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?
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?
0 comments:
Post a Comment