BMA Lipstick

BMA Cosmetics.
Snouts in the establishment trough

The British Medical Ass has shown itself to be doing much as they did in the year 2000. - Cosmetically restructuring the failing reputation of the medical profession.

They carried out a survey of various hospital consultants who obviously represent the entire medical profession [ NOT] and now present their study in the Independent.

This is supposed to give the appearance that our dear old trade union actually gives a damn about whistleblowers. We know the BMA actually doesn't give a damn about grass root doctors. They should also acutely remind themselves of their efforts to extract Harold Shipman from his trial. The BMA would call this an " accident" but I wouldn't. They knew exactly what they were doing and when caught with their pants down, attempted to slither away.

We should also remember that the BMA/BMJ have been anti Remedy UK refusing an advert and going against them at the last judicial review against the Department of Health. You could say that Remedy UK were raising concerns about the MMC and were therefore whistleblowers of their time in a manner of speaking. As for myself, the BMJ has more or less banned me in the past from posting comments, the BMA were sent documentation concerning Ward 87 last year, they did not respond. As a trade union representing the medical profession, they really do stink to high heaven. We must not forget the admission of freemasonry within the organisation either.

"The register lists Sir Sandy Macara, the former British Medical Association (BMA) chair; Dr Simon Fradd, a negotiator for the BMA's GPs' committee; Dr Ronald Zeegen" BBC

In the year 2000, in response to the Bristol Inquiry findings, the BMA had a Whistleblower Conference. The BMA then moved on and nothing changed. I love this

"But, despite negative experiences, most doctors questioned said they were still determined to speak out".

Wow really?! When was that then?

Of course, no one has ever heard of these doctors. In any case, it is far easier for consultants to blow the whistle because unlike juniors, they have long term jobs, they have that stability and they don't have to depend on references. So BMA, just questioning your BMA members is not a reflection of the real world of medicine out there. It is simply a measurement of club culture.

This study does not appear to be a reflection of a cross sectional view of all medics. I certainly was never asked to complete the questionnaire. But then I am not a esteemed consultant who can sit in their office and look down on all of those who try and get on with life post whistleblowing. Consultants though have a strange definition of whistleblowing. Richard Smith Editor of the BMJ once called himself a whistleblower. Perhaps it is just a trendy name now. I broke out in laughter when he did so.

I love this amount of rubbish from the BMA Telegraph.

"The BMA's Dr Jonathan Fielden said: "No doctor, no nurse, no porter, anywhere in the NHS should be made to feel that speaking up for their patients is a bad career move. Their concerns must be taken seriously and acted upon, and ideas for improvements should always be encouraged. It is worrying that some trusts seem to be stifling professional voices. This culture of inactivity and despair is preventing issues from coming to light and putting patient care at risk."

Perhaps we should survey the effectiveness of the BMA in swiftly acting for junior doctors. The BMA were never active in representing doctors in the past. They never represented the doctors for the MMC. If they had been effective, Remedy UK would never have been born. I am of the view that everyone should resign their membership of the BMA. They have failed more doctors over the years than I care to remember. I have no idea why the new generation don't set up a new trade union - doctors would join in droves and the BMA would be left by the wayside as it should be.

I believe their treatment of me was beyond contempt. They are lazy, ineffective, incapable and judgmental. Any effort to tell the world that they support whistleblowers is a down and out lie. It is also done to fight off the criticisms against the seniors of the profession who DON'T support whistleblowers. The way the UK does it is to build this lovely image of how great the medical establishment is. The truth is that it isn't great, it bullies more junior doctors than any other country. It has a high rate of racism and lets face it, the wrong pigs are in charge.

Afterall, no one has ever heard of a PIDA case succeeding courtesy of the BMA have they?

Here is the Department of Health

"A Department of Health spokesperson said:

"All doctors have a professional duty to act... If they have used the reporting processes to no avail, they should blow the whistle with full protection under the law"

Is that Right Department of Health?. We won't mention the collusion between yourselves and the GMC to remove said whistleblower from the workplace then.

In my own case, the Department of Health acted in tandem with the General Medical Council in an attempt to character assassinate me. When they were faced with a complaint against Professor Griffiths, the GMC blamed the Department of Health who blamed the GMC.

The Department of Health wrote

" The HSE are actively seeking to prosecute a doctor as an example"

Here are the Department of Health lawyers sticking the knife in the GMC's back when pinned against the wall

" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"

It is therefore important to understand that the main problem with the system isn't the junior doctors, the problem lies directly with the conceited Department of Health and the General Medical Council. It also lies with the British Medical Association who remain unsupportive of many whistleblowers. They have certainly been unhelpful with regards to Ward 87.

At present, these problems are not recognised. Once the doctor has whistleblown, they then find out about the murky waters of the Department of Health and the GMC. It is not a pleasant sight. My view - never whistleblow - always walk away. No one is going to be there when you have to deal with the post whistleblowing crap. The path is long, it is also hard.

A better study with a cross section of doctors is the one done by Doctors.net.uk . It is probably the only good thing Neil Bacon ever did in his time with them.

Doctors.net.uk carried out a survey in which 2,500 doctors responded. The majority view, according to this survey, is that doctors would prefer to log an error in an independent internet site.

"81% said they did not report errors because they did not trust their NHS Trust. They said the Trust would not be impartial enough to manage a blame-free system (for reporting errors). They said the same of the UK Department of Health"

I think this would be a more accurate reflection of grass root doctors on the shop floor who are trying to do their job.

We should note that the BMA has not requested that the Health Select Committee take the time to investigate whistleblowing by actually interviewing real whistleblowers. That is because none of them wish to discover the truth about the silencing effect of senior doctors and management.