The Cinderella Effect

David Taylor MP
£347 for a toad's stool

I like Professor David Lewis. I came across him quite by accident much like the news concerning the secretive parliamentary meetings about whistleblowers [ with no whistleblowers invited]. That is the good thing about having your finger on the pulse and having access to huge levels of information from all kinds of sources. We can all assure ourselves, if it is happening, I am going to know about it. I always compare whistleblowers to Cinderella. They are never invited to the ball. People though quite happily talk about them as if they are objects to be researched in a goldfish bowl. That is of course Lewis' job. He has made a name out of placing all kinds of whistleblowers into goldfish bowls so they can be analysed. We are fodder for his research. And he does do some excellent research. 5 years of PIDA can be read here. 10 Years of PIDA can be read here. Dave has the leading research for this Act.

David has written a number of research papers on whistleblowing and the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Some of his chapters are viewed in Whistleblowing at Work. Here is David wallowing at Middlesex University. He likes to hang out with important people and was lucky enough to get the gold invitation card to David Taylor MP's cosmetic effort at dealing with whisteblowing. This was attended by the "chosen ones". You have to be "chosen" because that is the way the world works. This is the Labour government. They have to be "seen" to be doing something about the future. In reality nothing has ever been done. Consultations are held with tame individuals to make interesting noises.

David attends a lot of meetings and events where he talks intellectually about intellectual things. That is because he is an intellectual. We know this because his hair has gone curly grey and anyone with that symptom is by default superbly intelligent. I like Dave as a person although after our exchange and challenge today, he may opt never to speak to me again :). Today's discussion was a bit naughty with the intention of solely extracting his view on the government's position on PIDA. I managed to achieve that. It was done because I believe the public and NHS workers are owed the truth about the effectiveness of PIDA.

Anyhow, this is how Dave and I first came across each other. I fell upon the International Whistleblowing Conference and asked for an invite many months ago. I told Dave that I really didn't want to spend excessive amounts of money because technically whistleblowers who have had their careers assassinated cannot afford to throw around their money. I was invited to the intro talk. So, Dave expected me to travel 100 miles plus to sit through a 30 minute talk. I had better things to do of course than sit around on a short talk on material I knew already. At 250 quid a pop, I felt it was daylight robbery. Anyhow,the meeting took place and Dave promised to send me all the lectures. What he did send me was just his lecture. That was his good deed for mankind.

So effectively Dave and I have been in touch for quite sometime. You would think Dave who knew I was a whistleblower and who offered to collect my tale for his goldfish research purposes would have informed me of the meeting in July 2009. David didn't inform me of the meeting. Lets face it, I was a little peeved about it. I suspect in Dave's mind, there was only one whistleblower and that was Margaret Haywood. He has no response as to why he failed to inform me. Perhaps he was busy - because that is the issue with Dave - like everyone he is always busy. He must be the busiest man on earth probably because the rest of us aren't busy - or so he may assume.

In our discussions today via email, the flamboyant Dr Aubrey Blumsohn who is currently having his whistleblowing episode baring fruit at the GMC, weighed in. Aubrey and I have never seen eye to eye since he dumped me into the GMC following his efforts with Lisa Blakemore Brown. Nevertheless, I have a great deal of respect for some of Aubrey's material and the work he has done. Aubrey doesn't mince his words. He never has.

He wrote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
To:
Cc: "Gillian M Bean" <>; "Rita Pal"
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Whistleblowers

Dear Adrian

Are you the organiser of this rather wonderful whistleblowers meeting (with no whistleblowers invited) meeting at the HoC?

http://ward87.blogspot.com/2009/10/whistleblowing-secret-meeting-at-houses.html.

If so, what supreme irony that your motley "network" would actually participate in removing a voice from the unheard individuals...

Very well done indeed .......

Best

Aubrey Blumsohn

It is clear that Aubrey is the third Cinderella in this meeting on whistleblowers. It is clear that even Dr Blumsohn a very high profile whistleblower was not invited to a discussion on whistleblowing held by David Taylor MP. I already discussed the fact that Mr Ian Perkin, the man with the case on the failings of PIDA was the second Cinderella.

So who was invited? Let us see - The lady with the largest mouth in Britain is Gillian Bean. Gillian runs SIN. SIN is where you obtain tea and sympathy for your problems. With a name like SIN and a surname for the lead parliamentary researcher as Crimes, you know its Labour's best Citizen's Jury. You can read about Citizen Juries as described by the excellent Focal Spot. He suggests as follows

"The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event"

Then

"Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!"

Now that we know the way in which the government operates, we know what consultations like these may entail.

Gillian Bean is well spoken, articulates with a clothes peg stuck on her nose and makes the right noises with the right people. Having met her, there is a little bit missing in that skull of hers. Perhaps it is intelligence or perhaps it is a total lack of education in matters related to medicine. There is something amiss though. I know that Gillian likes to make an impression, be with the famous and be famous herself. That is what people do when they have nothing to show for themselves.The problem with fame is that you lose track of reality.

Gillian once invited me for coffee at her house and boy does he make lousy coffee for a well cultured lady. It was a lovely house with lovely things. You can tell a lot about the manner in which things are symmetrical and one has to be a lady to be invited by Parliament. Nothing wrong with ladies of course - there are simply those who are cosmetic enhancements to the system and those who are intelligent. Gillian is a cosmetic enhancement. She always reminded me of Hyacinth but then Gillian likes to keep up appearances. The problem with Gillian is that her hot air tends to spread widely. As she will be acutely aware, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mine may well be 9 years late but I have a photographic memory which always assists.

I have nothing great to say about Gillian because she isn't a patient advocate who impressed me at all. I believe both Will Powell and Arpad Toth are better and more intelligent advocates but again were never invited despite having the two leading cases in medical neglect. I always worry about the reason why Ann Reeves campaigner against Gosport Memorial Hospital was never invited. Ann after all has the 1991 document on the failure of the system to take notice of a whistleblower in the case of Jane Barton. I wonder why these leaders in patient advocacy are side lined.

Gillian makes the right noises and attends many meetings because she likes to be important but in reality she is a poor problem solver and possibly gossips too much. Then no one is perfect.

No doubt she will be at another meeting tottering in her high heels and guffawing with all those who feel they make any difference to the NHS or the patient population. In reality I believe the real work in the patient world has been done by Will Powell, Arpad and Ann Reeves but these individuals are of towering intellect who are not Labour's poodles.

The bottom line is - Gillian knows nothing about whistleblowing because she has not experienced it. She may have had dealings with Steve Bolsin but all her information is second and third hand. It is a sad fact of life that we have had the Shipman Inquiry and Bristol Inquiry with numerous gold fish studies and theories on whistleblowers - but no changes that have improved the circumstances for any whistleblower in this country.

In the meantime, Dave Lewis has been offended by a purposeful remark made by me in our discussions today. As previously narrated, I needed to extract David's view on the government's position. I predicted that Dave was a little bit of a diva because all professors are. They care not for tangible things but of appearances. As predicted, Prince Dave came running in demanding an apology from me.

He told me

"If I have spoken publicly about the Government (and Opposition’s) misguided view of the legislation"

I was asked to apologise for the misleading comment that he had remained silent during the government spin. I have told Dave that he should particularise the papers, events, speeches so that we can publicise this online. I also emphasised that no one in the NHS actually knows about his research and that we are always wrongly told that PIDA works. I suggested that on provision of his speeches and subsequent publication, I shall issue him with a formal apology. After that offer, we could all hear a pin drop in the email conversation. I suspect the above is the best we are going to get from Prof Dave. You never know, when he gets over the fact that he was out maneuvered today, he may provide us with legitimate public speeches and documents were he has criticised the government. I believe these outright admissions are required in public because they deserve the truth about the current position of PIDA. It is grossly unfair for NHS workers to be under the illusion that PIDA works and that it is safe to whistleblow. The fact is, it is dangerous to whistleblow and as Dave Lewis points out, PIDA isn't effective.

While these important people discuss us and make decisions on what is best for us - no one has understood the actual problems faced by those in the firing line ie the whistleblowers. We remain uninvited guests, a flies on the wall and we are blamed for being a little irritable that secret meetings take place about us - without so much as informing us. Dr Blumsohn, I and Ian Perkin merely are observers at the side lines while decisions are made about us.

In the meantime, David Taylor MP has had an unfortunate accident with a frog. Apparently it jumped into his throat and that is the reason he is unable to answer the question - why were no whistleblowers ever invited? There has been a long silence.

By comparison, when it comes to tax payers money, he was happy to spend it on his toadstool.

It has been revealed that MP David Taylor has claimed nearly s8,000 in second home expenses since 2004, including new kitchen cupboards and shelves for s2,280, a s100 weekly food allowance when he was in Westminster, his television licence, an s800 TV and set-top box, three rugs totalling s900, a s1,200 bed, a s215 DVD player, s240 worth of pictures.

He also claimed for a s1,500 chair but this was deemed too expensive and knocked down to s995 and a claim for a s347 footstool was struck off as being too extravagant.

A man of integrity chairing the whistleblower meeting!? Gosh.

Whistleblowing : Secret Meeting at the Houses of Parliament.

As I am a news hub for most things in the NHS, a nice lady told me about a meeting she had attended on Whistleblowing. The most interesting aspect of this meeting on the 7.7.09 is that no whistleblowers were invited. I emailed Ian Perkin of St Georges fame and he wrote back telling me he didn't know anything about it. And there we have it, a secret meeting held without any proper notes, no whistleblower was informed about it - but the NETWORK apparently make decisions about whistleblowers. One of the better decisions was to invite PIDA expert Dave Lewis. The idea of course is to establish some kind of forum concerning issues related to whistleblowing. All well and good bar the fact that no one told the whistleblowers about it. I went through a interesting journey in attempting to obtain details of the minutes. This is what I was told by Parliament

"The information you require is not held by the House of Commons. Information held by individual Members is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the House has no access to such information"

Therefore a meeting held in secret at the Houses of Parliament run by a specific member cannot be accessed by the general public. I found this fascinating so I requested an internal review. This was the result. Essentially, if a meeting is chaired by an MP, the public cannot have access to the minutes of the meeting. So any number of secret meetings can go on in parliament without the public ever knowing about it. As it happens, David Taylor's team did finally send me what they call a record. I was quite amazed at the tatty nature of these records. I felt they were professional people - clearly not. The meeting was clearly held in a haphazard manner, with a number of the patient population and academics. It is unlikely that any whistleblower was called. Of course, in the eyes of the "NETWORK" as they call themselves, there is only one whistleblower and that is Margaret Haywood.

Anyhow, for the purposes of all other whistleblowers in the UK, I am placing this online. Enjoy!

----- Original Message -----

From: CRIMES, Daniel
To: '
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:15 AM
Subject: Meeting 07.07.09

Dear Dr Pal

Please find attached a copy of the notes that were circulated after the above meeting.

I am sorry for the delay in providing you with this.

Kind regards

Daniel Crimes
Parliamentary Assistant to
David Taylor MP
T 0207 219 2237
F 0207 219 1082
M 07951 681968



Dear All

As you will all know, I arranged a meeting at the HoP for 7 July: 'The Margaret Haywood case - the implications for politics, politicians, patients, and the public? '. Things have been developing rapidly hence the delay in reporting back.

Including myself, 9 network members/participants attended. In addition, the SHA were represented by Roger Gartland; Attend by Catherine McLoughlin; National Voices (LTMCA) by Mark Platt; and coming from all the way from France, Janet Brooks. Two academics attended, Prof Celia Davies; and Prof. David Lewis. I wish to welcome Catherine McLoughlin, and Janet Brooks, to the Network.

The meeting was hosted and chaired by David Taylor, MP. On behalf of the Network, I thanked him, and his Parliamentary researcher - Daniel Crimes, for their help and support in relation to the meeting. I had invited nearly 100 MPs (mainly) and peers, with interests in Margaret Haywood's case, PPE, older persons issues, etc.. None turned-up apart from David. This could be partly explained by a Government decision to publish their Green Paper on Care and Support in England in early July. A meeting on this clashed with ours and was high on the agendas of MPs and Peers.

Gillian Bean of SIN, Prof David Lewis, Lynn Strother of GLF, and myself, addressed the meeting. On behalf of the Network, I give our thanks to Gillian, David, and Lynn, for their excellent presentation and huge contributions to the day.

I would like to say more on issues raised by the speakers. However, time is pressing and I want to let you know about follow-up to the meeting. So at least for the time being, I will leave it to those attending to mention or raise these issues by way of response to this email. I will mention that David Taylor said he would be very happy to host another meeting in Autumn/Winter to help us with follow-up to this one.

Since 7 July, I have had meetings which lead me to think that there is an opportunity to set-up a standing committee or forum to address issues of whistleblowing and professional justice in healthcare and associated areas. In particular, Dot Gibson, General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention is very supportive of this, subject to discussion with their governing Board. I have also received emails indicating support for action.

I propose to send an email to all those whom I invited to the meeting on 7 July. The draft is below. I would much appreciate your comments.

Start draft email :-

Dear ?

I recently invited you to a meeting at the Houses of Parliament 'The Margaret Haywood case - the implications for politics, politicians, patients, and the public?'. Discussions following this meeting prompt me to ask if you would like to be involved in an initiative to bring into being a standing committee or forum to address these issues.

It's proposed function would be to address issues of whistleblowing, and related issues of professional justice, to ensure that the patient, family carer, 'caring professional', and public, perspective on these issues achieves recognition that results in positive change.

(NB: I use the term 'caring professional' in this email to mean those employed in healthcare, or associated areas, who feel a need to 'speak out' to draw attention to their concerns.)

I think is important to act expeditiously so I am keeping this email very brief. Please let me know if you wish to take part in an exploratory meeting. I envisage a September, or possibly October, date.

Kind regards
Adrian

End draft email.

The Network will need to work as a team to progress this. In addition to any comments about the draft itself, please let me know whether :-

1. You support the idea of such a standing committee / forum ?

2. You can speak for, or seek to involve, any organisations/networks ?

3. If you are willing to help in some way, in order that the workload be distributed.

If we can establish an independent 'forum' on the issues of whistleblowing, and associated professional justice, it may be very hard for those in authority to ignore our informed views.

Kind regards
Adrian

Break

Just to say I am taking a break for a few weeks. I will be back soon.

The Tale of the Salted Slug and Dr Ben Goldacre

War had broken out between a poster with the idiotic name of The Salted Slug and Dr X . War commenced on Bad Science's forum which is a awful place filled with those who clearly have nothing better to do than debate silly issues that are irrelevant to life in general. It is though a place of intellectuals who do just that - intellectualize.

The owner of this forum is the great Dr Ben Goldacre, a doctor with more enemies than me. Never known anyone sued so many times for libel.

Anyhow, The Salted Slug and colleagues were mean enough to disclose the identity of Dr X with some choice libelous words. I approached Ben Goldacre who I have always had a great deal of respect for. Ben though failed miserably to listen to logic or rationality opting instead to be a stubborn old goat. He was indeed a tough nut to crack.

I assisted Dr X in his defences against Dr Goldacre who continued a two hour pointless conversation with us. The issue should have taken one minute to resolve. Dr Goldacre though pointed out that there was no reason he should protect Dr X's identity given it was disclosed on a different website. I pointed out Ben's obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Ben refused to respond. I then pointed out that the matter online was tantamount to cyberharassment. I suspect Ben thought I was kidding and requested all the case law on the subject. So all the case law was sent in about 3 minutes. Again, he had no response to this. I then pulled the case law for discovering the identity of an anonymous posters. In the meantime, Dr X had written a fantastic email to The Salted Slug and offered to see Dr Goldacre in court. I offered to develop the pre-action protocol for Dr X.

A few seconds later, the entire lot of boys [ and we should call them boys as opposed to men] collapsed and pulled the entire thread of discussion.

Dr X and I have always worked extremely well as a team since 2003. We won but it left a bitter taste in my mouth. I didn't expect this bizarre behaviour from Ben Goldacre who showed me that he was reckeless in his understanding of libel law. Indeed, he didn't know much about it. He was uneducated in his knowledge of cyberharassment and prompted to proceed to make decisions without aquainting himself with the detail. The worst issue was the reckless nature when it came to the Data Protection Act 1998. Ben was also unsympathetic regarding the risks posed by the General Medical Council. This is what shocked me completely.

I had hoped Ben was unlike many others. He spends his days telling us all how we should be accurate in our dealings, that accuracy in science is important. Ben though cares nothing for case law, the law or accuracy in these matters. If we placed legalities aside, I thought he would care a little for the fact that we were all colleagues. If he had requested that I removed something that was risky for him, I would have obliged. I felt this was the wrong case to play hard ball with us especially when I had supported him to the hilt in his many battles.

Indeed, it was destructive because it has alienated his colleagues. I ended with a few things - firstly I hoped we would never have the pleasure of dealing with each other again. Secondly, should he find himself subjected to a GMC investigation, then we would just get the popcorn out and watch him - much like he watches the rest of his colleagues go down without batting an eyelid. And it is very sad to view doctors who have no empathy or sympathy for their colleagues at all. Ben's dealings with both Dr X and I were much like a broken record, he was too busy to read about what we were saying to him, his responses consisted of half baked logic and he was being unreasonable and stubborn. Ben appeared to be a very distracted man who clearly was reluctant and point blank refused to budge. The more the conversation progressed, the more he dug his heels in. While I accept this to be the manner to deal with authorities, I don't think this heavy handed approach worked with us. In any case, the collapse and removal of the entire thread proved that none of them had a leg to stand on in the first place.

They always say Great Expectations are bound to fall when some people are put to the test. Ben showed his true colours - a total disrespect for his colleagues, an inability to deal with matters reasonably and a failure to act with speed until he was threatened with court by Dr X. At the end, Ben whined about feeling threatened - having brought the entire issue upon himself in the first place. This post would never have been written had he just removed one post as requested a number of weeks ago. Anyhow, we all live and learn. The last time I had this kind of skirmish, it was with Raj Persaud. I told him in 2003 that he would one day be subjected to a GMC investigation and that he should not have a careless attitude to his colleagues who were unfortunate and unlucky enough to face the GMC. Persaud was indeed subjected to a GMC investigation and one that he has never recovered from. No one remains a golden boy forever especially if their arrogance makes them reckless.

No doubt, I shall be flamed on Bad Science's forums. That's fine - because that is what boys do. I was just wondering whether the boys on the Bad Science forums had better things to do like - tend to their wives, do the house work for their wives, be romantic to their girlfriends or boyfriends? Just a thought.....

Three Blind Mice. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal

I have had a total of 10 emails regarding the interpretation of this case law. Doctors appear to have the view that this judgment states that there should be a non disclosure of GMC proceedings that the doctor has been subjected to.

I will be very grateful if the case referred to here is not used by any doctor to justify their non disclosure on application forms of Fitness to Practice Proceedings. It should be noted that Collins J misdirected himself on many aspects in this case, most notably, the meaning of the word "proceeding". The law is clear on the word "proceeding", R v SDT v Toth is the case law that cites the word "proceeding" to commence from the date the complaint is made. The case has not been accepted by the Department of Health and neither has the judgment been consulted with the current requirement for disclosure of investigations. Essentially, the safest option is to disclose all complaints and outcomes of a GMC investigation whether you are cleared or not. This should be the position until another doctor manages to try this issue in a court of law. Clearly, my effort at a test case was ruined by three blind mice.

The word "proceeding" commences from the date a complaint is made. It is a simple fact that Collins J essentially got it wrong.

Collins J is not an employment lawyer and moreover neither were the two barristers representing the sides. It is for this reason, all three were a bit like the three blind mice.

The blind were indeed leading the blind. It should also be noted that the wrong definition of "misconduct" was used in the case in question lowering the threshold and widening what can be capable of "misconduct". Within the civil standard of proof, it will ensure that any complaint can be investigated by the GMC. It reduced the strength of the Registrar as gatekeeper to complaints.

The case is essentially a disaster in medical regulatory jurisprudence. It is best that the judgment is not used in further cases to further bend justice the wrong way around. The chronology used was completely wrong. The judgment has large numbers of typographical errors. The judgment actually is referred to as the upside down pineapple cake. It was essentially badly drafted and formulated and also based on perjured evidence by Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. One of the leading QCs told me that it was one of the worst judgments he had ever seen in terms of formulation and analysis. Essentially, it was a misdirected and misconceived judgment formulated by three lawyers with no understanding of the current issues in medical employment. The judgment also established that the GMC was not liable for any damage caused to the employment of a doctor following their investigation. Essentially, Collins J the hero of many doctors has decreed that the GMC is a super-regulator that will never be held accountable no matter how many disasters they are responsible for.

Because the case is essentially a sham of a judgment, it is best that no doctor relies upon it now or in the future. It should not serve to influence any further case law. It was one of the first test cases on a cleared complaint that should have served to balance the public interests to the doctors interest. Instead, it flipped it far towards the public's interest. It was also intended to ensure that junior doctors' employment prospects were protected but failed in that aim. Collins J's half baked effort at supposedly protecting doctors is actually meaningless in the real world. Currently, there is no protection for the destruction of employment prospects following a GMC investigation. This will not matter to the majority of doctors. Nevertheless, it becomes a problem when doctors are subjected to complaints. As there has been a hike in uptake of GMC complaints following the flip to the civil standard, there is limited protection for the innocent doctor at the present time.

House of Lords. Whistleblowers are Not Smooth Operators

Over the years, like every whistleblower, I have probably knocked on a number of doors. Firstly, I wanted the House of Lords to correct what was debated about me in the year 2000. Lord Hutton representing the government had essentially concealed the 1999 and 2001 reports from the House of Lords. Nevertheless, I suspect no one really cared about inaccuracy apart from me. Hansard cannot be corrected as everyone is aware. The government can lie about a subject and that subject has no rights.

Anyhow, in my effort to correct matters, I attempted to approach a number of members of the House of Lords. A number including Lord Ashley of Stoke on Trent had his PA tell me he was too "ill". A week later, I obtained an alert from the House of Lords stating that Lord Ashley was asking questions :). That was indeed a swift recovery. The same appeared to happen with Lord Morris of Manchester. These swift recoveries were simply amazing.

The above is a letter from Baroness Knight. I never knew where Collingtree was until I drove past Northampton. Her letter wasn't too bad. She made sympathetic concerned noises but threw a fit when I sent her the evidence on Ward 87 and requested that she refer the GMC to the Health Select Committee for review. Jill Knight appeared to react extremely badly to evidence. This is what she subsequently said on the 1st March 2006

"I am somewhat disturbed to receive this huge collection of papers from you and the letter. I must explain that it is never wise to assume that busy people, who have absolutely no duty or responsibility to the sender can possibly find the time to read through such vast numbers of papers as you sent me. I am not at all surprised to hear that Lord Morris declines to take up your case - he has absolutely no duty to do so. Nor, for that matter have I. I certainly will not forward documents to him; he has made it very clear that he does not wish to have them"

All of a sudden a number of peers approached in the House of Lords started going off sick every time I approached them. I have a collection of letters from various peers telling me how sick they all were and how they sympathised but could not do anything for me. I subsequently placed a short paragraph on Ward 87 on the House of Lords blog. It was removed swiftly.

The above is a factual account of my experiences with the House of Lords. Essentially, it would not be my habit to approach them. My reason for approaching them is to test out the lay of the land for the average whistleblower. I believe most people consider the above as a personal rejection. It is interesting that few people see that those who refuse to assist whistleblowers today, and those who turn a blind eye to important issues end up developing a future in which they and their families will be eventually be victims of the state. It is the broader picture that is discarded.

I have never been impressed by titles and accolades. David Southall once narrated his visit to the House of Lords. David was on the train when he called me up. It was always great to hear from him. His tales were always so fascinating. Unlike his persona as the public sees him, David is actually a quietly spoken charming man with an art for entertaining stories. I told him that it was his lush puppy appeal that got him invited down to the House of Lords. It was a point of laughter.

David described his lunch there and it was rather amusing. The House of Lords respected David Southall, the kind of respect none of us can ever obtain. They all knew the GMC had not given him a fair trial at all. This visit culminated in the House of Lords debate on David Southall's case. That was the miraculous thing about David, not only was he a smooth sailor but he was also a smooth operator. David has got this way of charming every woman on earth. This is why legions of Baronesses were ready to debate his case in the House of Lords. I just couldn't figure out how he did it - because I certainly don't have the time or patience to smooth talk a peer. I have a simpler way of looking at matters - either they do something about the state of the NHS, or they don't. It was no skin off my nose if they didn't lift a finger. It simply provided more ammunition about the tales of inertia.

In my view, the House of Lords were/ are all public servants. It was entirely up to them whether they wished to take action. It is overtly clear that they didn't wish to take any action. This shows us all that they look upon us tax payers with contempt. The above letters from Baroness Collingtree are fascinating because it shows us that she will make superficial noises but never take the action required in improving the system. Victims require tea and sympathy, whistleblowers demand action.

There is some kind of view within the British establishment that if a peasant is ignored enough, they will go away. Of course, most people do go away. The rest of us document the House of Lord's negative reaction to whistleblowers.

Man in Pink Loses Out At RSM Election

It appears that our information was a little out of date. Prof Catto apparently did put his name forward for the RSM election but Parveen Kumar was chosen. Parveen Kumar is due to commence next summer.

The current internet election campaign will recommence if and when Professor Catto runs for the next election in the UK. Current Chair of GMC Towers, Big Ears himself has not made a song and dance about anything much. Prof Rubin of the Pink Shirts, Bald Head and Big Ears Club does not appear to have inspired anyone really. Apparently, he is still hiding under his desk and unable to face the numerous skeletons left to him by Finlay Scott. In the meantime, the skeletons continue to rattle away causing discord in the GMC's cupboards. Rubin has moved them to a sound proof double glazed room so matters quieten down. Sadly, some rebel skeletons are using the internet to make their voices heard causing mayhem for the ants at the GMC press office.

Professor Catto continues to rest his bald head in the hope that there will be one strand of hair on top. The skeletons caused endless damage to his hairline during his reign. It is unknown whether Mrs Catto plans to take out a personal injury case against the GMC for irreparable damage to her husband's hairline. The hair follicles appear to be traumatized by the repeated hair falling episodes caused by misbehaving skeletons. Legal Beagle Mrs Catto was last seen with her M and S credit card buying up all their supplies of Pink Shirts ready for the next General Election for Presidency of the EU Medical Profession. She has insisted that Prof Catto wear Biggles protective gear. Professor Catto is rumoured to have said " yes dear".

In the meantime, Professor Rubin demands daily head polishings by Paul Philip, the GMC's local temp. Paul is finding it difficult to make coffee these days and failed to pass his appraisal for coffee making. He failed only because of his inability to tell the difference between Skinny Cow Coffee as consumed by Sarah Fedwell and Cappuccino in a gold cup consumed by Neil Marshall. This mistake was apparently devastating to Ms Fedwell who is currently unable to fit into her 1972 Vintage brown Cardy despite the GMC's free gym pass funded by doctors.

Paul has commenced retraining as Rubin's scalp massager and is doing amazing well. Prof Rubin has already requested a protective helmet to ensure that the ever growing number of skeletons are unable to affect the minimal wisps of hair growth.

Mr and Mrs Doggo.
If you can't see it, ignore it.

Unfortunately, it may be too late for Professor Catto's hairline although perhaps Mrs Catto may be able to save the day with Baby Bio and matching Biggles protective gear.

Tim Ringrose Solves The Problem

Following my email to Doctors.net.uk management RE Liz Miller's harassers, I was pleasantly shocked at the response from Tim Ringrose. I don't think I have ever received a polite, measured response attempting to solve the problem laid out for them.

Well well well, times have certainly changed for Tim and long gone are the days of superb meanness. Fascinating. It must be the only time in the last decade, I have ever thanked Tim. Well, there is always a first time for everything. Perhaps the lessons of the past have taught them all a great deal about mutual respect. I do like the swish new Abuse buttons. Amazing what can be achieved.

This means that we have resolved the emergency situation and Miller and I will be able to go have our chocolate in peace.

Calmer Seas and Chocolate

Since my post yesterday, it is good to see the Doctors Only website is taking some action in terminating the harassment suffered by Dr Liz Miller at the hands of their posters.

Now, we all hope to have a nice calm weekend with ice-cream and chocolate. Should there be a reoccurrence of the usual cyberstalking harassing behaviour patterns then we all know what the deterrent to that is going to be. As for those on the Doctors Only website who are of the view that there is a conceptual misunderstanding. Yes, there is a conceptual misunderstanding because few read Good Medical Practice in detail and few read case law. If they did acquaint themselves with the booklet they would find that discussing confidential patient details on a doctors forum is a breach of confidentiality and being discriminatory towards those with mental health problems is a struckofable offence. Afterall, it was only a few months ago when a GP who wrote about his views in Pulse got suspended for 18 months. The problem with creating case law is that it can be implemented. And lets all face it, disclosure of ones cyberantics to ones employers by GMC Towers is never a pleasant experience. As the law stands, anything outside the medical profession capable of being misconduct is actionable by the GMC. Few people fought against this case law so it will be applied as it stands. Moreover, should anyone wish to research material on the internet, they may like to be aware that for the last 48 hours the GMC have been visiting this blog - no doubt interested in these antics by GMC Registered doctors. I do worry when the Dementors turn up. They are so unpredicatable towards naive doctors who post on forums. The GMC also admitted that they are able to take up issues without formal complaints [ see enclosure below]

I am sure those intelligent enough to understand these intricate concepts will accept the status quo. I prefer the calmer seas and chocolate to war but should Miller be harassed further, war will begin. And as many people are indeed aware, I don't bluster, I simply act. In the meantime, data has been collected, posters have been identified.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ellen (0161 923 6347)
To: dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:24 AM
Subject: FOI requests


Dear Dr Pal


I refer to your e-mail of 6 April 2009 in which you raise a number of queries in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

xxxxxxxxx

You also ask for the numbers of fitness to practise cases taken up without formal complaints. From 1993 to date, a total of 575 enquiries have been opened on the basis of press cuttings. Some of these were closed without further investigation but, of those that weren’t, a total of 389 were investigated under our conduct procedures and 39 were investigated under our health procedures.

You have also asked about the Andrew Wakefield complaint. I can confirm that, in response to widespread public interest in the MMR issue, we instructed our solicitors to investigate further. This in turn led to action under our fitness to practise procedures. It has always been the case that the GMC has been able to act on information that raises a fitness to practise issue. This has not been restricted to the receipt of a complaint from an individual.

Finally, I can confirm that the employer details form is sent to doctors at the stage we initially disclose [fitness to practise] information that we are considering. On receipt of the completed form we disclose the matter to each employer and ask for further information which may be relevant.


I hope that this is helpful.

Regards

Mark Ellen

General Medical Council

St James Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London, NW1 3JN

The Tun, 4 Jacksons Entry, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AE

Regus House, Falcon Drive, Cardiff Bay, CF10 4RU

20 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8GD

The GMC is a charity registered in England and Wales (1089278) and Scotland (SC037750)

MIND Champion Harassed by GMC Registered doctors

The Mouth of the GMC isn't Pleasant.

Yesterday, I reported the harassment suffered by Dr Liz Miller at the hands of posters on a doctors only website. She is being sent repeated hatemail by some very bizarre medically qualified people. Her blog is now shut.

This is simply to confirm that we have the IP addresses of these individuals and if this behaviour does not terminate within 48 hours, they are going to be referred to the General Medical Council with the identities of the posters who have been discriminatory to those who are mentally ill. Given I invented the case law where anything capable of being misconduct can be investigated by the GMC [ R v GMC Ex Parte Pal], I intend to use that case law to refer the entire group of abusive doctors. Under the Medical Act 1983, the GMC can obtain all data and documentation related to the identities of all posters within the forums on the Doctors Only website.

Moreover, it should be noted that the public forum featured confidential material regarding real patients and no one has to mention the patients name for it to be a breach of confidentiality actionable by the GMC.

I have written to Doctors.net.uk management regarding this.

Lastly, yes, I do mean business on this subject. I am not planning on tolerating the harassment of Dr Miller at any point. It should also be remembered that Miller is not alone but has the full horsepower of all the bloggers who will and do support her. If a number of doctors want cyberwarfare, we can do it very easily and win.

I shall be back to this subject within 48-72 hours. In the meantime, anyone wishing to buy Miller's book can obtain a copy below. And yes, for all those lowlife doctors out there who wish to harass Miller, they should remember that some doctors have talent [ like Miller] and others don't [ ie those who feel the urge to harass Miller].

Pariah

I woke up early this morning feeling extremely fed up of being a Pariah. The novelty wears off after a while when the whistleblower stigma sticks on you from here to eternity. As my family repeatedly tells me - I am often treated far worse than a criminal by many people. For a number of years, I have gone back over my own behaviour and re-examined issues to review how things could be adapted. I am certainly not perfect by any means. No matter how nice you are to some people, they always return back to be curt or mean in some way. I suppose it will appear as though I pick fights with people - when in reality they are merely defenses by me essential to preserve my reputation and/ or livelihood. Before I became a whistleblower, everything was certainly not like this. I came to the conclusion after a lot of soul searching that people throughout history who have been "different" have always been disliked. Perhaps this is human behaviour.

Whistleblowers are often tarred with the reputation of having a difficult personality or being unreliable. I suppose, I am difficult to authorities because they can't walk over me. Otherwise, I have always considered myself to be considerate, attempted to be kind and have done everything with the utmost integrity. I did come to a point where you simply have to accept that those who you build friendships with will one day simply leave because of various reasons related to whistleblowing, or the stigma attached to it.

I know that has happened repeatedly, people are friendly and that line is often drawn at the point of discovery that you have a past as a whistleblower. It makes no difference to them that you are a evidence based established whistleblower. I discovered that I cannot control the ideas, behaviours of other people. I also came to the conclusion that to survive, one must adapt to the terrain in front of you. One of my adaptations is to keep a broad distance between myself and people in general. I believe some of my friends find that frustrating but I hope they will understand it better when they have read this. Self preservation to me is vital. I have to watch out for that because no one else will. For this reason, it is extremely easy for me to cut a relationship and just move forward - because I try not to look back to episodes of negativity. Negativity becomes superbly toxic.


Adapting to circumstance is my talent but there comes a time when the Pariah effect becomes really quite tiresome. I am normally fairly happy within my sector of friends. They accept me, we have fun, they know about my past and we have no problems. The problem arises when I approach the outside world in my efforts to earn a living or to progress forward. That is when the Pariah effect hits you. I am not sure which of the Ten Commandments I am supposed to have breached by whistleblowing but there we go. This shows the episode of whistleblowing spilling into the rest of your life.

Last night I wrote a very stern email to someone who decided to withdraw their contact on the grounds they felt my past made me an untrustworthy or unreliable commodity. It is getting tiring writing these emails or communicating in this way. I have done it so many times in the dim and distant past, it has now becoming a bit like ground hog day and terribly boring. Much of the reactions on this blog is all about how I as a whistleblower dealt with the kind of mobbing or bad behaviour traits from others. On occasion, it may not be the best way but at the time it is probably the only way.

I suppose the reputation is that we are supposed to be crumpled human beings with no ability to defend ourselves. Most do not expect us to bite back and when we do, they appear surprised or shocked. Indeed, this has happened to the 2 doctors at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust [ my ex trust] who now find themselves knee deep in a GMC investigation for lying to them about me.

To them, it is some kind of big surprise that this has happened. I believe the words" I was well disposed to Dr Pal" from a Dr Will Monteiro is supposed to make me feel better. So hang on, he lies to the GMC, lies to the court, places me in real jeopardy which I extract myself from, ruins any chance any junior doctor may have in challenging the GMC and now expects me to believe he is well disposed to me. Sometimes I do worry about what planet these men live on. They chose to collude with the GMC, they chose to lie and now they are shocked that the matter has come to haunt them. I am a great believer in equalising karma and I am not the kind of person who is going to sit around and be pushed into a victim situation. In my view, I have a brain and I use it. If people behave badly towards me, they cannot expect me to be kind towards them. This is not a legitimate expectation. I do move on and on occasion, I do bite back while I am moving on so they think twice before they behave badly towards the next doctor. I believe this the the beauty of caring very little about those that feel they can victimise you. It is a bit like hitting them on the snout with a rolled up newspaper. When you do that, the entire world is shocked, refers to you as a trouble maker but renders the bullies fault free.

I recall a particularly hurtful episode 2 years ago when my last post in Worcestershire Mental Health Trust was continued by me solely because I didn't not wish to place Dr John Doran [Consultant] at any inconvenience. There was a lot of work to be covered and JD required assistance - so I stayed on. And no good deed goes unpunished of course. I worked hours and hours without pay on some occasions to complete the backlog of work. This of course makes no difference in the end because all your good deeds sink far deep into the water and the only red light flashing in their mind is that you are a whistleblower.

Dr John Doran was of course the ultimate coward. I was soon to discover this in glorious technicolour. As soon as he became aware of who I was [ thankyou GMC], he avoided me like the plague, stopped responding to my emails and essentially kept silent. It was as if overnight I had changed into a one eyed monster or something. John and I had a number of discussions about the past and the future and we always got on reasonably well. He gave me a large Christmas present in 2006 and told me he appreciated my work. Then all of a sudden, there was nothing. John did nothing. He though happily watched me sinking.and wrote nothing in support of me at the GMC.

The GMC investigation [ which I was subsequently cleared from] was far too much for him. While the Trust quite happily made all kinds of subsequent false allegations that they were never able to sustain, Dr John Doran just stayed on his Evesham pad watching the spectacle. It is a bit like getting hanged while your consultants watch on.

So, the most unfair episode about this is this - you bend over backwards for some people, you do your job, you never do anything unfair to them, they subsequently shit on you from a great height. Having done so, they request that you simply sit and around and accept the status quo. When you refuse to accept it and defend yourself, they then have no understanding of why you are defending yourself. I find this kind of behaviour to be that of lowlifes and fairly disgusting really. Few people have the decency to be kind or decent as human beings. They all insist that because you are a whistleblower, they will somehow contribute to the long running punishment meted out on you. Both the consultants at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust had choices. They had the choice not to engage with the GMC. They did not take this option. Instead they took the option of lying and scheming - thinking that the GMC will somehow give them the reward of the Golden Egg. Little do they understand that the GMC Goose is a highly dangerous one and has no allegiance to anyone but themselves.

This behaviour pattern by my last Trust is a broadly typical for all whistleblowers. It is a kind of Lets Get the Whistleblower Party. My only saving grace was that I was cleared and extracted because I move ten steps faster than your average person or lawyer. I had the evidence of their lying ways because I predicted it would happen. I have absolutely no pity for any of them. They deserve all that is thrown upon them from a great height. They should simply be pleased that I haven't taken them to court to strip them naked and that is only because I can't be bothered with boring tiresome people that become toxic to your life in the end.

That is human behaviour for you - that is what people do when they discover you are a whistleblower.

The only thing for the whistleblower to do is simply draw a line and move on. I suffer from mild irritability to this kind of behaviour these days. When I was younger in the past, it was far more difficult to deal with. In time you just adapt to circumstances, to people and to the world.

I have spent far too many years concealing the fact that was a whistleblower. I had to accept that this is part of me and coming out with the word "whistleblower" stapled upon your head is a bit like admitting that you have a condition as bad as HIV. I certainly know organisations like the Royal College of Psychiatrists treat me as such while doctors with criminal records are treated more sympathetically. For the last three years, I have watched the Royal College of Psychiatrist bend over backwards for a doctor with a criminal record and high level evidence of proven dishonesty. They have encouraged him onto the ladder of Associate Specialist. How quaint of them! In the meantime, they can be caught searching for me like a bunch of snivelling snakes - printing material out and researching me online [ good job we have logs]. What they don't wish to do is research or search for this dishonest doctor who they have promoted to Associate Specialist status. Thanks to the Royal College of Psychiatrists we can all have faith in mankind! Their behaviour of course flies in the face of their compulsion for citing God as an excuse for their behaviour. Perhaps their compulsive habit of dialing 666 while quoting God isn't going down well these days.

So as a whistleblower, you can expect to be scrutinized, stropped naked, investigated repeatedly, questioned, considered unreliable, considered untrustworthy and considered a liability. All of these are not something the whistleblower asks for - it is simply a legacy and price of raising legitimate and valid concerns. While many members of the public have the ablity to be kind, the medical profession are yet to evolve to develop such things as empathy, kindness or an understanding of humanity. Most exist in their ivory tower hoping that everything they do will be effective and that all whistleblowers will eventually disappear.

Anyhow, those are the realities of whistleblowing - the Pariah effect never dies. You just have to learn to live with it. All human beings can adapt to circumstances. I certainly have.

Rule 57

Feeding the GMC with Rule 57 Misdemeanors

Liz Miller has posted something disturbing about a Doctors Only website. Read here for the complete post. She exposes the narrow mindset and insulting attitude that some doctors have.

Miller makes an excellent point about the behavior of "some" doctors with an average age of 3.

"It may seem funny to describe people in this way, but it reminds me of Victorian ladies, visiting the local asylum on a Sunday afternoon. It also reminds me of playground bullying. These doctors need to be brought before the General Medical Council for bringing the profession into disrepute.

The GMC prowls the pages of that private doctors forum, looking for those doctors who are naive enough to disclose their mental health problems or express opinions about Dame Carol Black.

But the GMC does not give a toss about attitudes to people with mental health problems. Try substituting the words "Paki" or "Gay" for psychotic and see how it reads. At least there is a law against that kind of abuse"

Of course, having been at the rough end of some of these oddball immature doctors, I completely agree with Liz. The Doctors Only website may consider reinstating the one they have just banned. The problem with this Doctors Only website is that it breeds narrow minded behaviour because in the end only sad little doctors insult their patients. Then we can't expect much from Cyril Chantler's taunting shop of horrors can we.

BBC Radio Ulster - I PLAYER

This is the link for Good Morning Ulster. Programme Commenced at 6.30 [ Scroll down the list]. IPLAYER can be downloaded from the BBC website.

The link to the actual interview is here. You have to scroll up to 0.45.49/2:30:39

Thankyou to Good Morning Ulster. Unlike past interviews, I didn't undermine the GMC once :). I did though have a snipe at the BMA and the Defence Unions.

Witch- hunting Season

It is witch-hunting season again. Margaret Haywood is in the news having flattened the NMC in the biggest cosmetic whistleblowing event of the year. The rest of the media now seek any witches -whoops- whistleblowers who are dead or alive to comment on Margaret Haywood. Apparently, I am still alive so I can make intelligent noises about the excellent result all round. Under my breath I can sneer at the NMC for investigating the nurses involved on Ward 87 for the fifth year running and failing to communicate anything to me. I can also sneer at them for being present at the original Witch Hunting event in 2001 North Staffordshire NHS Trust Ward 87 Investigation where they did nothing. Mind you the RCN were present there as well and did nothing. These days the RCN avoids me like the plague. I don't blame them really. I could of course ask them some very uncomfortable questions about Ward 87 that they would be quite reluctant to respond to. The RCN did quite well with Margaret Haywood, ie one of their own. The initial NMC judgment was not sustainable given the indicative sanctions, insight and the lack of an actual complaint on confidentiality. Then the NMC have had their own internal problems with allegations of harassment and bullying flowing around the profession.

Having been witch hunted, I can apparently make interesting noises about said witch hunting and no matter how many times I say - don't whistleblow, Margaret Haywood is naively advising the world to raise concerns and be merry. I am never clear which side of the fence this woman bats on sometimes. Perhaps it's the media's side.

So is Panorama going to be there for the rest of the whistleblowers. Of course, they aren't. Panorama is much like every TV programme, cherry picks their whistleblowers. I could say many things about Panorama like the number of times they have stolen my research and made it theirs without so much as a thanks. That would sound like sour grapes but Panorama and I go back a long time, back to the days their researcher Wendy had lunch with us, the days they brough me pizza etc. Of course, that was an interesting exchange - pizza for knowledge. Then I find this with many Panorama journalists. Firstly, they assume they are all quite intelligent when actually they are really quite low on the IQ scale. Secondly, they have this overinflated ego. When I assisted them on the David Southall programme, I had hoped things had changed. Things had not changed really. No other journalists are quite as vacant as those who work with Panorama.

I was the one who refused to do Undercover Doctor - so they had to go hunting for a nurse who would place her registration on the line. I was no Martyr. I had a family to support and a living to make and no way could I justify filming patients. Despite my emails to them advising them it was unwise to place a health professional at risk, they went ahead. When Margaret was struck off, they appeared surprised about it and subsequently returned back to me to fish for more knowledge. I am sure Madge was heavily compensated for her troubles. Sure, I dislike Panorama because I find them to be a selection of conceited individuals. Then I know them quite well and I also know how well they can use people who have the knowledge they are incapable of possessing. If they had the intellect, they would never have placed Madge in danger. The only good thing to be raised are the problems a whistleblower can face. Perhaps there is some public understanding of the trauma faced by whistleblowers.

Madge though has a caution on her record, disclosable to the all her employers. If she is compared to a nurse with no caution, I wonder which nurse the employers will opt for. Realistically, it would have to be a brave employer who risked the liability of providing her with a job - then again the fear of bad publicity of not providing her with a job may just be enough to secure her with a full time job. Madge will soon discover the beauty of disclosure on application forms - where all proceedings - innocent findings or otherwise have to be disclosed.

Anyhow, I have a media interview sometime tomorrow morning in which I have to speak articulately and intelligently about whistleblowing. While I am being interviewed, I often think of the numerous patients on Ward 87, the cases no one quite likes to hear about hence I never talk about them. I do though discuss issues around Ward 87 in the hope that one day, someone will ask the question - so how many people went into Ward 87, how many people walked out and how many people came out in a coffin?

The Frog Files. Professor Christopher Bulstrode

Barton's superhero

I came to check email only to find that the most intelligent Doctorbloggs had been digging around the underworld of the medical profession. She is therefore credited with much of this research. I felt it best to commence dissection of this particular topic on Ward 87 before finally presenting it all online on NHS Behind the Headlines.

This is an investigation of the links between Jane Ann Barton [ of Gosport fame] and Christopher Bulstrode [of GMC fame]. Those of you who have missed out on the gossip, it is rumoured that Bulstrode is related to Jane Ann Barton. As a GMC Trustee during the time of the lengthy investigation into Barton's conduct, it is not know what declarations were made by Bulstrode. We know that he recently resigned from his position. We also know that questions have been asked as to why Barton's conditions have been more lenient compared to other doctors with far more tame allegations. Bulstrode's influence in the Barton case remains unknown. Perhaps, only the General Medical Council are aware of his true involvement. As all the Interim Order Panel hearings were held in secret, we will not know about the panellists who sat on the hearings nor are we aware of the case examiners links to Christopher Bulstrode.

We should really commence by a narration by Chris himself as to his background.

Brought up in Guernsey in the Channel Islands, he trained first as a Zoologist before studying medicine at Oxford. As a student he led expeditions to the Arctic to study geese, went to South America to work on plankton and to Kenya to work on elephants. In his spare time he climbed and flew hang-gliders until he hit the ground once too often, too hard. His first job as a doctor was to work in a camp for Ethiopian refugees in Sudan for Oxfam. He then wenon to work as a GP in Mombasa and a University Lecturer in Dar es Salaam. His surgical training started in Edinburgh, then continued in London. He returned to Oxford as Clinical Reader in Orthopaedics, working first in joint replacement where he received the Hunterian Professorship, then in Trauma. As part of his increasing interest in training, he returned incognito to be a Cardiology Pre-registration House Officer to experience things first hand. More recently he has worked with his wife, Dr Hunt,developing courses for examiners (Examining in Practice) and trainers (Changing the Culture), as consultants serving on appointment committees and performing appraisals. They have also provided courses for dental trainers as well as taking forward work on the design of new exams for the Opthalmologists, Dentists and Orthopaedic Surgeons. He is one of the three editors of Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery and is Editor in Chief of the completely new Oxford Textbook of Trauma and Orthopaedics. He works on the Council of the College to continuously try to increase the College’s commitment to training worldwide.

Of course, the word " Guernsey" is extremely vital to his family links. It appears that Dr JC Bulstrode [ Papa Bulstrode was a Consultant Radiologist in Guernsey]. BULSTRODE, J. C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.M.R., Consultant Radiologist, Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Guernsey was appointed in 1952.

Just before that, there was an announcement in the BMJ for about the time period of the birth of Jane Ann Bulstrode.

It stated "On Oct 19. 1948, at Hartfield House, Hartfield, Sussex, to Jacqueline, wife of Dr. John C. Bulstrode, a daught

There was a second announcement in the BMJ

Bulstrode.-On January 5, 1951, at Hartwell House, Hartfield, Sussex, to Jacqueline (formerly Kent), wife of Dr. J. C. Bulstrode, a son.

Death is outdated. What a Wonderful World

Louis Armstrong - What a Wonderful World

Witchdoctor as usual does a excellent summary of the Right to live and the Right to Die. This is worth a read. Witchdoctor's a current resident frog locked in her dungeon has been writing some excellent material here and here.

Dr No talks too much. Personally, I think he should concentrate on the Page 3 The Sun. It may remind Dr No that he is alive and well :). Seriously though, the above posts are some of the best ones internet wide. In my world view, Witchdoctor and Dr No would have more fun in Hawaii together but apparently her broomstick has broken down hence they have both resorted to debating life and death. That doesn't mean Dr No doesn't want to know about Witchdoctor's grass skirt. This just means he is avoiding the subject by being intellectual. Men often do that kind of thing. Especially intelligent men.

Personally, in the UK, there is too much debate about death. The way I see it, its quite simple and clear cut.

1. If people want to live, they should be given the best opportunities to do so. Any decision on End of Life decisions in a an incompetent individual should be done with discussion with their next of kin and relatives.

2. If people want to die. They have a right to do so as long as they are not compromised by their mental health and are able to make a legitimate decision.

I think the problems arise when doctors begin to forget they are just receptionists at deaths door. When doctors start to have ideas above their station, life gets a little complicated for them. As for discussions about death, we have too many of them. We don't have enough discussions about living and living well or being happy. The entire public health agenda by the Department of Health centers around either avoiding death or telling us we are going to die if we don't do something. Apparently, if we eat anything now, we are bound to die off. As soon as we are born in the UK, we are told that we are going to die in some unfortunate way.

This is why I prefer the ethos of India who concentrate more on living than dying. If and when I decide to die, hopefully my demise is quick. I have no reason to commit suicide because it's a messy messy way to die and let's face it I don't really want to be found with non designer underwear. As I can't afford that at the present time, there will be no deaths of this kind involving me. I understand this may upset the world view of the GMC or those that hate my guts but there we go. Tough! On a more serious note, we get one chance to live and its important not to throw that chance in the bin.

I do like concentrating on living - because I think trying to be happy is the most wonderful adventure any person can ever have on their own. I sometimes wish more people would understand that concept. Happiness often exists in the simplest elements. We often pass by it because we are socially conditioned to always want more and more material things. The concept of happiness requires thought. Once you have discovered the key or the path towards it, there is no looking back.

Dedicated to Angela who was a patient of mine once. She sent me one of my most valuable possessions. The card said

"Dr Pal, Thankyou so much for all you have done and still doing for me. The fact I am still here! and able to thank you".

Mental Capacity Act. A Race With Time.

It is always worth reading the Acts people talk about. I find it an extremely useful way to try and understand the status quo. It is also worth reading the Code of Practice. The DCA has further documentation on this issue.

From my side of things, I genuinely feel it is a good idea to develop patient autonomy. From personal experience, the capacity issue came to a serious head to head challenge between myself and Mr Samer Nashef. My father had cognitive deficit following a old head injury. He also had an acute confusional state due to an untreated infection in 2005.

Samer Nashef had made is mind up that he would insert his views in place of my father's. There was no Mental Capacity Act in those days and each member of staff neglected my father's prior tape recordings stating his wish to live and the fact he understood the repercussions of a aortic valve replacement operation. On one side, my father was terribly ill and on the other side, I watched Nashef insert his decision without so much as a capacity assessment. In his view, no assessment was required. I had never seen this done. I know that we had all been taught how to assess capacity and the Department of Health had a protocol for it. He then requested that I remove my father from the hospital bed, place him in my car and drive him 50 miles back home to die - while his oxygen saturations were dropping. So lets see, Nashef and his group of half witted colleagues saw the scans, agreed to have my father transferred to Papworth. As soon as he landed there, they wanted him to get back in the car [ not the ambulance he had been red lighted in] and return home. Two of us were there speechless. I looked at him and thought he was indeed the most evil man I had ever met in my entire life. This conceited surgeon had previously crowed in the Guardian about how proactive he was towards the elderly. I never understood why he was such an idiot on the day of the assessment but there we are. In his view, those with a chest infection didn't need time for recovery, they just needed to die. I was right there fighting for my father - at the nursing station, I quoted every Protocol, every case law and every bit of knowledge I knew. I knew about capacity. I was a psychiatrist so I had done it every day of my life. Now, it was my turn to get my father his rights. We finally [with some excessive hard work] got the reassessment and the operation. Sadly, by then it was too late - the day before his operation, he was found dead in his hospital bed. Time had beaten us. In essence, we were four doctors. We failed to win the race. We sat there after four days wondering what would happen to a lay person. They had no chance in this cruel place. Some places are cruel and toxic.

Nashef was overinflated prat of a surgeon; full of his own arrogance. I can say that in full view of the public because that is who he is. A few days later, Nashef got his wish. He achieved what he always wanted. A dead patient. I am sure they all celebrated. I didn't cry when my father died. I never cry - I knew it was now too late. I wrote one polite letter to the surgeon explaining that they had robbed my father of his life and left the hospital.

Since the death of my father, Papworth NHS Trust has been plagued with a mass of bad publicity. Then as my father always said, what comes around goes around and he also stated that in time Nashef will also know the meaning of playing God. People meet their own fate paved by their own mistakes.

The fact though remained was that this dead patient was an elderly retired consultant. Nashef was a tall, young surgeon who liked to control life and death. In 30 more years he would be just like my father. I do hope that he too is assessed from a distance and sentenced to death by his own colleagues. Some people deserve bad karma and he certainly does. I was in his consulting room, I looked at his perfect life, his perfect children and his perfect wife. I then looked at him. Some people are simply born imperfect as human beings. He was imperfect in many ways. He wasn't human anymore. He was a cosmetic production of Papworth.

Nashef has never been able to justify his decision making, not by research or directive. That is because he never followed the NHS directive to assess capacity. He won't be struck off of course because lets face it, he is a Papworth NHS Trust surgeon and my father was a asian consultant. It gave them pleasure to kill because that is what happened. It also gave him immense pleasure to lie through the complaints made by my family. He insisted he had examined my father. He was filmed on his entire assessment and he didn't even know it. Mobiles are pleasant things when catching liars. That though is for a rainy day.

The above patient was my father so his death will not matter to many people. Most doctors assume that they too will always be fit young people able to control the way people live or die. None of us are getting younger. All of us are getting older.

There is one principle of capacity to understand. If a patient has capacity to understand and make a decision - they have the right to live and the right to die. Bad Medicine features a number of issues regarding the debate on capacity. The subject can be intellectualised far too much.

The bottomline in this - Death by Indifference exists. We have a medical profession who are known to be discriminatory in many ways. Giving doctors like this complete control is dangerous. Few doctors appear open minded about age, disability, cognitive impairment. The NHS is institutionally discriminatory. In that environment, the patient and their relatives have to have some way of asserting their rights. Had I had the Medical Capacity Act in 2005, my father would probably be alive today because the delays caused in the medical staff's failure to assess capacity probably cost him his life. As I say, as a life, my father's will not matter to the majority of people but it mattered to me - much like each patient matters to their relative.

Dr Grumble preferred the law when it was vague. The Act is not perfect and there will be teething problems. Perhaps the medical profession should have been less supine and involved themselves in the creation of the Act rather than allow lawyers to draft it.

As for the lady who killed herself. The probability is that the NHS would never have been able to save her anyway. Every day, people make a choice to hang themselves, poison themselves, drug themselves and die. It is a conscious choice to end their intolerable lives. The reason they are not in the media is because the medical profession are not called to them. They made a choice to die. Who are we to say that they shouldn't have the right to end their lives just like they have the choice to live?

I can understand the fact that doctors are probably a bit incensed by the Act, it probably means they have to use their brain for once as opposed to inserting what they think is the choice the patient should make. We as doctors are information givers. Patients are decision makers. It is often tempting to play God but it is best left to God himself if he exists.

Samer Nashef will not be having a good day from now on. He might have to actually read the NHS Protocols on capacity. There is only about 30 years between him and a hospital bed.