Professor Elizabeth Paice - Breaching Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 AGAIN?

Elizabeth Plaice - Keeping Small Fry Under Tight Totalitarian Control

A Fishy Tail

Elizabeth and I go a long long long way back. Actually, we go back to 1998. Last year, I wrote about her on our now defunct blog Whistleblower Diaries. Elizabeth dislikes me. That's fine, because I dislike Elizabeth. In fact, I have a file on Elizabeth where I collect all her misdemeanors. It is called Elizabeth Plaice. That is because her face resembles that of a large flat white fish. She also likes to control her small fry.

What is my hangup with Elizabeth?. Well, have a read here. Elizabeth's solution to whistleblowing was " counselling" and denying all responsibility for a junior doctor who qualified at University College London. We must not forget that she [being the large flat fish swimming around in the cesspit of London's Deanery] did not report the doctors responsible for Ward 87 to the GMC. Actually, did she do anything to prevent the deaths on Ward 87? Well, of course she didn't. What she did do was offer me counselling. Of course, I didn't take it. What was I going to do at a counselling session when the problem lay with her and the Postgraduate Dean in Birmingham. This is the response I received from the great white flat fish herself - please note that she insists she was right in leaving me at a Deanery that was in effect victimising me. She denies her own responsibility for a junior doctor she was ultimately responsible for.

--- Original Message -----
From: "PAICE, Elisabeth" <epaice@londondeanery.ac.uk>
To: <ritapal@poetess.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:05 PM
Subject: your email to Dr Moss

Dear Dr Pal

Thank you for your email to Dr Moss. I am well aware of your case since Dr Moss discussed it with me at the time, when you raised your concerns with both Dr Brenton and her about deficiencies in the service and clinical supervision of junior doctors at Stoke on Trent. Dr Moss and I agreed that the concerns you raised were serious and needed further investigation. I therefore immediately telephoned the relevent postgraduate dean, who was at the time Professor John Temple. I told him about your concerns and also read out from Dr Colin Campbell's letter.

Professor Temple said he was worried to hear these things and that he would look into the situation. We were all also concerned about ensuring that you were able to complete your PRHO year and were supported psychologically through a difficult time, hence the offer of counselling. I am sorry you did not find this offer helpful. In your email you accuse Dr Moss of failing to do three things which were simply not in her remit.

1. Not giving you a post in London. It was the medical school sub-dean (Dr Brenton) who was responsible for organising the matching of UCL students to posts, not Dr Moss. There have always been about twice as many London students qualifying each year as there are PRHO posts in London, so it is not required or indeed possible to offer London posts to all London graduates.

2. Failing to act on your report of poor service and supervision in Stoke on Trent. As I have said above, Dr Moss did act by contacting me and I acted by contacting the postgraduate dean of the region concerned.

3. Continuing to send UCL graduates to Stoke on Trent. As I have explained above, Dr Moss has never had responsibility for matching schemes, which is not a duty of postgraduate deans in London, but has always been managed by the medical schools.I am sorry that you feel dissatisfied by the outcome of your complaints, and hope that you now understand that it was not Dr Moss's role to undertake the activities you appear to have expected of her.

Yours sincerely

Elisabeth Paice

Dean DirectorLondon Deanery

I suppose therefore that the New Doctor issued in 1997 was not applicable to Postgraduate Dean Elizabeth Paice. The guidance is issued under Section 5 of the Medical Act 1983.

Rule 7 " The Universities with Medical Schools must comply with these Recommendations when arranging clinical training of their GRADUATES".

Rule 8 " The Universities are also responsible to their PRHOs for ensuring that they are placed only in posts which will give GOOD experience, SUPERVISION and TRAINING.

Rule 40 " The Universities are responsible for the QUALITY of Pre-Registration year and the calibre of PRHOs progressing to full registration. In practise the detailed functions are usually delegated to the postgraduate dean although in a small number of universities they are carried out of by dean of medicine.

Rule 46 The University should maintain an upto date description of the clinical facilities of each approved post, including the duties of the post, the spread of experience and the oncall rote. It should ensure that the quality of training provided in hospitals and health centres which it has inspected and approved is REGULARLY EVALUATED.

Rule 47 [e] The duties of the postgraduate dean in relation to general clinical training include
posts where IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES have not been remedied are CLOSED and new posts approved so the standards of education and training are raised.

Elizabeth Paice Postgraduate Dean of the London Deanery, who had overall responsibility for me, continued to deny her responsibility under the New Doctor recommendations. She was informed of the problems through Dr DP Brenton. They still continued to use North Staffordshire NHS Trust as a training ground for University College London medical school. After me, they continued to send fledgling doctors there. The GMC was informed following the 2001 report into Ward 87. The GMC decided that there should be no accountability and screened the complaint out excusing themselves on the 5 year limitation.

Having been told of the negligence on Ward 87, Elizabeth Paice did not think that Rule 26 of Good Medical Practise applied to her either.

Rule 26 " You must protect patients from risk of harm posted by another doctors or other health professionals conduct, performance or health...... . The safety of patients must come first at all times.

The association with the GMC is quite simple.

"Professor Elisabeth Paice , Chair of COPMeD said:

"I am delighted to be signing this memorandum, which clearly sets out the ways in which COPMeD and the GMC will work in collaboration with each other. COPMeD provides training of doctors and the continuing professional development of GPs and acts as a focal point for contact between the Postgraduate Medical Deans and other organisations. COPMeD is best placed to identify training needs to improve performance and support development." The guidelines will increase the effectiveness of both organisations through collaborative working arrangements that protect patient safety in two ways: "

Here she is again with the GMC.

The GMC should stop meeting this flat white fish like this. Anyone would think she would do anything for her friend Carol Black [ GMC Committee Member]. Here she is with Finlay Scott and Carol Black. They are both spotted dancing around their handbags here as well. Not happy with dancing around their handbags, they decided to accompany each other to the lady's room. We can all be assured that Carol Black and Elizabeth Paice float on top of our medical sea and believe that all junior doctors have to be controlled. Elizabeth was protecting Carol. It must be difficult for these top level medics to understand that they are actually quite ineffective at their job.

The role of Her Royal Highness Carol Black in the MMC fiasco was cleverly summarised by Dr Crippen. It is therefore not surprising that a fairly good looking surgeon with more than two sets of balls would criticise her. Quite rightly so. One can only admire the man for his guts. Actually, there is much more to criticise her for - as a Trustee of the GMC, I find it astounding that she made no comment on the totalitarian regime accusation made by a High Court Judge or the recent Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998 violation. Of course, as most Trustees at the GMC assume, if they keep Rita Pal away from the masses, then rebellious behaviour will not catch on. Of course, I don't have to do anything, the grander pigs of this medical population cause rebellion by their totalitarian efforts to control doctors. Times have changed. Doctors are fed up of being controlled. There is the minor aspect of free speech. Of course, the Human Rights Act 1998 only came into force in 1998 so these old bats haven't quite got used to it. This is what Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says

1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Jobbing Doctor writes as follows "A Scottish junior doctor has been suspended from work by their Dean for making some unflattering comments about the re-election of Dame Carol Black to the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges. As far as I am aware, it is not illegal to make comments about people, although professionalism would suggest that you criticise their decisions, opinions and behaviour and not them as people".

Witchdoctor has a more detailed discussion which I agree with. He says

"It definitely tests whether senior members of the medical profession accept they have been complicit in damaging a generation of junior doctors and whether they are prepared to take at least some responsibility for the outbursts that sometimes take place against them.It tests also whether bridges will ever be built between junior doctors and the most senior members of the medical profession or whether there will be a perpetuation of a culture of mistrust.It is now up to the Scottish deanery concerned to decide whether they have done the right thing. They need to consider the consequences of what they have done for the medical profession, and perhaps for freedom of speech"

The problem with this is the caveat in Good Medical Practise. Rule 46 and 47 were inserted in 2006. It is the caveat inserted in the new version to control doctors. These rules are subtle changes that no one would notice unless you sat down and read the booklet. Subtle changes were made so the higher level pigs could abuse it to control junior doctors. Essentially, it is a trap door for doctors they don't like. If they can't get you on any other rule, they default to these two.

46 You must treat your colleagues fairly and with respect. You must not bully or harass them, or unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views* to affect adversely your professional relationship with them. You should challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance.

47 You must not make malicious and unfounded criticisms of colleagues that may undermine patients’ trust in the care or treatment they receive, or in the judgement of those treating them.

These sections of Good Medical Practise are in conflict with Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The GMC does not realise this of course but that will soon be challenged in court on R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. Of late, I have been discussing the case of Dr X on NHS Behind the Headlines . The problem is endemic. The problem with the above two rules is that they ensured the that the outlawed rules in the Blue book [Good Medical Practise 1993] was brought back into force again. Rule 64 of the Blue Book stated

"However, gratuitous and unsustainable comment which, whether directly or indirectly or by implication, sets out to undermine trust in a professional colleague's knowledge or skills, is unethical" [1993].

That was before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. This wide ranging section was phased out in 1998/2001 in favour of free speech. It is interesting that the old version of the rules made its way into 2006 version of Good Medical Practise during the period of the MMC fiasco. Internal sources at the GMC clarified that this caveat was placed within Good Medical Practise to ensure control of junior doctors by their seniors. The rules above are wide ranging and can interpreted as seniors see fit. So for instance, if they do not like criticism, they don't have to establish that it was unwarranted, they can simply say it was and the rest will accept this. Indeed, this is what Prof Scotland of the NCAS did. The GMC did not question the evidence for Scotland's assertions. This wide ranging interpretation with no additional direction is a danger to all doctors. It essentially gives all senior doctors a trap door clause to be used when needed. There is no direction on the interpretation. Subjective and prejudicial interpretation is therefore accepted by the GMC or Deaneries. In conclusion, the discretion given to these two rules is wide. There has been no direction to determine the bounderies of these rules.

The pattern now is that no one is allowed to criticise the top level pigs. Essentially, a junior doctor [Dr X] has been referred by the NCAS to the GMC for his " tone". I note that both Jobbing Doctor and Witchdoctor failed to refer to this despite the fact that Dr X required the support. That is possibly because there are areas of the medical profession who feel that doctors like me and Dr X deserve to have our free speech curbed. I say this because few people have supported us in the fight to raise the issue that free speech is being curbed.

In 2006, I repeatedly warned all junior doctors regarding this sort of event. I knew this sort of casualty was waiting to happen. I said

" Rumour within the medical profession cites a doctors only web forum as a hunting ground for GMC Screeners and GMC Assessors. Prowling the Internet forests of the forum is on occasion a full time occupation for these GMC doctors. Vulnerable doctors speak openly of their anguish, distress and matters affecting their lives within the confines of a private Internet chat group. The provision of companionship away from the outside world leaves many doctors to seek solace and comradeship from their fellow doctors. Comradeship always has a price. Little do they know that a number of GMC committee members actively seek doctors to “ fit up”. From our investigations many committee members are members. of the doctors only web site. It makes their work so much easier." Sick Doctors Defence.

As usual, everything I said fell on deaf ears. The bare faced fact is this - if you want to keep your job, don't criticise the top level pigs. Each time, we warned posters to curb the manner of their speech but again it fell on deaf ears.

Elizabeth Paice has been making life miserable for doctors for years. The most famous case is Dr Tushar Bhadra, a surgeon who has been trailed by Elizabeth for many years. Tushar has taken Elizabeth to every Tribunal in the land and has done this since 1998. It was his case that was described in the Whistleblower diaries in 2007.

It is simply that no one pays much attention. When something is said, most doctors brush it aside. This week, one of the "accepted masses" not one of us " deemed lunatics" has fallen on tough times. Yes, sure we could all walk away - as many did when I fell into trouble. Walk away and watch the spectacle. I am surprised many didn't buy popcorn. I often wonder why I sit here writing material with the hope that someone somewhere will read it and save themselves from this totalitarian system.

I suppose I should care about our Scottish doctor who has been suspended because I know that if he does not attack fast, the system will make an example out of him. The top level pigs wish to control their juniors. They are sick and tired of people being outspoken. They are not happy with the rebels created following the MMC. They t to set an example. This suspension is to frighten other doctors from being outspoken. No one has to believe me, they simply have to look at what has been done to me and match what will be done to our Scottish doctor. Afterall, I lost job due linking to a public document. That story of suppression of free speech came and went. I suppose most doctors felt I deserved this. At least that is the impression.

I ought to find the memo where a Trust/Deanery admitted to the required element of hierarchical control. This is what the current suspension of the Scottish doctor is about. The next step normally is a referral to the GMC but I hope that the Scottish doctor has his wits about him. Three shredded wheat, balls of steel and Carling Blacklabel needs right now. I have emailed him, he won't respond of course because those of a certain ilk never do. A sort of club mentality. Those on doctors-only websites feel they have the solution to all known ills and don't feel they need to take any advice from those who purchased the teeshirt.

The key to springing this Scottish doctor - is for everyone to write about this issue through the blogsphere. This should never end until the Deanery lift his suspension. The best weapon against his Deanery is high level publicity. Elizabeth Paice had these days coming to her. Free speech does not just apply to senior doctors, it applies to junior doctors as well. In fact, those with a lot more intelligence than the average bear ought to create a good letter to the United Nations. There is a special representative who investigate issues of violation of freedom of expression. The details are listed here.

The Deanery concerned know whats coming to them. Mass negative publicity [and I know which Deanery it is] and litigation for breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a straight action with damages due. The Deanery knows that and the best thing they can do is to release the doctor. Of course, in the top level rule of the pigs, I very much doubt they will back down because that is the nature of oppressive behaviour. This is of course no different from China. It is simply that no one talks about breach of free speech in the medical profession.