Dr Peter Gooderham plus BMJ

This is the link to the BMJ piece on whistleblowing. I discussed it briefly yesterday. I only realised today that it was written by Peter Gooderham, the man who wonderfully missed out the leading regulatory body case on Whistleblowing from his talk on the GMC. The header to the piece states

"Statutory protection, support from
regulatory bodies and a culture change are required"

Support from the regulatory bodies? What does Gooderham mean by this? Does he mean that it happens overnight and the Witch hunters in medicine suddenly cease to act? Does he think that just by a BMJ header, the GMC will say " Ah, we have been wrong, we are here to protect whistleblowers". I think not. Is Gooderham about to address the contamination of the GMC by groups like freemasonry? The GMC has admitted to freemasonry. Ah, that is a prickly subject for the brotherhood. And the role this group plays against whistleblowers? Has anyone bothered to examine that?

Some writers refer to Gooderham as an " expert". And expert in what? Has he ever whistleblown? No, I suspect not.

He concludes.

"A start would be for those in official positions to recognise the risks of whistleblowing. Then they might begin to limit the damage wrought by the next scandals which are probably already happening"

And how is that going to happen when the author himself does not raise the vital concerns regarding the witch hunts conducted by our great and good General Medical Council. Gooderham exists in a world of his own. It is a theoretical world where matters are analysed, quoted by reference and all of a sudden the world assumes that the medical profession is doing something about whistleblowing. The article in the BMJ is effectively meaningless and pointless. It essentially rolls in the media being quoted by the Telegraph so that those who debate can sit there like Churchill dogs and go "Ah yeees".

The theory is that if you write in measured terms as the BMJ would accept, they must be saying something important. In reality, if you read the piece, it says nothing important. It does not provide us with new information or problem solving measures. It is a lip service piece written to join in the party of media articles on whistleblowing.

In reality, the majority of senior doctors are the main problem in the culture to prevent whistleblowing. This just is not recognised. This can be viewed by the total lack of support from leading medical journals for vital issues raised by whistleblowers. Peter Gooderham is no stranger to neglecting Ward 87. He has remained tight lipped about it for 9 years.

Lets get to the bottom of the problem - the problem remains a cultural misconception and misunderstanding of whistleblowers. They are historically deemed trouble makers and I suspect in the end they do become trouble makers due to the consistent system failings to address the important concerns. Most whistleblowers become pariahs. Having forced them into that state, the profession will tend to punish them by default. Trouble makers need to be taught a lesson and that lesson is normally taught by senior doctors who love making an example of whistleblowers. As soon as any senior doctor finds out that a doctor is a whistleblower - there is a certain protocol of that is followed. This includes making life impossible for that doctor. Many seniors engage in this behaviour.

The medical profession is extremely good at isolating whistleblowing doctors. It is a kind of " Hey look, lets see if they survive. We can't publicly be seen to associate with them because it might have a detrimental effect on my career". Character assassination quests then continue through the dark corridors of medicine. Perhaps it gives them that certain satisfaction to make life difficult for the whistleblower.

Gooderham presents rather a predictable media stance on moaning that something should be done to "protect" whistleblowers. Well, this has been narrated by various articles for the last 20 years. He provides no constructive solutions about the future much like his predecessors. Whistleblowing becomes an intellectual debate and a discussion over tea. Then it is forgotten. This has been seen in the Shipman Inquiry and the Bristol Inquiry. There are reams of documents on the subject of whistleblowing - all of which are ignored. In reality, it is extremely difficult for a single whistleblower to report their concerns and for their concerns to be taken seriously.

Gooderham makes no advances about improving the legal support for whistleblowers, or trade union representation or indeed defence union representation. He makes no suggestions that there should be a Health Select Committee review into Whistleblowing to come to a set of solutions after interviewing a number of whistleblowers. He does not suggest that PIDA should be reassessed and reviewed so that protection is guaranteed for doctors within their job not after they have been dismissed and whistleblown. He offers no suggestion of trauma support for whistleblowers or a Whistleblower Support group or medical school education on the subject. That is because Gooderham does live in his ivory tower. It is a legal ivory tower. Those that live in it are divorced from reality and practicality.

I should say Gooderham has known about Ward 87 since the early 2000. I note he fails to mention it in any article.

Ward 87 is a thorn in the BMJ's side. It can't be easy to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 2000 people. But the finger should be pointing at the BMJ? They should ask themselves what they were doing while people were dying?

North Staffordshire and Staffordshire and what could have been done to prevent deaths? That is a question isn't it? What could the medical journals have done to prevent this catastrophy?

The link is of course forgotten yet the link between Haywood and Staffordshire is the commonest one. Haywood though isn't outspoken, she is a meek nurse who does the victim role quite well. Being a media constructed whistleblower is of course a little different from a real one :). The confort zone of media support, legal support and payments from Panorama are not something in the armory of every whistleblower. Real whistleblowers happen to be quite the opposite - they also happen to stand on their own two feet without various crutches given to a media styled whistleblower.

Tea and sympathy and debate is not what the whistleblowing world requires. It requires the Medical Journals to look at themselves to see what they could have done to support each and every whistleblower in the United Kingdom. It requires inquiries and practical solutions.

The BMJ remains unsupportive of Ward 87 to this day. They minds are clouded by the image of a " trouble maker" who has now probably become a trouble maker because she finds it unacceptable that 2000 people died because her concerns were neglected by them .

They were neglected by the BMJ because she did not fit the image that the BMJ has of whistleblowers. Image is everything of course. Facts and evidence mean nothing for the land of the BMJ. Essentially, you have to be a good little whisteblower and you can only be those if you are Margaret Haywood. The rest of the whistleblowers are hard hitting, outspoken tough guys who play to win.

I have no doubts that Gooderham will be grossly unhappy with this write - up and aim to justify himself. In the end, my patience has run out with those who purport to support whistleblowers in theory but in practise would walk past them and make no comment.

Gooderham has his position to maintain much like his favourite medical colleagues. Between 2000 and 2006 despite knowing about Ward 87 Gooderham has never so much as dropped me a line of support.