Ward 87: "You could be the next Dr Shipman"

Thursday, 12 February 2009

"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

0 comments:

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

Thursday, 12 February 2009

"You could be the next Dr Shipman"

0 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