Monday, 3 November 2008

The Pyjama Men

Prof Bulstrode and Prof Catto on
Official GMC Business

Jobbing Doctor is fabulous. We know this because while he was away, we all missed him. Yes, it is true, we all pined for him server side. JD has his female gaggle and we are it. Witchdoctor and I did our job in keeping up the "Hype" regarding Pyjama Man and iwantgreatcare. As JD and Witchdoctor will appreciate, "HYPE" is vital to the welfare of the medical state. It is a word invented by the GMC.

Pyjama Man is of course Prof Bulstrode. For all those who have missed it, Bulstrode is the glorified carpenter from Oxford who dabbles in medical regulation at the GMC. He purposely places an extra step at the Nuffied Hospital so women in high heels can trip over suddenly and land in the arms of stripey suited lawyer. Pyjama man knows only too well that all lawyers need oiling until his bank balance overflows. The extra step is essential during these hard times of the credit crunch. Pyjama man can no longer rely on the morsels of bread thrown his way by GMC Towers.

Christmas is coming and it is important we start thinking about A Christmas Carol and a certain character that Pyjama man has certain similarities to. I was wondering whether the entire GMC committee turns up in their Pyjamas. They all certainly seem asleep. The rest seem to be sleep walking through life.

Jobbing Doctor reminded me of the Hippocratic Oath. He also describes the way in which doctors are supposed to read the BMJ. Do any of us read the BMJ?

I think JD will find that all the really intelligent people are sitting on NHS Blog Doc's servers. Only those doctors found guilty by the GMC are currently chosen to write for the BMJ. That is right JD, the medical profession today is to be educated by a doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct :). I note that James Owen Drife does not make this known anywhere.

JD will also have to remember that the BMJ these days is affectionately known as the "Bog Roll". At least Andrex has a picture of a cute dog we can all look at. The BMJ has this week featured the lying git, Professor Rod Griffths. Time for a anglo saxon expletive but I suspect that won't be politically correct in the world we live in :)

Griffiths violates the Hippocratic Oath but who needs to pay any attention to that when he can flaunt the Queen's CBE around.

Doing a better job than the General Medical Council.

If the HRH The Queen knew of the antics regarding Professor Griffiths, she would have something to say about it. Indeed, I would hope she would let her corgies run around chasing him [complete with gnashing teeth] around her finely cut lawns. The Corgies would do a better job than the General Medical Council.

The more modern version of the Hippocratic Oath is the Declaration of Geneva [ see below]. Professor Griffiths though has a condition known as Selective Memory Loss. We all know that because he keeps telling the GMC that he "cannot remember".

Declaration of Geneva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article pertains to the medical profession. There is also the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the 1923 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians' dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in Nazi Germany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision ^[1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.^[2]

The original Declaration of Geneva reads:^[3]

At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity :
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
I will maintain by all means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my brothers
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads^[4]:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The amendments to the Declaration have been criticised as "imping[ing] on the inviolability of human life" because, for example, the original made "health and life" the doctor's "first consideration" whereas the amended version removes the words "and life", and the original required respect for human life "from the time of its conception" which was changed to "from its beginning" in 1984 and deleted in 2005.^[5] These changes have been criticised as straying from the Hippocratic tradition and as a deviation from the post Nuremberg concern of lack of respect for human life. ^[6]

So Professor Griffiths - lets start at the beginning - how many people died on Ward 87 City General Hospital Stoke on Trent?!? I suppose he will tell the GMC that as Director of Public Health he " cannot recall seeing any report" :).

1 comments:

Dr Liz Miller said...: Rita
Thank you again for reminding us of what and who we should question and what we should respect unhesitatingly

And making us laugh while you do it ;-)

Liz; 3 November 2008 at 23:11

Post a Comment

About The Author

There is a lot of things most people can say about me but in reality I am NHS Whistleblower. In 1998, I followed the guidance set out in Good Medical Practice[GMC] and raised concerns about substandard care on Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. I also raised concerns about the large number of Midlands Hospitals covered by West Midlands NHS Executive in 1999. Following the recordings of the HSMR scores, only Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust spiked their figures. This was due to the inordinately high death rates. These deaths could have been prevented had the government acted in 1999. There are many other hospitals with equally high death rates but 1000s have not raised the HSMR scores. The Mid Staffordshire Inquiry shows poor standards that are similar to many hospitals in the Midlands [particularly Distinct General Hospitals]. They were also the identical to the concerns raised by me in 1999, many years before.

In 2010 the CQC finally admitted that North Staffordshire had "significantly high mortality" in the years I raised concerns.

This blog follows my adventures as a whistleblower. It was written between 2008-2010. It seeks to present what the media have never done. I also aim to discuss a number of medical issues important in the NHS today. A short account of my experiences is presented here.

Essentially, I raised concerns in 1998, locally then to all the authorities, the GMC, Department of Health and Trust attempted to say there was no substance to my concerns. In 2005, I discovered that all authorities had concealed the 1998 and 2001 internal reports that verified my concerns. This is a brief step by step summary of the events related to Ward 87.

Between 2000-2002, the General Medical Council conducted a "discreet inquiry" into my Fitness to Practice. I was never told of this investigation until I discovered quite by accident following a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The GMC were subjected to litigation by me due to the illegal investigation and repeated leaks of prejudicial information to potential employers. They were beaten in court following the first litigation of its kind. The GMC settled the case in favour of me. During litigation, the GMC subjected me quite severe harassment by revolving door vexatious complaints - 2 in total. I was cleared of all of them. I was never subjected to any Fitness to Practise hearings. All complaints were thrown out at case examiner's stage despite the GMC's malevolent intentions.

The GMC subsequently erased me from the Register for non payment of subscription fees. It should be emphasized that I was never sanctioned or struck off has speculated by some bloggers. In total, I have been subjected to 4 years of complaints that had no relation to my clinical work. This has had catastrophic consequences to my work as a doctor and eventually caused the assassination of my references in 2007.

This led to the test case R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal with the intention of defining the definition of potential misconduct and preventing vexatious complaints against doctors. The complaints were made by Penny Mellor and her associate Fiona Wollard [ niece of Professor Sir Charles George].

While permission was granted by a judge with Employment Law experience, the final hearing was lost courtesy of Justice Sir Andrew Collins who made various statements. One was that the GMC was free to rule differently on two separate cases with exactly the same facts and the other was to widen the analysis of misconduct to include conduct outside the profession. Justice Sir Andrew Collins has sat on numerous cases related to the GMC. He has often failed to declare that his brother Dr Mark Collins was once prosecuted by the GMC for alliances in Clapham Common. Details of this can be read here.

The two diametrically opposite analysis of misconduct was also discovered following the GMC's submission to R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Remedy UK. Essentially, one analysis appears to be used for some foreign doctors and a different more lenient definition is used for establishment doctors such as Liam Donaldson. The GMC were essentially caught red handed touting two different analysis of misconduct in two cases. This discrepancy is currently being investigated by both the CHRE and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The defenses to all these cases have taken up 52 files. By comparison, the GMC refused to investigate the doctors on Ward 87 despite the fact that their conduct was directly related to clinical work. They continue to work in various positions in the UK. No one was held accountable despite 2 reports verifying my concerns. Moreover, the Health Commission refused to conduct a broader data study in relation to the Ward 87. The GMC and Ombudsman refused to inform the patients on the Ward of the 1998 and 2001 Reports. The Sentinel newspapers refused to feature a legitimate advert.

In 2009, after discussion with Dr Phil Hammond, he wrote an excellent piece in Private Eye. While the media have provided little or no support for these issues, I am indebted to my fellow bloggers - Dr Rant, The Jobbing Doctor, Dr John Crippen and Witchdoctor. This blog exists to protect other doctors who I hope will never tread the path of whistleblowing. It is a path paved with injustice. It also serves to show the public that they cannot legitimately expect doctors to raise concerns in such a dangerous terrain. This indeed places patient safety in great jeopardy.

This blog ended in February 2010 as it was unlikely that I would ever return to medicine. I have also decided to end this particular saga here. I hope this blog will educate, entertain and remind the public that whistleblowing is a dangerous escapade and no junior doctor has treaded the same path as I have for a reason. The terrain is unsafe and always has been. I would say that I have been relatively unsupported in my journey through whistleblowing but singlehandedly I have been able to undercover evidence and establish some very important issues regarding the dangers of whistleblowing. I have ceased to respond to the media but I am always very happy to discuss matters with the public.

Ward 87

Pages

Monday, 3 November 2008

The Pyjama Men

Declaration of Geneva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 comments:

About The Author

R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal 2009

Index

Important Judgments

Dr Pal's Legal Review

Blog Archive

Followers

Rita Pal reads

Search This Blog