Chickens

General Medical Council February 2009

Three journalists asked me about the GMC today. Today though was a really amusing day full of interesting things. I ought to take the GMC seriously as they are such serious people. It is really hard though. The more I find out about them, the more I feel like writing a great deal of parody about this bizarre organisation. It is so difficult to describe the fact that the GMC is an absurd organisation unfit to regulate the medical profession in the UK.

One of the leading journalists told me " The GMC is a bizarre organisation". Errrm yep.

Neil Marshall is rather a fascinating little man. He works for the GMC. Actually, he is alright in comparison to the rest of his associates. He tries to be fair but has to grit his teeth and probably seeth with anger while he backs down a few times. He told me today that the GMC don't do CRB checks on doctors . Was it just me who found this fact amusing? Even the local nursing home can carry out CRB checks but the GMC can't. I don't think Neil realised how absurd that sentence sounded. Perhaps its all those meetings in the Goldfish bowl.

His exact words were " We do not have the power or capacity to conduct Criminal Records Bureau checks on doctors.". He then goes onto say "There is a Home Office Circular which requires Police forces to inform us of any conviction of a doctor in the UK". And what if the police forget or simply omit this issue. What if there are a series of minor offences that the GMC aren't informed about. The doctor simply carries on without problems. What if the doctor was a serial killer and the police forgot to inform the GMC that he was under investigation. We can see it happening.

So if there is a person who is not registered with the GMC, develops a criminal convinction and then applies for registration and does not declare said conviction. - The GMC would never know about this conviction at all. They would also never check on this. Essentially, we have a set of new doctors registering from abroad or here whom the GMC have not CRB checked.

How interesting?! Is the GMC doing their job or are they simply a bunch of chickens

I call them chickens for many reasons today. This is probably because today has been one of the most entertaining ones I have had in terms of observing GMC Towers.

WHY?

Of late, I have been reading the newspaper reports and some of the evidence on the Robbie Powell case. While there are established dishonesties and negligence in that case, I sit here and wonder why on earth GMC investigated me three times - on a typographical error, on defamation and finally over a link. The impact of these investigations have been disastrous. And you have to be medical to understand how disastrous investigations like this can be. Yet doctors who clearly cause the death of a small boy and can lie about it and are allowed to roam free in the NHS. These doctors do not have a suspension nor do they have an alert letter. By stark contrast, Shirine Boardman was ousted from her job, faces various investigations etc on a technicality. Even Dr Scot Jnr has more of a stain on his employment record than the doctors in Robbie Powell's case. Dr India who has never placed any patient had risk has been dragged through the GMC procedures. He feels like he is in Guantanamo Bay. We all feel like that.

I ask the GMC - WHY?

The problem is, you ask the GMC that question and they don't answer you.

BMA Conference on Whistleblowing 2000

A long long ago, in a trade union far far away, there was a whistleblowing conference. In the year 2000, rumours floated through the medical profession about how whistleblowers stood up and challenged the panel. They demanded to know why nothing was being done to protect them. I have been searching for this report for quite a while now. Today, Chris kindly pointed me to the BMJ report of the conference. I am placing this as part of the resource list on whistleblowing in the NHS.

Editorials
Protecting whistleblowers

BMJ 2000;320:70-71 ( 8 January )

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7227/70

Employers should respond to the message, not shoot the messenger

Whistleblowers have been likened to bees [1]: a whistleblowing employee has only one sting to use, and using it may well lead to career suicide. In a survey of 87 American whistleblowers from both public service and private industry all but one experienced retaliation, with those employed longer experiencing more.[2] Whistleblowers face economic and emotional deprivation, victimisation, and personal abuse and they receive little help from statutory authorities.[3 ].Last month the BMJ held a conference to consider how medicine and its institutions should change to protect and empower whistleblowers.

Dr David Edwards, a general practitioner from Merseyside, gave a personal testimony of the dire consequences he suffered when he blew the whistle on his senior partner, Dr Geoffrey Fairhurst. Dr Fairhurst was funded by the pharmaceutical industry to conduct research on antihypertensive medication, but he was submitting forged consent forms and falsified electrocardiograms. When Dr Edwards challenged him about this misconduct, Dr Fairhurst launched a campaign to discredit Dr Edwards' concerns. In March 1996 the General Medical Council found Dr Fairhurst guilty of professional misconduct.[4]David Edwards was left with damaged morale, half a practice, and a huge bank loan to pay off singlehandedly.

There are many reasons why doctors remain silent in similar situations, though two in particular have impeded openness in the past. Firstly, the culture of medicine has been one in which you shouldn't let the side down, and in which whistleblowing is seen as "sneaking" on your colleagues. Secondly, confidentiality clauses in NHS trust contracts effectively gagged employees.[5]But the culture and the law are changing.

The president of the General Medical Council, Sir Donald Irvine, told the conference that the council's recent policies signal "a very fundamental change in medicine." Continuing professional development will focus on attitudes, interpersonal relationships, and managerial skills. Doctors will be regularly asked to demonstrate their competence, so that they are fit to practise throughout their lives. "Clarity about our professional values and standards," said Sir Donald, "offers the public by far the best chance of safepractice."

Another key safety valve is the obligation to report dangerous colleagues. In a landmark determination in March 1994, Dr Sean Dunn was found guilty of misconduct because he wrote a reference for a colleague whose practice he knew was dangerous.[6] The council has made its position clear: whistleblowing is a core duty of doctors.

This cultural change has been strengthened legally by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which came into effect last July. The act has been described by United States legal campaigners as "the most far-reaching whistleblower law in the world."[7] It provides individuals in the workplace with full protection from victimisation when they raise genuine concerns about malpractice. Disclosures to the employer, to regulatory bodies such as theHealth and Safety Executive, and even to the media are protected.

The independent charity Public Concern at Work, which offers free legal advice to concerned employees, believes that the act offers all doctors the opportunity to blow the whistle without endangering their careers.8 Crucially, when a whistleblower is victimised or dismissed in breach of the act he or she canbring a claim to an employment tribunal for financial compensation. All awards will be uncapped and based on the losses suffered, including future loss of earnings. Though the act does not require organisations to set up whistleblowing procedures, its existence will encourage them to do so. NHS gagging clauses should become obsolete.

If whistleblowing is now encouraged and protected, should we as doctors have no hesitation in speaking out? The key to this is whether we are acting in good faith. Acts motivated by personal gain or vendetta are unlikely to succeed. Guy Dehn, director of Public Concern at Work, suggested that we should apply the "family test" before deciding whether to proceed. If we would not subject a family member to a particular colleague or service, then we have a duty to act. We should firstly raise the matter internally if possible. If this is unsuccessful in resolving concerns we should then discuss it with a senior colleague or an appropriate regulatory organisation. We do not need to invest enormous timeand energy in gathering a mass of data to support our concerns. The whistleblower's role is to raise the matter, not resolve it.

Will whistleblowing still be necessary in a modernised NHS with its focus on quality and accountability? All the stakeholders---public, professionals, and regulators---hope not. Stephen Bolsin, the anaesthetist who raised concerns about paediatric heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary, said that all doctors should receive regular, anonymous feedback on their individual performance so that they can "blow the whistle on themselves" before serious errors occur.9 Professor Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer for England, gave his vision of a high quality NHS with built in mechanisms for the early recognition and open handling of problems. We should "applaud heroes, and hope they are among us, but to base our hope of remedy in ordinary systems on the existence of extraordinary courage is insufficient."[10 ]

Gavin Yamey, editorial registrar.

BMJ


1. Vinten G. Whistle while you work in the health-related professions? J Roy Soc Health 1994; 114: 256-262.
2. Soeken K, Soeken D. A survey of whistleblowers: their stressors and coping strategies. Laurel, Maryland: Association of Mental Health Specialities, 1987.
3. Lennane KJ. "Whistleblowing": a health issue. BMJ 1993; 307: 667-670.
4. Dyer O. GP struckoff for fraud in drug trials. BMJ 1996; 312: 798[Free Full Text].
5. Craft N. Secrecy in the NHS. BMJ 1994; 309: 1640-1643[Free Full Text].
6. Dyer C. Consultant found guilty of failing to act on colleague. BMJ 1994; 308: 809[Free Full Text].
7. Dyer C. UK introduces far reaching law to protect whistleblowers. BMJ1999; 319: 7[Free Full Text].
8. Public Concern at Work. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. An introduction to the legislation with authoritative notes on its provisions, section by section. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998(www.pcaw.demon.co.uk)
9. Yamey G. Whistleblower in Bristol case describes his vision of professional monitoring. www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1592/g
10. Berwick DM. You cannot expect people to be heroes. BMJ 1998; 316: 1738.

What would-be whistleblowers Should Know?

Michael Skapinker of the Financial Times writes a excellent piece about whistleblowing. Thankyou to the Big O and Chris for supplying me with this and here is the link to the FT.

"Few whistleblowers enjoy such sweet revenge. The Government Accountability Project, a US organisation that supports whistleblowers, has a message for anyone else thinking of exposing an employer’s wrongdoing: think hard before you do because you are going to suffer.

In a book called Courage Without Martyrdom, which the organisation has posted on its website, it warns that whistleblowers “pay an enormous professional and personal price for their actions – often a price they did not anticipate”.

Colleagues may treat you as an outcast, the book says. The company will almost certainly exact retribution. A US study in 1989 found that 95 per cent of whistleblowers suffered reprisals. An Australian study put the figure at 94 per cent.

The effects will not disappear. “Long after the public has forgotten your courageous actions, your superiors will remember what you did to them,” the book says"

Short Update

I just wanted to say that this blog is nearing its completion now. There should be at least two more updates. There may be a few other ones depending on whether matters with Ward 87 progress. I suspect the remaining matters will take a while.

Thankyou to all the visitors who have taken the time to read this website. I have arranged for it to be archived at the British Library in the future as part of whistleblowing history :). It will also return in a book called After Hippocrates.

All the best to all of you.

Dr Rita Pal
http://www.drritapal.blogspot.com

North Staffordshire NHS Trust Lies to the Press

Won by North Staffordshire NHS Trust

Well well well, a decade later we find out the sniveling ways of the press office at North Staffordshire NHS Trust. They essentially told the press that none of my concerns regarding Ward 87 were upheld.

This is what the Daily Mail wrote on the 4th April 2000

" A spokesman for the North Staffordshire Trust said all Dr Pal's specific and general criticisms had been investigated but not upheld"

They told the press this in the year 2000 admitted today via an FOI request response. FOIA 2008/208. This letter was written on Friday 13th February 2009. How ironic!

Shall we see the evidence then? Ah yes, the concerns were upheld by the CHI Report and Two Internal Reports. Shall we see what the reports said again [ ah yes, yes, yes, rubbing salt in the wounds of those who would love to have seen me whimper away like all other whistleblowers]

The summary of the 2001 Creamer Report concealed by the GMC stated as follows

(a) “Patient care was clearly affected by the failures identified”;
(b) “The Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made in a statement by Dr Pal”;
(c) “Although medical and nursing staff were concerned about the range of issues...no one voiced their concerns except Dr Pal which either demonstrated a general acceptance of the issues or staff felt unable to raise concerns”.

This is simply to show all of you the lying ways of North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The question we have to ask ourselves is this, why did the Trust lie and why did two Labour MPs lie to conceal the findings?

Of course, no one has anything to say these days do they - apart from keep silent like a bunch of stoned idiots.

GMC's Cosmetic Surgery. Post Shipman Uplift Fails

The above pictures are from BW Interiors. We have to congratulate BW Interiors for making the General Medical Council look like it can do its job. I fell off my chair when I discovered these designs. Yes, my jaw had to be lifted off the floor because, let's face it, I expected the place to be a dumpy little hovel in the middle of Manchester. Actually, I expected it to be a Council house with Finlay Scott puffing at his large cigar and stroking his large fat white cat. Perhaps I am rather unfair to the man who graces the GMC's pristine sparkling well designed toilets complete with a CBE.

I was so shocked that I immediately emailed Dr India and asked him whether it looked as plush in real life. Dr India has confirmed that money was indeed spent to make GMC Towers look impressive. Well, I understand it all now. Despite their GMC workers being inept at their job, despite the fact the cannot maintain patient safety or do a thing about Ward 87, the GMC have plush rooms. I suppose we know what is important to then don't we. Looking good is what seems to be the only important thing to GMC Towers. I wonder what I would do if I ever set foot in GMC Towers [for fun]? Well, first I would probably make my way up to see Mark Ellen to thank him for all the hard work he has done for me. After that I would probably check out the GMC ladies. No place would be complete without trying out the gold laden toilets. While, there I would get my revlon lipstick out and probably write on the wall " Pal v GMC 2004 Woz Ere". It is a real shame to have grown up. Had I been 10 years old, Scott would have found a Samoan Toad in his office and a whoopie cushion on his chair for his next meeting. Alas, one can only amuse ourselves by these idyllic thoughts of youth.

Personally, I would prefer it if they could do their job [as opposed to sport nice decor] but some people might like the Executive feel. Money and looks often make people think they are doing something constructive in life.

Most people have this preconceived idea that I have actually set foot in GMC Towers. Most think that because of my skirmishes, I would have been sitting out on one of those chairs waiting in fear. The honest truth is that I have never been to GMC Towers. Realistically, I don't consider the GMC worthy of visiting or setting foot in. Sure, it is rather an arrogant stance but why visit a place that is classed a catastrophic failure in my eyes.

In the year 2000, I decided that first the GMC was never going to proscute me on some frivolous charge and secondly if they didn't give a damn about patient safety, I didn't recognise their authority and that has been the case since about 1999. Of course, we all have to have registrations to practise but it is like any other membership - a means to an end.

And those were the two principles to live by really. I have never feared the General Medical Council, not even at my worst time mid investigations. I have always held them with contempt and probably always will. Part of me hopes that it will improve the service it provides but that is a very high expectation. That's because I know that GMC Towers doesn't do their job well, has a distinct lack of insight and doesn't follow their rules. It flouts it's own guidance and assume that the rest of us are too unintelligent to notice. It amuses me when the Fitness to Practise Directorate makes their pitiful attempts to either tell me off, blame me or control me. I received a letter recently from Jackie Smith which made me howl with laughter. Jackie wanted to be headmistress. Apparently, I was to be told off for telling her that she should do her job properly. And that is how they treat doctors - as if they are children who should obey their God - in this case the GMC. Of course, respect and obedience are earned. No one obeys a dictator.

And yes I do recall that I have nicknamed the GMC - The Drag Queen. It wears bad make-up, has too much cosmetic surgery but in the end it can't decide whether it needs a sex change or not. These post Shipman silicone uplifts really are not working at present. It is all being held up by duck tape for now. They know that there is no Gossard Wonderbra to hold their assets up anymore.

Sure the GMC can have intellectual debates about what they are doing wrong but in the end, they just need to start acting like a regulatory body as opposed to being a circus of dysfunctional drag queens.

Fitness to Practise Directorate

"You could be the next Dr Shipman"

I have managed to calm down following Dame Janet Smith's remarks to the media today. It is true that I have spent almost 8 years seething with anger everytime I am quoted her Inquiry as justification for the GMC to railroad through my personal and my working life. There are two occasions I have been compared to Dr Shipman. On one occasion, the GMC's well paid Blackstone Chamber barrister told the court that the GMC were compelled to investigate me secretly because I could be the next Dr Shipman. She spectacularly lost as the Harris HHJ laughed at her.

On the next occasion, Worcestershire Mental Health Trust justified themselves when they fired me following commencement of an GMC's investigation stating " You could be the next Dr Shipman?".

On both occasions, I have found these flippant comparisons to be insulting, degrading and unbecoming of a lawyers, management or doctors. Nevertheless, this is a sign of the times where doctors are considered guilty before any trial or hearing.

I have written to the Shipman Inquiry. I like many received the note " Many thanks for your papers". Essentially that means " go away little irrelevant person, we are more qualified than you and know what we are talking about". Of course, none of them knew what they were talking about. They didn't ask the opinion of working doctors. They didn't run a consultation for ideas from those who are practical people. What they did do is take up the ideas of all those who spend their lives theorizing.

So I have just one thing to say to Dame Janet Smith, and here it is

Dear Dame Janet,

Many thanks for summarily neglecting all the issues I raised with you. The changes you implemented within the General Medical Council have currently caught the whistleblower. This was because you did not think about the doctors who may be innocent. Even doctors deserve a fundamental right to be considered innocent before any trial.

I hope you are satisfied with the result of your changes. I have nothing more to say, save you had the wrong advisors on the Shipman Inquiry, the wrong changes were implimented. Revalidation would never work. It will simply serve as a tool for hounding innocent doctors. You failed to suggest the recording of ward mortality rates nationwide despite evidence that Shipman had ended lives as a hospital junior doctor. No Shipman will ever be caught again. You failed to provide a proper policy for the use of diamorphine. You failed to ensure that whistleblowers could report concerns to the Coroner. At present, they are not an interested party in line with the Coroners Act.

You have created a environment where every doctor is demonised and pinned against the wall as a potential Dr Shipman until they are able to prove otherwise. Seriously, I would like to see the legal profession chased around much like doctors are these days. I would like to see each complaint against them recorded and disclosed to each courtroom they represent in. I would like to see details of each complaint at the Law Society be disclosed to each of their clients. In my view, Dame Janet should be subjected to the same levels of scrutiny that I am. I believe each of the General Medical Council solicitors should have each of their complaints publicly listed so all doctors are able to see what concerns were raised in the past. I have not only been dragged through the post Shipman era and harassed for the last 8 years, but I have been repeatedly abused by the General Medical Council. That is because you Dame Janet gave them the power and the right to abuse a whistleblower. Worst still, they have got away with it and continue to lack any insight into the impact of their actions.

Your changes won't catch the next Dr Shipman because they are too busy catching whistleblowers. I am just one doctor, there are many like me who remain silent. While you lay the blame at the feet of the medical profession, you failed to correct the system that has always been at fault. One of those systems is the General Medical Council who remains one of the most dysfunctional organisations in the UK.

I don't rate the Shipman Inquiry because I was a victim of it. I should never have been a victim of it and I resent you for neglecting the rights of innocent doctors with fragile careers. My biggest crimes were to raise patient concerns and linking to a public document .If that equates to being Dr Shipman then the system has catastrophically failed.

So, in conclusion Dame Janet, you expect doctors to take responsibility for their actions. You expect accountability. You should take the responsibility for singlehandedly putting the elements in place so the General Medical Council could use it against me. It is you who are responsible. It is you who will always be responsible. It is though interesting that there is no way of holding you accountable.

You simply have to face the fact that you caught the Whistleblower, not the next Harold Shipman. That is your legacy because you never took the time to listen to genuine working doctors.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Jeni Barnett - The Ostritch

Jeni Barnett pulling her Intellectual Property Lawyer.

Withdoctor summarises the current situation with this actress turned "journalist". All bloggers have backed Ben Goldacre following a legal threat.Dr Crippen weighs in on the latest disclosures at the General Medical Council on Andrew Wakefield. The anti MMR group's golden boy is in trouble and I don't care. I told them all they were backing the wrong horse. Anyhow, since the blogsphere rage, Jeni Barnett has gone into hiding and is refusing to respond to her critics.

I don't think a lawyer has ever got past first letter with me. I know the MPS certainly haven't and neither have Hill Dickinson, Anthony Collins Solicitors or the heavyweights Pannones. Ah, but I do remember them all fondly especially the MPS's advice to Dr Williams of Halton Hospital. I must publish that someday just to show how gutless the MPS are even against me. Yes, they all skulked away because if you decide to fight a whistle blower, be ready for the consequences because I have a policy - never to back down unless I am sympathetic to the cause. I have a zero tolerance policy to bullshit by expensive lawyers. Yep, I can read as well. Amazing isn't it.

Anna Neill Resigns

Neil Marshall from the General Medical Council has the following to say to me today.

"Anna Neill has resigned from her post at the GMC, having been offered another job elsewhere, so she will no longer be involved"

For those who don't know the tale, Anna Neill was involved as Registrar [ initial assessor] on the only two complaints against me, Dr Woodman's complaint and the infamous link investigation.

Over the last few years I have been collecting a comparator analysis on cases assessed by Ms Neill. I presented it to the GMC two weeks ago. She resigned the following week. For all those who don't understand comparator analysis, it is evidence of the quality and standards of assessment by the GMC. The last time Dr Varma and I did this, the CRE upheld our concerns and the GMC was forced to collect ethnicity statistics.

Demonising Junior Doctors

Thanks Professor David Webb
I certainly know my BNF
and have never made a drug error

I am seriously sick and tired of listening to Mr Pharmacology . Over the last few weeks, he is crowed in every single journal and paper I have seen. I had to write something today because he and his GMC cronies are annoying me now. The GMC and the Royal Pharmacology Society have now continued to attack junior doctors with a vengeance. Of course, its an easy target. Both bodies couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery themselves and here they are criticising junior doctors. Isn't life difficult enough for them?

And whose fault is it that the training is so crap - yes, the medical top dogs. Whose fault is it that they lack supervision - yes, the medical top dogs? And when will these top dogs be held to account? Never!

By the way, the Royal Pharmacological Society and a Consultant Cardiologist felt that 10mg of Haloperidol IV PRN for an cardiac patient was an " appropriate" dose. Mr Pharmacology can ask me for the evidence and I can give him the drug chart, the decision by the Royal Pharmacological Society. As Dr India will tell the world, this is not the appropriate dose for a frail old person who is acutely breathless.

In my view, imperfect, faulty, inefficient organizations shouldn't spend time criticizing junior doctors whose lives have been made extremely difficult so far. They should spend time implementing systems to prevent drug errors. They should spend time educating senior doctors on how to teach their juniors.

In any case, did anyone forget that the Pharmacist checks every prescription chart and in the end the buck stops with the consultant if the prescription is wrong. Of course, everyone forgets that - its just a convenient way to blame the junior doctor again. So whats new in the world?!

How about we do some research to find out how crap the GMC and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are?!

NB - To All Junior Doctors.

The best way to learn pharmacology is to read Lecture Notes in Pharmacology [cause you have to know how they work]. If you are someone like me, you end up reading Pharmacology at a Glance which is just as good [see link below]. These books can be read on the bus or tube.

You should then ensure you read the BNF. I read the entire BNF by the time I was in the 5th year then first year PRHO [F1]. In fact I must have swallowed it while oncall. After that, you should be superb at prescribing :). I would limit yourself to small books so that you can memorise the important features. Medical school teaches you a load of crap that you don't even need in the real world. You need to swallow small books off pat because you need to be fast, have the knowledge at your finger tips and you need to be accurate. There is no room for mistakes when you are in the fast lane. That is an important aspect of practical medicine to grasp.

The trick of fast and accurate prescribing is never mastered by true swots. It is mastered by those who know their stuff because they read books where the maximum intake is achieved in the minimum time.

Orientate yourself around each drug chart when you start at any particular hospital. If in doubt, ring your senior or the pharmacist oncall. For psychiatry, the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines are the best. I have listed them all below so you know which ones to get. BNF can be joined online for free and its worth doing this.

You then have to pay some attention to people. Elderly people may require dosset boxes. Some patients cope better with liquid formulation. It is important to prescribe then discuss the prescription with the patient, explain what you are doing and then discuss with nurses in charge. This ensures you have checked your prescription, it ensures patient compliance and minimal miscommunication. Patient compliance is best achieved if you work with the patient and they understand what you are doing. It may help them for you to write the name of the drugs down. You must always explain the side effects. This means the side effects have to be memorised and you can only do that by reading the BNF back to back until its covers are falling off. I think I have read it about 6 times back to back in total and thankgod I never did Oncology!

The above advice is given following my teaching sessions with medical students. Just for the record, all my medical students passed their exams with 80 percent or above. It is true that during my clinics, each medical student learned pretty fast especially about patient communication and achieving your best management plan. I hope they have grown up to be good human beings as well as good doctors. That is because, there is a way to think about patient management and sinking into large textbooks isn't the right way :).

GMC Breaches the Data Protection Act 1998 Again

The GMC Is Pants

The above document is from a complaint I made to the Information Commissioner RFA0205100. Essentially, the GMC was caught once with its pants down, it has been caught again with its pants down. Soon, it will have no pants left.

Oh, this means that those of you at DNUK who complained about me to the GMC will be interested to know that redactions are only paper thin especially when placed against the light. Anyhow, I am pleased with the above result because the GMC has had to write a letter to me squealing away and disclosing the contents of the GMC complaints that never went past first base. All bad deeds deserve a reversal of fortunes. I am positive my complainants to the GMC will agree with that. I wonder if I am actually Shelob :). Well, as those snivelling few doctors headed up by Woodman will agree, never poke a spider because you never know what happens when the spider turns to look at you.

Anyhow, the upshot of the above is that the GMC was found to have breached the sixth principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. So, the conclusion is this - I win and the GMC loses. Again!

Message for Dr India - go beat the GMC mate. You can do it if you put your mind to it. Remember, mind over matter and also remember you don't want to turn into a victim like the rest of the doctors mistreated by GMC Towers.

Struck off and Die

In the heddy days of medicine when life was actually fun, Phil Hammond released a smash hit called Struck off and Die. In the early days, before Phil grew up, he did some excellent work. Check out Struck Off and Die (Canned Laughter). Struck Off and Die were extremely funny. In 1996, I had tickets to see their show at the Bloomsbury. The Bloomsbury is attached to University of London. I had never laughed so much as I did then.

Chortle has an interesting bio of Phil Hammond. William Hague's press secretary apparently reported him to the GMC ages and ages ago. Ah well, if Phil reads the GMC Investigation Manual, he will find that anything reported to the GMC is held on "record" until he reaches the afterlife.

British Workers for British Jobs

Gordon Brown pledged many things. He pledged that British Workers would be given British Jobs. In February 2009, Gordon Brown is referred to as a lying wildcat. Protests have been underway and I am not surprised really.

I have one thing to say, I am a British doctor, was born here and have lived here. It would be a lie to say I didn't resent the fact that foreign doctors who speak little English and who can't manage basic cases are given NHS jobs and are treated better than I was because they have the ability of keeping quiet and I don't.

This is not a generalisation but simply this, during my years in medicine and psychiatry, I was quite frankly pissed off with having to cover for the flaws of doctors who did not know how the British system worked. In Northampton particularly, I was constantly asked to write the reports, cover because the doctor in question couldn't do basics like take blood, couldn't clerk patients, couldn't sign drug charts etc.

Each time, it was me who had to backtrack to complete things because he had not done them. The bosses told everyone internally that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and if he couldn't do it, Rita could cover for him. I would be bleeped repeatedly for tasks that should have been done by this doctor.

So while saying a number of critical things behind his back, they propagated the rumour everywhere else that this foreign qualified doctor was a " safe pair of hands". And this fucking safe pair of hands couldn't even take blood from a patient after he had used needles all over her arms. The poor girl was in pain because she had been pricked so many times.The sad part about this issue is that this girl had a huge green vein going right down her arm - and it took me one go. It would have taken an medical student one go. I had to apologise for my incompetent colleague who everyone backed up and supported. It is though true that while I was covering for him, he was off having parties with his consultant who was grooming him to be the next consultant. You see, you have to suck up to the consultant, it makes no difference if you are crap at your job. The important trick is to develop that male camaraderie. The camaraderie that will ensure the boss overlooks all your flaws.

I was always having to apologise for doctors from abroad, who were not trained well and couldn't do their job. Sure I look upon this situation and shake my head. Mr Incompetent who by the way has a GMC warning has been given more opportunities in life than Dr India. Dr India as a British qualified graduate has a GMC sanction despite no concerns regarding patients, the foreign qualified doctor described above has a simple warning despite the fact he lies a drop of a hat. Whats worse, despite the lies, despite the warning, despite the GMC sanctions, every single Psychiatrist from the Royal College of Psychiatrists onwards back him. So essentially, Dr India cannot do locum posts in the NHS but Dr Incompetent can. Dr India has never been dishonest, Dr Incompetent has been dishonest.

Why do they back him, because they are positively discriminatory, he is a cheap doctor,who will say nothing, who will grovel to his white masters and in doing so the ethnic minority statistics are made up. As everyone knows psychiatry needs black doctors so it doesn't matter how crap they are, these doctors can be fast tracked into the system.

Recently, this doctor wrote to the General Medical Council and couldn't even spell the word "Psychiatry" correctly. He happens to be a psychiatrist.

Over the years, I suspect people look upon whistleblowers are poor little sad things who couldn't make it in medicine. I certainly know that this is the view that the Doctors Only website have. My view is this - if the NHS and its doctors want foreign cheap doctors who can't even communicate with patients then they are welcome to them. If they want to give these foreign doctors better opportunities and leave the British qualified doctors by the wayside, we can just watch and laugh while the NHS negligence bill comes in.

For avoidance of doubt, not all foreign doctors are incompetent, a lot are extremely good. The above is a personal opinion based on the people I have worked with. As a British qualified whistleblower, I have worked far harder than many other doctors but have had limited opportunities in general. I have always been fed up of covering for incompetent foreign doctors where ever I have worked in the NHS. The tasks range from having to redo their management plan, clarifying and translating issues for patients, re-reviewing patients, resigning drug charts and correcting them and the list goes on. For all that work, you get no rewards, and no thanks.

Finally, congratulations to the foreign doctor who can't speak English who is currently in a job,I could be employed for. He or she isn't there because they are better than me, they are there because I am a whistleblower and they aren't one. Edwin Borman at the General Medical Council can contemplate that.