Ward 87: BMJ " What's a "Lawyer"?

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.

"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 ").

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?

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

Friday, 29 May 2009

BMJ " What's a "Lawyer"?

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