMC will recall acutely, anything can be misconduct these days.
Not only had the crooks failed many juniors before the MMC but they have caused devastation to many of the younger generation of doctors post MMC. Then many doctors simply trusted the powers than be and walked into the disaster head first. It is not as if they had much choice. There are many systems like the MMC in progress. One of them is Revalidation. Much like the advent of the MMC, everyone sat still and watched it happen then discovered the corrupt behaviour only after it was too late. There appears to be one problem with the grass roots medical profession, they are awful at predicting the future but continue to be reactive as opposed to proactive. The same will happen with Revalidation but then everyone is asleep yet again.
Remedy UK does an excellent write up . It is worth a read and I am positive Liam Donaldson isn't feeling well at this point in time. Perhaps he should take up dating skeletons again. After all, he has many rattling in his closet.
Sphere: Related Content
Perhaps this new information will act as an incentive to the GMC to exercise their discretion in investigating the conduct of Liam Donaldson and pals. Infact this behaviour is an attitudinal problem that is currently bringing the profession into disrepute and as the GMC will recall acutely, anything can be misconduct these days.
Not only had the crooks failed many juniors before the MMC but they have caused devastation to many of the younger generation of doctors post MMC. Then many doctors simply trusted the powers than be and walked into the disaster head first. It is not as if they had much choice. There are many systems like the MMC in progress. One of them is Revalidation. Much like the advent of the MMC, everyone sat still and watched it happen then discovered the corrupt behaviour only after it was too late. There appears to be one problem with the grass roots medical profession, they are awful at predicting the future but continue to be reactive as opposed to proactive. The same will happen with Revalidation but then everyone is asleep yet again.
Remedy UK does an excellent write up . It is worth a read and I am positive Liam Donaldson isn't feeling well at this point in time. Perhaps he should take up dating skeletons again. After all, he has many rattling in his closet.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
House of Lords on Whistleblowing
This is quite hilarious, this is Baroness Llandalf who asks a question in the House of Lords . Baroness Finlay makes some interesting noises for senior doctors. When Andrew Mitchell MP sent her some material relevant to the GMC concerning me, she didn't respond to him for a year or more. What she did do was destroy the documentation and then write to Andrew Mitchell MP to tell him that she had destroyed them.
She was also involved in the development of the new Act that governs doctors. So if it all goes pear shaped we all know who to blame.
Anyway, here are her useless exchanges in Parliament. Lord Darzi sits and crows away about legislation he has no understanding of PIDA does not protect you while you are in employment, the person has to litigate and then win to engage it.
She was also involved in the development of the new Act that governs doctors. So if it all goes pear shaped we all know who to blame.
Anyway, here are her useless exchanges in Parliament. Lord Darzi sits and crows away about legislation he has no understanding of PIDA does not protect you while you are in employment, the person has to litigate and then win to engage it.
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to ensure that whistle-blowing in the NHS is not discouraged by fear of loss of professional registration"
Just to show how useless Darzi is, here is his response.Lord Darzi of Denham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour) | Hansard source
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) gives full protection of the law to staff who whistleblow in the public interest and the penalties for those who penalise staff for doing so are potentially very severe. The department has therefore, in light of the Act, made it clear that every National Health Service trust should have in place local policies and procedures that comply with the Act. Decisions on professional registration are made by independent regulatory bodies, not the Government, but we would expect them to make their decisions cognisant of a national context that encourages whistleblowing.
In conclusion, the government allows the regulatory bodies to do what they want.
Sphere: Related Content
NHS Whistleblowing. The Debate in Parliament
We should make a note that Andrew Mitchell of the Conservatives did not raise the issue of Whistleblowing in Parliament. He is of course my MP. The person who thankfully did is Richard Taylor of Wyre Forrest.
Ben Bradshaw is often extremely amusing, conveniently brushing away from Ward 87 and pretending it doesn't exist. That OK Ben, we know how embarrassing it is for you to have to admit your Department did nothing when concerns were raised in the year 1999.
The Debate can be accessed here.
Sphere: Related Content
Ben Bradshaw is often extremely amusing, conveniently brushing away from Ward 87 and pretending it doesn't exist. That OK Ben, we know how embarrassing it is for you to have to admit your Department did nothing when concerns were raised in the year 1999.
The Debate can be accessed here.
"Dr. David Colin-Thomé, the Government's GP tsar, wrote in the introduction to his review of the lessons learned in mid-Staffordshire:"What has particularly shocked and disappointed me is that no NHS organisations, staff or representatives of the public reported any serious concerns about emergency services in the hospital. Yet patient complaints and patient surveys all pointed to poor care."
Ben Bradshaw - then admits that Public Concern at Work works hand in hand with the Department of Health. As everyone will know there have been phenomenal complaints about the ineffectiveness of PCAW.
"We have also commissioned a charity that specialises in the issue called Public Concern at Work. It provides an independent helpline that is staffed by lawyers with expertise in whistleblowing. That is available to all NHS staff and calls are treated in the utmost confidence"
Ben then goes onto say
"Since the report was published, there have been suggestions that some staff did raise concerns but were not listened to. I urge anyone who has had experience of that or has had it reported to them to bring evidence of such examples forward."
Then
"I hope that I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, both in my general remarks and in what I had to say about the Margaret Haywood and Stafford hospital cases, that the Government fully support whistleblowing. We have provided unprecedented legal protection for those who whistleblow and have emphasized those rights in the new NHS constitution. We will not tolerate management that bullies or discourages whistleblowers. Listening to and acting on the concerns of staff are vital ways to drive up standards and help ensure against poor or unacceptable quality care"
Ben Bradshaw still continues to ignore Ward 87 despite it being brought to his attention a number of times. We wonder why. Perhaps it is another Bradshaw Brain bubble.
Geronticide by Michael Brogden
"The increasing elderly population poses many economic and ethical questions for modern society. One of the most topical and controversial of these is the debate about euthanasia. Drawing on a variety of historical, contemporary, anthropological and literary sources, this book considers the present-day debates about the sanctity of elderly lives and the question of euthanasia. Geronticide: Killing the Elderly seeks to place the current debate in a wider historical and social context, while providing a comprehensive overview of current academic and professional concerns. This thorough, authoritative book will be a useful, thought-provoking read for anyone involved in working with the elderly"
The book can be downloaded from Google UK here.
Page 136 Ref 26 refers to the material I exposed in the Sunday Times 2nd April 2000 in Elderly Helped to Die.Many thanks to Michael for raising the issues related to Ward 87. I am positive the General Medical Council will approve of the fact it has been referenced on a wider scale.
Indeed, as this is the second book to have referenced it, perhaps the next one would kindly request an interview from Finlay Scott at the GMC. He will no doubt support the issue of whistleblowing and will detail how he held doctors responsible for the deaths of the elderly accountable.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
F1 Supervision. Why isn't the system improving?
Blood Taking by an F1
I should thank a poster called Amy who informs me that F1 supervision is dire. She posted recently on Dr Crippen correcting my rather super mean diatribe on F1. Perhaps I had forgotten what it was like to be a junior so Amy was quite right in correcting me.
Amy's Post
I am an F1 in a busy teaching hospital.
I an F1's defence we are meant to be supervised and taught throughout our F1year, hence our "preregistration" label.
Unfortunately there is often no one to teach or supervise me and as i wonder round the hospital checking my patient's observations and listening to their chests I am often frightened at how compromised patient care actually is.
Everyone has to learn but how can we if there is no one there to teach us?
Amy
Appropriate supervision has been raised by me since 1998. Indeed, it was one of the issues raised on Ward 87. See point 2 here where Colin Campbell admits to poor supervison.
2002 CHI report into North Staffordshire NHS Trust stated as follows
"CHI was informed that junior doctors working in medicine were often inadequately supervised and often left alone on wards, particularly on the medical assessment unit (MAU). During an evening visit we found only two junior doctors covering MAU, which was full to capacity, with a further junior doctor covering MAU and emergency admissions; one junior doctor covered the medical wards and one covered medical outliers but these patients could be on wards on either site. CHI felt this situation posed a potential clinical risk to patients.”
The 2002 report went on to say, in Paragraph 5.78:
"There were a number of concerns raised regarding support and supervision for junior doctors working in medicine. We were told of a number of occasions when it was felt there was a lack of support both during the day and when problems arise whilst oncall. The Trust has acknowledged that medical staffing at all levels is under resourced in medicine".
When concerns were first raised in 1999 with the Evening Mail. the Postgraduate Dean, Professor John Temple decided to lie to the public. He stated as follows :-
This is what he told the Evening Mail
Professor John Temple, regional post graduate dean for the West Midlands NHS Executive, says extensive work is being carried out to ensure that junior doctors are properly supervised.
And he adds that while there was a shortage of doctors in the NHS the system was managing to cope "remarkably well".
"Over the last five years one of the things which has changed quite dramatically is that doctors are supervised properly," he says.
"All junior doctors should be supervised and they're required to know who they should contact and how in times of emergencies.
"The world has changed since the times these doctors were left on their own and we're keen to ensure there's a very clear chain of command. We expect them to work as teams, not as individuals."That was nearly a decade ago. It is therefore quite disturbing to find that F1s even now remain unsupported. Indeed, I was so concerned that I raised with with Prof Catto who assured me that he would send my concerns to the appropriate people so that matters are improved for doctors like Amy. It is also extremely important to raise concerns about poor supervision because only then can it be sorted out. Of course, raising concerns is another issue but I am sure most of the bloggers would be able to help out and ensure the issue is raised in high places without disclosing the identity of the doctor[s]. I think the problem is widespread but we aren't aware of it because doctors are afraid to speak out. I suppose if they GMC were more approachable then that would be one option but they aren't.
My advice to any F1 would be this - never take whole responsibility for a patient. If you are unsure, bleep your senior right up to the consultant. And the whole idea is that no one must be afraid to ask questions. It is better to ask the question rather than be responsible for someone's death. If seniors do not respond, write the bleep number and the time you called in the notes. I suppose when I was a junior doctor, I got so fed up of crap seniors that I simply bleeped any senior oncall. In fact, I believe I even dragged a SHO Dermatologist to supervise my work and forced him to write in the notes before he left. As it happens, in the future the buck stopped with him and not with me as the F1. I think if something goes horribly wrong, seniors are very willing to blame very junior doctors and in some occasions scapegoat them. It is therefore always important to write your notes clearly so it tells the story of what happened that day. Writing in point form with the date/time/signature is fine.
Poor supervision was again raised at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.
So who is in charge of this nationally? And what are they doing about it?
Recommended Reading - Diary of a Junior Doctor. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, 15 May 2009
Ku Klux GMC. Setting Your Careers on Fire
The GMC is institutionally racist. Sorry, but this is a fact of life we must accept now. Here is what I wrote earlier this year. In 1999, the statistics were dire.
More recently, the BMJ has a excellent piece regarding the fact we have already known ie that international grads are pinned to the GMC wall and shot.
"The GMC’s 2008 fitness to practise statistics show that when initial complaints were triaged, 44% of those involving international medical graduates (those from outside the UK or Europe) went into the "serious" stream (stream 1, where a full investigation is carried out) compared with only 29% of those involving UK graduates"
This is the GMC who saw the resignation of their racist half witted Registrar Anna Neill once she was reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Anna Neill is of course the Registrar the GMC lied in court for :).
I am a British Indian, I have been taken down Stream 1 twice for matters unrelated to my clinical work. Once for alleged defamation, having put me through a 6 months investigation, two years later the GMC told me in writing that defamation was not considered by them.
The second Stream 1 investigation was regarding a LINK. Both investigations were cleared resulting in the loss of my last job and the discovery that Worcestershire Mental Health Trust's management were madder than the patients there. Stream 1 is admitted to be for the most dangerous doctors yet the GMC admitted in a court of law that I was never a risk to patients. The question then remains, why was I taken down Stream 1 as opposed to Stream 2?
As I have the statistics to back me up - we can simply say that Anna Neill is a racist incompetent idiot, Jackie Smith of the GMC is a fact manipulator and the rest of the GMC is institutionally racist to the core. We know this because they have got more Indian doctors in there procedures than Southall has on its streets. I am surprised they don't hold a samosa party.
The GMC has got themselves maximum immunity though as doctors cannot seek a remedy under the Race Relations Act. I am sure those who have tried to sue will tell you what the GMC have done to block this issue. Due to this, there will be no accountability for the GMC so they can continue pinning asian and foreign doctors [ and those with foreign names] against the wall to shoot them.
The following is stated as if the GMC does not know why more foreign doctors are taken down the steps?
This is while large numbers of caucasian doctors - in the case of Robbie Powell who have lied and killed can get away with it, and even larger numbers of senior doctors who have stuffed up thousands of juniors lives in the MMC can get away with it as well. Essentially, a LINKing to a public document is apparently far more of a heinous crime than ruining the lives of so many junior doctors.
And what do I have to say publicly to the GMC. You f****** bastards. And I can say that because I know that a select few who work there are just that. And I am saying this for all my friends and colleagues who are stuck in the GMC procedures unnecessarily, stuck on the IOP panels and those who are subjected to daily abuses by the GMC. I am saying that for those doctors who can't say it and guess what - I can say it.
And yes, we know the GMC obsessively visits this website every day - thats because they have nothing better to do with their time but be useless, pointless minions with small brains who can't even do their job despite private healthcare. The people who should be subject to fitness to practise procedures are Finlay Scott and his merry men.
Anyway, we won't talk about the doctor at the back of the BNP leaflets that have come through everyone's door. How many doctors were part of the BNP? Ah well, the GMC can't and won't answer that because while BNP doctors have freedom, us asian doctors don't have the freedom to link to public documents or to do anything. I suppose eating a samosa without the consent of the samosa party owner would be misconduct now.
The GMC argues in court that two diametrically opposite decisions on the same facts between a Caucasian and an asian is fair. Yes, lets hold that thought guys. It is an important thought because racism and inequality is sanctioned by the GMC courtesy of Blackstones Chambers of course.
Sphere: Related Content
I am a British Indian, I have been taken down Stream 1 twice for matters unrelated to my clinical work. Once for alleged defamation, having put me through a 6 months investigation, two years later the GMC told me in writing that defamation was not considered by them.
The second Stream 1 investigation was regarding a LINK. Both investigations were cleared resulting in the loss of my last job and the discovery that Worcestershire Mental Health Trust's management were madder than the patients there. Stream 1 is admitted to be for the most dangerous doctors yet the GMC admitted in a court of law that I was never a risk to patients. The question then remains, why was I taken down Stream 1 as opposed to Stream 2?
As I have the statistics to back me up - we can simply say that Anna Neill is a racist incompetent idiot, Jackie Smith of the GMC is a fact manipulator and the rest of the GMC is institutionally racist to the core. We know this because they have got more Indian doctors in there procedures than Southall has on its streets. I am surprised they don't hold a samosa party.
The GMC has got themselves maximum immunity though as doctors cannot seek a remedy under the Race Relations Act. I am sure those who have tried to sue will tell you what the GMC have done to block this issue. Due to this, there will be no accountability for the GMC so they can continue pinning asian and foreign doctors [ and those with foreign names] against the wall to shoot them.
The following is stated as if the GMC does not know why more foreign doctors are taken down the steps?
"Despite research looking into the disparity in 2000 and 2005, the GMC is still trying to identify the reasons; the disparity remains despite reforms to the council’s fitness to practise procedures in 2004"
Hey, I have a brilliant idea - I know what the reason is. The reason is this - the GMC itself is racist?! It isn't rocket science :). We just have to look at the manner in which their workers deal with doctors, the statistics and the comparator list. We have to ask the question, why I, Sushant, Tushar, Vaidya, Prabhu, Dr X, SB and many others who have landed in trouble with the GMC are all asian?!
This is while large numbers of caucasian doctors - in the case of Robbie Powell who have lied and killed can get away with it, and even larger numbers of senior doctors who have stuffed up thousands of juniors lives in the MMC can get away with it as well. Essentially, a LINKing to a public document is apparently far more of a heinous crime than ruining the lives of so many junior doctors.
And what do I have to say publicly to the GMC. You f****** bastards. And I can say that because I know that a select few who work there are just that. And I am saying this for all my friends and colleagues who are stuck in the GMC procedures unnecessarily, stuck on the IOP panels and those who are subjected to daily abuses by the GMC. I am saying that for those doctors who can't say it and guess what - I can say it.
And yes, we know the GMC obsessively visits this website every day - thats because they have nothing better to do with their time but be useless, pointless minions with small brains who can't even do their job despite private healthcare. The people who should be subject to fitness to practise procedures are Finlay Scott and his merry men.
Anyway, we won't talk about the doctor at the back of the BNP leaflets that have come through everyone's door. How many doctors were part of the BNP? Ah well, the GMC can't and won't answer that because while BNP doctors have freedom, us asian doctors don't have the freedom to link to public documents or to do anything. I suppose eating a samosa without the consent of the samosa party owner would be misconduct now.
The GMC argues in court that two diametrically opposite decisions on the same facts between a Caucasian and an asian is fair. Yes, lets hold that thought guys. It is an important thought because racism and inequality is sanctioned by the GMC courtesy of Blackstones Chambers of course.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Going Down Like Flies
GMC Asylum - Imprisoned Doctors Interim Orders are probably a violation of a doctors human rights. They place an invisible sanction on a doctor by issuing conditions or a more transparent sanction by suspension. These orders are done without full hearings. A famous case to be IOP heard is Osbourne's brother.
Nevertheless, the GMC conducts them. I was pondering on Professor Reuben's statistics regarding 78 doctors per year who are struck off which isn't a great deal in the grand scale of the world. There was a mismatch between what the lay of the land is ie many doctors complaining about the GMC and the fact the GMC says that it only takes up a "minority" of complaints. I therefore contemplated where all these doctors were.
I ended up late last night on the IOP website. You can apparently browse this website by date and it is quite shocking to look through. I must say that I was never threatened by an IOP but was shocked at the violation of human rights in the case of Dr India. The GMC were utterly mad, holding an IOP hearing because Dr India had tried to explain that it was the hospital's responsibility to check on his GMC Conditions. The consultant disagreed and attempted to blame him. A verbal fracas broke out between consultant and half wit Dr Leon Le Roux who crowed about how right he was. Dr India then asked the GMC to intervene and sort this issue out. The GMC deemed those emails " inappropriate" but admitted they had no guidance to show what was appropriate.
Instead of sorting out the matter then and there, the crazy nutty fools at the GMC held a IOP, attempted to question his personality then penalised him by removing his rights to work as a locum. Le Roux who was the dimbo in this entire escapade was never criticised at all despite being the cause of it all.
We then recieved an email from the GMC FOI department proving that Leon Le Roux was completely and utterly wrong. It had been the Trust responsibility to check on the doctor. Period. So Dr India was right all along and Dr Le Roux was wrong.
No apology has been issued to Dr India. That is because the GMC aren't into apologies. They are simply into harassment.
Anyway, back to the IOP orders page - between May 2008-May 2009 - there have been at least 5 doctors per day whom the GMC have placed sanctions on. Indeed, the roll call is heart breaking and I often wonder why their fellow colleagues are simply sitting around accepting this violation of human rights in light of the case Wright [ House of Lords]. Given the GMC's utter psychopathic behaviour in many instances, I only wonder what happened to all those doctors.
Sphere: Related Content
Instead of sorting out the matter then and there, the crazy nutty fools at the GMC held a IOP, attempted to question his personality then penalised him by removing his rights to work as a locum. Le Roux who was the dimbo in this entire escapade was never criticised at all despite being the cause of it all.
We then recieved an email from the GMC FOI department proving that Leon Le Roux was completely and utterly wrong. It had been the Trust responsibility to check on the doctor. Period. So Dr India was right all along and Dr Le Roux was wrong.
No apology has been issued to Dr India. That is because the GMC aren't into apologies. They are simply into harassment.
Anyway, back to the IOP orders page - between May 2008-May 2009 - there have been at least 5 doctors per day whom the GMC have placed sanctions on. Indeed, the roll call is heart breaking and I often wonder why their fellow colleagues are simply sitting around accepting this violation of human rights in light of the case Wright [ House of Lords]. Given the GMC's utter psychopathic behaviour in many instances, I only wonder what happened to all those doctors.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Raj Mattu. GMC siddles up to Whistleblower
Doctor under GMC InvestigationThere was a true story I once heard on Heart FM. A large snake had been the pet of a lady for many years. During a certain time, the snake stopped eating but started lengthening itself next to its owner. The owner went to the vet and asked what was wrong with the pet snake. The vet stated that the snake was getting ready to eat her.
Now, that is very similar to the behaviour of GMC Towers. Our medical regulatory body has a whistleblowing policy which they never follow. It then often decides to reverse the complaint upon the whistleblower. I have first hand experience of this because the matter I whistleblew on was never taken up or considered by the GMC. The doctors who failed in the matter of Ward 87 continue to work quite happily. By contrast the GMC have harassed me so much through their procedures, that I am no longer in medicine. Then I am a junior doctor and the only junior who has whistleblown to this extent.
Consultant whistleblowers have a better survival power but they have a great deal of support. Nevertheless, you can see the GMC siddle up to Raj Mattu in this article here. In 2009, Mattu was exonorated by the GMC.
"Dr Mattu, aged 49, was suspended by the former Walsgrave Hospital over allegations of bullying in 2002. He was marched out of the hospital less than six months after exposing how patients had died on overcrowded bays.
Now the General Medical Council (GMC) has exonerated the cardiologist of more than 150 complaints made against him by the hospital trust after one of the longest suspensions in NHS history"
Of course, it is only exoneration as the GMC sees it. Mattu's fitness to practise record at the GMC is ruined. He doesn't know this yet but there we have it. The complaints will remain on his file for good and of course the double jeopardy rule may apply in the future. He has gone back to the same Trust and no doubt they will create more problems for him in the future.
Mattu is right about one issue - it is immensely difficult defending any simple allegation when it comes to the GMC. An organisation that is completely and utterly psychopathic normally has no insight into the repercussions of whistleblowing eg organisational reprisal. As we can see from the case featured on NHS Behind the Headlines, many whistleblowers who are doctors are frisked by the GMC. It is a broadly unrecognised phenomena but nevertheless, it does happen. The GMC may not have got Mattu on this occasion but the future prognosis is not good. They will soon start to nit pick at his performance during revalidation and appraisal. Close scrutiny is what they are into. Whistleblowers according to them need monitoring and made an example of.
Nevertheless, Mattu is a free man - for now.
Dr Mattu welcomed the GMC’s verdict and the end of the “immeasurable stress” of having to defend himself.
"He now hopes to be fully reinstated and retrained to carry out his full medical and research duties at University Hospital in Walsgrave and the University of Warwick.
He said: “It has been a difficult decade for my family, friends and me.
“I am very grateful for the support of the local community and my advisers during this terrible ordeal.
“We dearly hope that we shall now be allowed to have a normal life. ”
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust declined to comment on the GMC’s decision or how much it had spent pursuing disciplinary action against Dr Mattu"
Monday, 11 May 2009
Ben Bradshaw. Such a idiot
Bad Boy Bradshaw
Bradshaw is a pot calling kettle black kind of person. He has been aware of many medical whistleblowers in the NHS and has done nothing about it. He runs away from commenting on Ward 87 because lets face it, Ward 87 and the warnings to the government in 1999 are now an embarrassment to them. The big question is this - when the government was told, why didn't they do anything about the status of the hospitals in the Midlands? If they had acted, 2000 people could have been saved. That is the basic upshot.
Well, it is all silence in the Bradshaw court on that.
Bradshaw conveniently avoids Ward 87 by never responding to the issues put to him. When Andrew Mitchell MP and I wrote to him about recording Ward death rates to monitor standards of care, he told us it wasn't required. His bizarre reasoning was further questioned. He was asked what research he was depending on regarding his decision. There was no subsequent response.
Well, it is all silence in the Bradshaw court on that.
Bradshaw conveniently avoids Ward 87 by never responding to the issues put to him. When Andrew Mitchell MP and I wrote to him about recording Ward death rates to monitor standards of care, he told us it wasn't required. His bizarre reasoning was further questioned. He was asked what research he was depending on regarding his decision. There was no subsequent response.
Ben Bradshaw can be seen getting on the media bandwagon about Undercover Nurse. Apparently he feels that her treatment by the NMC was unduly harsh. That may be so, but we have to look at the Department of Health's internal documents to understand the fact that in the year 2000, Department of Health officials and the General Medical Council purposely sought to mislead the inquiry into Ward 87. They purposely assisted in the reversal of an investigation on me. Their internal Department of Health documents are littered with criticisms of me. The question though remains - why was no individual on Ward 87 - be it the half baked nurses or the doctors ever held accountable? And why is David Fillingham, the then Chief Executive still working?
The documents cite the Department of Health admitting that they needed to "make an example" of a junior doctor. Their collusion with the General Medical Council is well documented through their officer at the time Professor Rod " I can lie because I can" Griffiths. The Department of Health structured a strategic cover-up of the concerns on Ward 87 by ensuring the Report THEY provided was diametrically opposite to the concealed internal reports at the hospital.
The Department of Health's collusion with the General Medical Council can be seen on this website. [right side midway]. These internal documents obtained under the Data Protection Act show the direct collusion and constant communication between them and the GMC and a phrase from the Department of Health related to the media " Which Line Shall We Take".
We have to remind Bradshaw that the minions at the Department of Health didn't close Ward 87 down despite the fact it was killing patients. What they did do was leave it open until 2005 so more patients died. The Trust then shut it down during the 6 months I forced the Report out of them. In seven years, I wonder how many people died? Well, we don't know because the hospital conveniently never recorded death rate - as the government does not deem it appropriate.
It was of course because of the Department of Health's intervention with the General Medical Council that prompted the GMC into conducting what they termed a " discreet inquiry" onto me. When Liam Donaldson was told of this behaviour of both the Department of Health official Prof Rod Griffiths and the General Medical Council, he ignored it. So I wonder if their involvement with me was "unduly" harsh.
Ben Bradshaw is acutely aware that they shot the whistleblower in 1998 and 2000. They subsequently told the media there were no concerns at the hospital [ and yes I have the press releases]. They then colluded in the GMC's efforts at character assasinating me. When they found out I was right, they then concealed it from me for 7 more years. Having done that and once it was discovered that people were actually dying in the Midlands, the Department of Health had nothing to say. Well, Ben should understand that had his cronies acted in 1998 and 2000 when they were warned about all Midlands Hospitals, patients would not have died. The 1999 letter to Frank Dobson by me outlines the shocking poor care throughout the Midlands, not to mention the fact that patient safety was being compromised. This letter was filed only to reappear in Pal v GMC 2004 when the GMC exclaimed that no response was ever provided by the Department of Health.
Well, Ben Bradshaw says nothing about the treatment of whistleblowing doctors by the General Medical Council being "unduly" harsh. He says nothing about the fact that investigations have been reversed on Dr Peter Wilmshurst, Mr Robert Phipps, Dr Shreedar Vaidya , Dr Raj Mattu and myself. All these doctors raised valid evidence based concerns. He says nothing about the destructive influence of the General Medical Council on doctor's careers. I no longer work in medicine. Does anyone ask the question - Why doesn't Dr Pal work in medicine anymore? Well, of course not. That is because very few would understand the machinations of whistleblowing.
That is because in Bradshaw's eyes there is only one self created whistleblower - that is Undercover Nurse.
We should get something in perspective here, not all nurses are angels, indeed, the Ward 87 nurses who were never admonished were wicked little madams with psychopathic streaks. What happens when a doctor whistleblows on nurses' incompetence? And many doctors know of incompetent lazy nurses who sit around the nursing station while patients struggle for breath and finally go into cardiac arrest. On Ward 87, I hold the nursing staff responsible for scapegoating me and victimising me. They were never disciplined by the NMC. Do we get a situation where the nursing fraternity gangs up on the medical whistleblower? Did the RCN or the NMC ever apologise for the conduct of these half baked incompetent nurses? Of course, they didn't. Anyway, the NMC's response to Ward 87 makes their double standards crystal clear. I would not call all nurses angels because they just aren't.
Liz Longstaff of the Royal College of Nursing was present at this 2001 Review on Ward 87 . The NMC in the guise of UKCC was also present [see list of people present on page 116 of the report] What did these people do? Well, while the RCN crows away in the news about poor care and does an excellent job for Undercover Nurse and whistleblowing nurses, let us remind them of their own responsibilities towards the patients on Ward 87. The Royal College of Nursing [ RCN] actually did nothing about the poor care on Ward 87 - apart from sit and around and look pretty of course. So in the RCN survey of late, they stated
We therefore assume that the RCN themselves came under that statistic in 2001.
So as we see the Stafford/Undercover Nurse/RCN/Ben Bradshaw combo go through the media bandwagon, we should remember what their true behaviour is like without publicity. We should also remember that average whistleblowers aren't Undercover Nurse. They are concerned folk who raise concerns without the razzmatazz of the media. It is therefore the reaction without media coverage that is the most important - because not every whistleblower is going to be on Panorama. Undercover Nurse is therefore a rather artificial situation - the reality is that other average whistleblowers don't get potential pay offs from Panorama, nor do they go to the media that much - and these are the whistleblowers that lack support.
While the RCN may well be making up for their past faults, Ben Bradshaw is simply being a typical Labour " jump on the bandwagon" media addict. It is politically advantageous to back Undercover Nurse because the people will apparently think what a fair man he is. Well, in honesty, Bradshaw has probably caused more deaths with his dysfunctional policies than anyone else.
He has never cared much for whistleblowers, he certainly ignores medical whistleblowers and is of the view that they should go away to some planet away from England. He has never assisted any medical whistleblowing consultant - that includes Steve Bolsin.
Lets ask Ben - if he is so concerned about whistleblowers, why doesn't he bring Steve Bolsin back to England where he belongs? He won't you see. Because Ben Bradshaw has never considered whistleblowers to be people he should listen to.
Despite all the publicity, the Health Select Committee has currently denied a review into Whistleblowing Post Bristol. The man responsible for the refusal is Kevin Barron MP, GMC Committee member. Quelle Surprise!
Sphere: Related Content
The documents cite the Department of Health admitting that they needed to "make an example" of a junior doctor. Their collusion with the General Medical Council is well documented through their officer at the time Professor Rod " I can lie because I can" Griffiths. The Department of Health structured a strategic cover-up of the concerns on Ward 87 by ensuring the Report THEY provided was diametrically opposite to the concealed internal reports at the hospital.
The Department of Health's collusion with the General Medical Council can be seen on this website. [right side midway]. These internal documents obtained under the Data Protection Act show the direct collusion and constant communication between them and the GMC and a phrase from the Department of Health related to the media " Which Line Shall We Take".
We have to remind Bradshaw that the minions at the Department of Health didn't close Ward 87 down despite the fact it was killing patients. What they did do was leave it open until 2005 so more patients died. The Trust then shut it down during the 6 months I forced the Report out of them. In seven years, I wonder how many people died? Well, we don't know because the hospital conveniently never recorded death rate - as the government does not deem it appropriate.
It was of course because of the Department of Health's intervention with the General Medical Council that prompted the GMC into conducting what they termed a " discreet inquiry" onto me. When Liam Donaldson was told of this behaviour of both the Department of Health official Prof Rod Griffiths and the General Medical Council, he ignored it. So I wonder if their involvement with me was "unduly" harsh.
Ben Bradshaw is acutely aware that they shot the whistleblower in 1998 and 2000. They subsequently told the media there were no concerns at the hospital [ and yes I have the press releases]. They then colluded in the GMC's efforts at character assasinating me. When they found out I was right, they then concealed it from me for 7 more years. Having done that and once it was discovered that people were actually dying in the Midlands, the Department of Health had nothing to say. Well, Ben should understand that had his cronies acted in 1998 and 2000 when they were warned about all Midlands Hospitals, patients would not have died. The 1999 letter to Frank Dobson by me outlines the shocking poor care throughout the Midlands, not to mention the fact that patient safety was being compromised. This letter was filed only to reappear in Pal v GMC 2004 when the GMC exclaimed that no response was ever provided by the Department of Health.
Well, Ben Bradshaw says nothing about the treatment of whistleblowing doctors by the General Medical Council being "unduly" harsh. He says nothing about the fact that investigations have been reversed on Dr Peter Wilmshurst, Mr Robert Phipps, Dr Shreedar Vaidya , Dr Raj Mattu and myself. All these doctors raised valid evidence based concerns. He says nothing about the destructive influence of the General Medical Council on doctor's careers. I no longer work in medicine. Does anyone ask the question - Why doesn't Dr Pal work in medicine anymore? Well, of course not. That is because very few would understand the machinations of whistleblowing.
That is because in Bradshaw's eyes there is only one self created whistleblower - that is Undercover Nurse.
We should get something in perspective here, not all nurses are angels, indeed, the Ward 87 nurses who were never admonished were wicked little madams with psychopathic streaks. What happens when a doctor whistleblows on nurses' incompetence? And many doctors know of incompetent lazy nurses who sit around the nursing station while patients struggle for breath and finally go into cardiac arrest. On Ward 87, I hold the nursing staff responsible for scapegoating me and victimising me. They were never disciplined by the NMC. Do we get a situation where the nursing fraternity gangs up on the medical whistleblower? Did the RCN or the NMC ever apologise for the conduct of these half baked incompetent nurses? Of course, they didn't. Anyway, the NMC's response to Ward 87 makes their double standards crystal clear. I would not call all nurses angels because they just aren't.
Liz Longstaff of the Royal College of Nursing was present at this 2001 Review on Ward 87 . The NMC in the guise of UKCC was also present [see list of people present on page 116 of the report] What did these people do? Well, while the RCN crows away in the news about poor care and does an excellent job for Undercover Nurse and whistleblowing nurses, let us remind them of their own responsibilities towards the patients on Ward 87. The Royal College of Nursing [ RCN] actually did nothing about the poor care on Ward 87 - apart from sit and around and look pretty of course. So in the RCN survey of late, they stated
"But one in three of them said that no action had been taken and that their concerns had been swept under the carpet"
We therefore assume that the RCN themselves came under that statistic in 2001.
So as we see the Stafford/Undercover Nurse/RCN/Ben Bradshaw combo go through the media bandwagon, we should remember what their true behaviour is like without publicity. We should also remember that average whistleblowers aren't Undercover Nurse. They are concerned folk who raise concerns without the razzmatazz of the media. It is therefore the reaction without media coverage that is the most important - because not every whistleblower is going to be on Panorama. Undercover Nurse is therefore a rather artificial situation - the reality is that other average whistleblowers don't get potential pay offs from Panorama, nor do they go to the media that much - and these are the whistleblowers that lack support.
While the RCN may well be making up for their past faults, Ben Bradshaw is simply being a typical Labour " jump on the bandwagon" media addict. It is politically advantageous to back Undercover Nurse because the people will apparently think what a fair man he is. Well, in honesty, Bradshaw has probably caused more deaths with his dysfunctional policies than anyone else.
He has never cared much for whistleblowers, he certainly ignores medical whistleblowers and is of the view that they should go away to some planet away from England. He has never assisted any medical whistleblowing consultant - that includes Steve Bolsin.
Lets ask Ben - if he is so concerned about whistleblowers, why doesn't he bring Steve Bolsin back to England where he belongs? He won't you see. Because Ben Bradshaw has never considered whistleblowers to be people he should listen to.
Despite all the publicity, the Health Select Committee has currently denied a review into Whistleblowing Post Bristol. The man responsible for the refusal is Kevin Barron MP, GMC Committee member. Quelle Surprise!
Medical Publications Still Silent on Medical Whistleblowers
Medical Journals - Silent on Whistleblowing And here we are watching the Royal College of Nursing doing a fabulous job in support of nursing whistleblowers. We then look back to the medical profession and wonder what they have ever done in support of whistleblowers. Bolsin still remains in Australia. No one dares mention Peter Wilmshurst, Mike Tobin or Raj Mattu or the numerous other medical whistleblowers. Indeed, the medical profession have not asked Steve to return back to the UK.
From the RCN, these are the statistics
From the RCN, these are the statistics
"Fewer than half (46%) of nurses polled for the RCN felt confident their employer would protect them if they spoke up. Of those who had raised concerns (63% of the total), 49% had filled in patient safety incident forms while others had used different means"
Fewer than one in three (29%) nurses said their employer had taken immediate action to resolve the situation while 35% said no action was ever taken.
The BMJ continues to remain silent on the issue of "medical" [ not nursing] whistleblowers. The General Medical Council remains tight lipped about whistleblowers having slaughtered the likes of Robert Phipps and Shreedar Vaidya through their procedures.
The medical establishment should hold their head in shame. It is a sad day when so much is done for the nursing profession and nothing is done for the medical professionals who have whistleblown. Perhaps a nurses word in the end is of higher value than the doctors word. It appears so anyway.
Yes, and we spotted the Doctors Only website owner, having stuck the knife in Scot Jnr, he decided to ride the tide on the Undercover Nurse publicity. As the Common Purpose Doctors Only website is only too aware, they are quite happy to maliciously report their own medical whistleblowers to the GMC.
I believe the biggest problem with the medical profession is that they have never supported their whistleblowers but have watched them much like a spectacle. A medical whistleblower not only has the management chasing after them but starts to have the entire wrath of the medical profession pitted against them.
The way it works in the medical profession is this - you raise concerns, instead of addressing them, the Trust finds fault in you, then says there are some mental health issues, after that they over scrutinise your work and then forward the matter to NCAS or the General Medical Council. The GMC then ignores any concerns you have about negligence and proceeds to reverse the investigation on the whistleblower [ Phipps, Pal]. Phipps was sanctioned, I wasn't. The medical journals then ignore you, brush you to one side as an "uncomfortable personality" and hope that you will disappear. Most do their utmost to silence any concerns you may have about the system. Any medical whistleblower who has gone through the system, knows I am right. As for the BMA - they are as much use as a jellyfish out of water. The same applies to the MPS and MDU who have both remained silent again on the whistleblowing issues. These organisations assume that by being silent they will infact do themselves a favour and pretend the problem does not exist.
The above is known as the Ostritch effect.
Sphere: Related Content
The medical establishment should hold their head in shame. It is a sad day when so much is done for the nursing profession and nothing is done for the medical professionals who have whistleblown. Perhaps a nurses word in the end is of higher value than the doctors word. It appears so anyway.
Yes, and we spotted the Doctors Only website owner, having stuck the knife in Scot Jnr, he decided to ride the tide on the Undercover Nurse publicity. As the Common Purpose Doctors Only website is only too aware, they are quite happy to maliciously report their own medical whistleblowers to the GMC.
I believe the biggest problem with the medical profession is that they have never supported their whistleblowers but have watched them much like a spectacle. A medical whistleblower not only has the management chasing after them but starts to have the entire wrath of the medical profession pitted against them.
The way it works in the medical profession is this - you raise concerns, instead of addressing them, the Trust finds fault in you, then says there are some mental health issues, after that they over scrutinise your work and then forward the matter to NCAS or the General Medical Council. The GMC then ignores any concerns you have about negligence and proceeds to reverse the investigation on the whistleblower [ Phipps, Pal]. Phipps was sanctioned, I wasn't. The medical journals then ignore you, brush you to one side as an "uncomfortable personality" and hope that you will disappear. Most do their utmost to silence any concerns you may have about the system. Any medical whistleblower who has gone through the system, knows I am right. As for the BMA - they are as much use as a jellyfish out of water. The same applies to the MPS and MDU who have both remained silent again on the whistleblowing issues. These organisations assume that by being silent they will infact do themselves a favour and pretend the problem does not exist.
The above is known as the Ostritch effect.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Whistleblower - Riding the Wave.
I had to smirk at the BBC Headlines on Whistleblowers. The Royal College of Nursing are doing their best to fight for the rights of whistleblowing nurses. They stated
"The NHS must help ensure whistle-blowers are listened to and supported, nursing leaders say."
And pray what are our medical mainstream publications doing? Ah yes, they are supporting the nurses as well. I often wonder what happened to supporting medical whistleblowers, and hey there are many of us. But no, it doesn't happen does it! Pulse goes off to support Undercover Nurse when the likes of me says - hey what about doctors - fine, don't support me but there are other doctors out there who need back up. If you looked at the medical publications, you would think that only one whistleblower ever existed since the dawn of time and that was a nurse. The fact that Peter Wilmshurst or Raj Mattu exist does not appear to garner any attention at all.
So there we have it, the BMJ writes next to nothing about medical whistleblowers and Pulse jumps on the proverbial bandwagon and supports Undercover Nurse. Is Undercover Nurse a genuine whistleblower or one created for the media?
Then as for MPs, the BBC goes onto say "The Tories have already called for a new law to allow NHS staff to report concerns "easily and anonymously"
Well, can we get a few facts straight now that the Conservative Party has shown their true colours recently. It was because of David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell that Stafford Hospital happened. They both did nothing when I raised the initial concerns with them many years ago. Of late, I felt they had turned the corner but Andrew Mitchell is still the pompous condescending MP he always was. This week, I really had had enough of his condescending letters written on conqueror paper. To Andrew Mitchell, I am your washed up whistleblower - and he is the one who earns his fat paycheck. Because of that, he can afford not to read documents, get irritated when he does not understand the basics then guffaw away. The biggest problem with Andrew's insight is that he doesn't understand what he has caused by his ignorance. The death of 2000 plus people?
I say this because concerns about Ward 87 were raised with them and all the MPs in Parliament [ and yes, I have all their non responses] about the risks to patients between 1998-2008. I should say that no one was listening. Like all MPs, Andrew Mitchell spends a mint, he is also a arrogant man who is of the view that he can look down on whistleblowers and pretend he is assisting while putting the shutters down. It is damned well insulting when his letters fly through the door writing material he doesn't even understand. Matters have to be explained to him twice.
I came to the point this week where I was ticked off with the lot of these useless MPs. I watch Tony Wright MP creep up to Cure the NHS in Stafford having degraded the issues related to Ward 87. You then watch all the MPs sidle up to Cure the NHS, to share the media spotlight. Amazing what an MP will do to get the limelight and pretend they care about the country's dead. Not one of these MPs cared about the dead on Ward 87. Not one of them have addressed the issues so far. Then there is the empty threat of litigation against the government related to a Public Inquiry into Stafford. Everyone knows its risky and it won't happen.
Anyhow, I believe the problems of medical whistleblowers are under-represented by the general media and the medical media. They are also poorly understood by MPs who have failed miserably and directly allowed poor healthcare to continue. Hospital Doctor did a far better job than the current lot who pretend as if there are no problems in medical regulation or the culture of medicine.
If the truth be known, the culture of medicine has rotted to the core. These days, without Hospital Doctor, they are better at covering it up. I suspect though that most doctors are happy to accept the status quo rather than take the difficult path to change the system. That is of course until their own arse is on fire :).
Sphere: Related Content
So there we have it, the BMJ writes next to nothing about medical whistleblowers and Pulse jumps on the proverbial bandwagon and supports Undercover Nurse. Is Undercover Nurse a genuine whistleblower or one created for the media?
Then as for MPs, the BBC goes onto say "The Tories have already called for a new law to allow NHS staff to report concerns "easily and anonymously"
Well, can we get a few facts straight now that the Conservative Party has shown their true colours recently. It was because of David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell that Stafford Hospital happened. They both did nothing when I raised the initial concerns with them many years ago. Of late, I felt they had turned the corner but Andrew Mitchell is still the pompous condescending MP he always was. This week, I really had had enough of his condescending letters written on conqueror paper. To Andrew Mitchell, I am your washed up whistleblower - and he is the one who earns his fat paycheck. Because of that, he can afford not to read documents, get irritated when he does not understand the basics then guffaw away. The biggest problem with Andrew's insight is that he doesn't understand what he has caused by his ignorance. The death of 2000 plus people?
I say this because concerns about Ward 87 were raised with them and all the MPs in Parliament [ and yes, I have all their non responses] about the risks to patients between 1998-2008. I should say that no one was listening. Like all MPs, Andrew Mitchell spends a mint, he is also a arrogant man who is of the view that he can look down on whistleblowers and pretend he is assisting while putting the shutters down. It is damned well insulting when his letters fly through the door writing material he doesn't even understand. Matters have to be explained to him twice.
I came to the point this week where I was ticked off with the lot of these useless MPs. I watch Tony Wright MP creep up to Cure the NHS in Stafford having degraded the issues related to Ward 87. You then watch all the MPs sidle up to Cure the NHS, to share the media spotlight. Amazing what an MP will do to get the limelight and pretend they care about the country's dead. Not one of these MPs cared about the dead on Ward 87. Not one of them have addressed the issues so far. Then there is the empty threat of litigation against the government related to a Public Inquiry into Stafford. Everyone knows its risky and it won't happen.
Anyhow, I believe the problems of medical whistleblowers are under-represented by the general media and the medical media. They are also poorly understood by MPs who have failed miserably and directly allowed poor healthcare to continue. Hospital Doctor did a far better job than the current lot who pretend as if there are no problems in medical regulation or the culture of medicine.
If the truth be known, the culture of medicine has rotted to the core. These days, without Hospital Doctor, they are better at covering it up. I suspect though that most doctors are happy to accept the status quo rather than take the difficult path to change the system. That is of course until their own arse is on fire :).
Friday, 8 May 2009
Mad Hatters Tea Party
Apparently, the Lunatic Fringe Council formally known as the General Medical Council have developed GMC Affiliates. The documentation kindly sent to me by the slightly less disordered individuals there can be downloaded from here.
Put it this way, in short GMC Affiliates are spies for the General Medical Council. I know the Lunatic Fringe Council likes to couch the phrase in different and more acceptable terminology but thats them for you. I am sure they would make a murder look tame. I suppose the GMC Affiliate system would be interesting if it wasn't operated by those best suited to a Mad Hatters Tea Party. I hadn't of course understood the true extent of the dysfunctional behaviour until recently. Sure I had been told about it by a Ex GMC Committee member but what is truly fascinating is that the extent of this personality disordered behaviour is endemic and probably unsafe for many doctors. I shudder at the thought of such crazy people being responsible for handling large amounts of revalidation data.
Anyhow, I am positive the good folk in the NHS will discover very soon how bad things are - that is when revalidation hits the fan and licenses are stopped on a technicality. The fact remains, it is that technicality that expands quite broadly once the GMC catches it. One small issue expands into a spiders web. More often than not the GMC will side with senior medical doctors. A junior doctor only requires one dysfunctional one to ruin their chance of relicensing.
Relicensing is interesting and looks relatively harmless until you look at the potential for Medical Directors to essentially say one word to stop the license from proceeding. Take the example mooted this week by Witchdoctor and NHS Blog Doctor. A busy doctor who is excellent but did not have time to update her "folder". Her consultant was not impressed. Of course, paper doctors is a theory mooted by the GMC. That is how those who talk a lot [ as opposed to work a lot] dictate what good doctors should be. So, no one is assessing your ability to get the patient back from the dead. What is being assessed is how many lectures and CPD points you are able to earn. When I was a junior doctor, I didn't have enough time to breathe never mind sit and complete documentation. As everyone is aware, medicine is practical job - and while theory is important, it is what is done on the shop floor that counts.
Revalidation and appraisal is really about a central "collection of data". In my view, too much data in the hands of the lunatic fringe council is a very bad thing. The GMC misinterprets data on a regular basis and penalises the most vulnerable ie junior doctors.
So, here are the new regulations due in force soon. So any information collected by the GMC can [ if they wish] be disclosed to anyone really
2C
For instance, if someone dislikes the material written by Dr Rant, NHS Blog Doctor or Jobbing Doctor, they can quite easily report it to the GMC, who will then place it against their revalidation and relicensing record and use that information to judge whether or not the doctors should be relicensed. It now makes it incredibly easy to stop anyone with critical ideas of the NHS - because anything in a doctors life can now stop them from practising. Essentially, the way data is collected at the GMC is this - anyone who enquires about a specific doctor has the enquiry logged under the doctors and their name. If there are any further concerns about the doctor, those enquiries may be reopened and followed up. Essentially, every comment, every allegation made against a doctor [ without the doctors knowledge] is listed against that doctors name on the GMC database. It seems logical that they would use this data for relicensing.
The Mothership has indeed Landed. This is so because no one has taken the time to stop it.
This is further confirmed by the forthcoming 2006 Statutory Instruments [Extracts Quoted Below]
And there we are, we can of course thank Lord Walton at the House of Lords. and Baroness Finlay at the House of Lords who debated this Act and new statutes. Walton the ex GMC President is apparently still alive despite being a walking corpse with his brain as frazzled as it always was. Nevertheless, the powers bestowed upon the GMC or the next organisation which will be the GMC in drag staffed by the same people - is quite extensive. They have the power to do whatever they want when they want to whoever they dislike. This kind of power bestowed upon an organisation who is currently being judicially reviewed every week is quite dangerous. Power has already got to the heads of those who work there. Despite probably having one CSE to their name, those who work at the GMC tend to have delusions of grandeur. For instance a consultant recently told me that he had complained that the complaints against him were vexatious and the GMC worker smirked and stated that he " lacked insight". So essentially, largely intellectually inferior workers at the GMC are given superb powers to make prejudicial judgments on doctors. This is currently extremely dangerous.
And all this post Shipman has only happened because those who talk on the Common Purpose Doctors Only website run by old Cyril sit around gassing about pointless issues as opposed to preventing something that is a forthcoming danger. Anyway, as we all say - everyone deserves the system they fight for.
Anyway, as everyone will soon find out appealing a refusal to relicense a doctor is going to be superbly difficult. Indeed, if realism kicks in, a doctor could remain unemployed for months or years while the appeals proceed. This period of unemployment can ruin a junior doctor.
The MMC Fiasco was created by their predecessors who were essentially supine. The Revalidation/relicensing is due to be created because the current doctors are supine. Then perhaps supine doctors deserve what they fight for.
While I am sunning myself on a beach somewhere, I will probably hear the screams in about 1.5 years time.
Sphere: Related Content
Put it this way, in short GMC Affiliates are spies for the General Medical Council. I know the Lunatic Fringe Council likes to couch the phrase in different and more acceptable terminology but thats them for you. I am sure they would make a murder look tame. I suppose the GMC Affiliate system would be interesting if it wasn't operated by those best suited to a Mad Hatters Tea Party. I hadn't of course understood the true extent of the dysfunctional behaviour until recently. Sure I had been told about it by a Ex GMC Committee member but what is truly fascinating is that the extent of this personality disordered behaviour is endemic and probably unsafe for many doctors. I shudder at the thought of such crazy people being responsible for handling large amounts of revalidation data.
Anyhow, I am positive the good folk in the NHS will discover very soon how bad things are - that is when revalidation hits the fan and licenses are stopped on a technicality. The fact remains, it is that technicality that expands quite broadly once the GMC catches it. One small issue expands into a spiders web. More often than not the GMC will side with senior medical doctors. A junior doctor only requires one dysfunctional one to ruin their chance of relicensing.
Relicensing is interesting and looks relatively harmless until you look at the potential for Medical Directors to essentially say one word to stop the license from proceeding. Take the example mooted this week by Witchdoctor and NHS Blog Doctor. A busy doctor who is excellent but did not have time to update her "folder". Her consultant was not impressed. Of course, paper doctors is a theory mooted by the GMC. That is how those who talk a lot [ as opposed to work a lot] dictate what good doctors should be. So, no one is assessing your ability to get the patient back from the dead. What is being assessed is how many lectures and CPD points you are able to earn. When I was a junior doctor, I didn't have enough time to breathe never mind sit and complete documentation. As everyone is aware, medicine is practical job - and while theory is important, it is what is done on the shop floor that counts.
Revalidation and appraisal is really about a central "collection of data". In my view, too much data in the hands of the lunatic fringe council is a very bad thing. The GMC misinterprets data on a regular basis and penalises the most vulnerable ie junior doctors.
So, here are the new regulations due in force soon. So any information collected by the GMC can [ if they wish] be disclosed to anyone really
Reference here.(2) If the licensing authority considers it to be in the public interest to do so, the licensing authority may disclose any relevant information about the medical practitioner to—
(a) the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland or the Welsh Ministers; and
(b) any person of whom the licensing authority is aware—
(i) by whom the practitioner is employed to provide services in, or in relation to, any area of medicine, or
(ii) with whom the practitioner has an arrangement to provide such services.
2C
"require a medical practitioner or any other person (including another medical practitioner) to provide any evidence, information or document which C may reasonably request for or in connection with revalidation of a medical practitioner"So, this "any other person" is rather interesting and of course if we are to believe the GMC, "anything can be in connection with revalidation". The other interesting issue admitted in the extract below is that the entitlement of relicensing is conditional upon the applicant's fitness to practise not being impaired. Now, if we are to believe the GMC, anything is now potential misconduct if the GMC wants it to be. To turn the argument upside down, we can see that if someone in their eyes is not " Fit to Practise" then instigating GMC procedures against innocent doctors is going to be fairly easy really.
For instance, if someone dislikes the material written by Dr Rant, NHS Blog Doctor or Jobbing Doctor, they can quite easily report it to the GMC, who will then place it against their revalidation and relicensing record and use that information to judge whether or not the doctors should be relicensed. It now makes it incredibly easy to stop anyone with critical ideas of the NHS - because anything in a doctors life can now stop them from practising. Essentially, the way data is collected at the GMC is this - anyone who enquires about a specific doctor has the enquiry logged under the doctors and their name. If there are any further concerns about the doctor, those enquiries may be reopened and followed up. Essentially, every comment, every allegation made against a doctor [ without the doctors knowledge] is listed against that doctors name on the GMC database. It seems logical that they would use this data for relicensing.
The Mothership has indeed Landed. This is so because no one has taken the time to stop it.
This is further confirmed by the forthcoming 2006 Statutory Instruments [Extracts Quoted Below]
"Entitlement to registration under any provision of the Act is now conditional upon the applicant’s fitness to practise not being impaired. The Registrar is given new, extended powers to obtaininformation about whether a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise is, or was, impaired at the time of registration – and he may remove medical practitioners from the GMC register (subject to rights of appeal) either if new information comes to light showing that their fitness to practise was 36 impaired at the time of registration but this was not disclosed at the time or if a practitioner refuses to co-operate with the new information gathering arrangements. Decisions to refuse to restore a person to the register for a fitness to practise reason, if they left it voluntarily or for non-payment of fees, are now appealable through the courts (Part 5
There are also changes to the fitness to practise procedures for medical practitioners post registration. The GMC are given powers to apply to a court to require production of documents from third parties relating to fitness to practise investigations, where these have not been supplied within fourteen days. It is also made clear that the GMC have the power to disclose information relating to a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise, whenever or wherever the matter to which it relates arose, where they see it as being in the public interest to do so, and to take decisions to disclose particular classes of information. A list is also provided of the decisions of panels and committees that have to be published, although the GMC is given powers to withhold, in the course of publication of these decisions, information concerning a person’s physical or mental health, where they consider the information to be confidential. Allowance is made for the possibility that a medical practitioner will concede, during an investigation into his fitness to practise, that his fitness to practise is impaired – and in these circumstances, the GMC may make rules in respect of the agreement of undertakings to be observed by the practitioner, and in respect of the procedure to be followed where such undertakings are breached. Fitness to practise hearings are to be in public, except to the extent that rules made by the GMC provide otherwise. There is also a change to the arrangements for the making of legal assessors rules (Part 6 and article 91).
"There are also changes to ensure that revalidation of a medical practitioner’s licence to practise can take place at any time, and to allow the GMC to make regulations about requiring medical practitioners to supply information to assist licensing authorities in determining when and how torevalidate them. There are also transitory arrangements enabling the GMC, a licensing authority or a future licensing authority to obtain information to assist them in preparing for the introduction of revalidation. Additionally, licence to practise appeals will have to be held in public, except to the extent that rules provide otherwise (Part 9 and article 90).
And there we are, we can of course thank Lord Walton at the House of Lords. and Baroness Finlay at the House of Lords who debated this Act and new statutes. Walton the ex GMC President is apparently still alive despite being a walking corpse with his brain as frazzled as it always was. Nevertheless, the powers bestowed upon the GMC or the next organisation which will be the GMC in drag staffed by the same people - is quite extensive. They have the power to do whatever they want when they want to whoever they dislike. This kind of power bestowed upon an organisation who is currently being judicially reviewed every week is quite dangerous. Power has already got to the heads of those who work there. Despite probably having one CSE to their name, those who work at the GMC tend to have delusions of grandeur. For instance a consultant recently told me that he had complained that the complaints against him were vexatious and the GMC worker smirked and stated that he " lacked insight". So essentially, largely intellectually inferior workers at the GMC are given superb powers to make prejudicial judgments on doctors. This is currently extremely dangerous.
And all this post Shipman has only happened because those who talk on the Common Purpose Doctors Only website run by old Cyril sit around gassing about pointless issues as opposed to preventing something that is a forthcoming danger. Anyway, as we all say - everyone deserves the system they fight for.
Anyway, as everyone will soon find out appealing a refusal to relicense a doctor is going to be superbly difficult. Indeed, if realism kicks in, a doctor could remain unemployed for months or years while the appeals proceed. This period of unemployment can ruin a junior doctor.
The MMC Fiasco was created by their predecessors who were essentially supine. The Revalidation/relicensing is due to be created because the current doctors are supine. Then perhaps supine doctors deserve what they fight for.
While I am sunning myself on a beach somewhere, I will probably hear the screams in about 1.5 years time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
