Tony Delamothe [BMJ] Blocks Ward 87 Rapid Response

 Yes, Tony. People read Ward 87. Imagine that

I ran an experiment today regarding the BMJ. They have been featuring a number of pro Whistleblower articles of late. Some of them have been quite interesting really. No doubt Fiona Godlee wants to turn over a new leaf and I can accept that. I attempted to test whether this support was cosmetic or legitimate. The BMA has been making supporting noises at their conference.

Her side kick Tony Delamothe is stuck in the dark ages. I say this because I spotted this Rapid Response late last night and responded. I wanted to know whether the BMJ had the balls to accept the evidence of Ward 87. Peter Wilmshurst had kindly referred to the 2004 case. The world then came down upon him stating that the Pal v GMC case was a "one off". Of course, it isn't a one off :). The GMC does this to all whistleblowers as eloquently put by Mark Davies of Medical Self Regulation, Crisis and Change. The latest notable case being GMC v Cream which was one by Dr Cream on judicial review [ admirably]. Anyhow, this response by me was blocked.Essentially, we conclude that the BMJ refuses to engage in any kind of vindication of me despite the evidence. 

My Post to Rapid Response

Dear Sirs,

I was interested to note the above discussion.

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr Wilmshurst for raising the difficulties that whistleblowers face within the General Medical Council. Dr Wilmshurst and I have both have significant experience of the GMC's processes and procedures. Dr Wilmshurst has been immensely supportive of all junior whistleblowers and is a credit to his profession.

With respect to Dr Jay Illagaratne. I believe he should have declared the conflict of interest regarding his knowledge of the case Pal v General Medical Council 2004. Between 2000-2001, Dr Illagaratne was a friend of mine. This was until he disagreed over my stance related to the GMC. He may wish to declare his friendship with an ex GMC committee member as well. That is a matter for him.

I wish to make a few points in relation to my own case against the General Medical Council 2004. It is the first case in Data Protection, Defamation and Human Rights against the General Medical Council. It was brought about due to the the GMC's effort to malign my reputation and undermine the legitimate concerns regarding patient safety

The facts are as follows

1. Internal documentation on Ward 87 of North Staffordshire NHS Trust upheld my concerns. It took me 10 years to obtain various documents and evidence. This was done by hard work. 

2. There was no GMC investigation into Ward 87 despite the documentary evidence. The GMC conducted a review that was later discredited by the internal hospital documentation. 

3. The GMC have spent their resources trailing a whistleblower while the real risks to patient safety continue undeterred. 

4. The 2001 Creamer Report [ I was advised of the existence report by Peter Wilmshurst] stated as follows (a) “Patient care was clearly affected by the failures identified”;

(b) “The Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made in a statement by Dr Pal”; 

(c) “Although medical and nursing staff were concerned about the range of issues...no one voiced their concerns except Dr Pal which either demonstrated a general acceptance of the issues or staff felt unable to raise concerns”.

5. The conclusions here are as follows

a. The GMC sought to pursue me 

b. The GMC refused to investigate legitimate evidence based concerns. c

c. The CQC recently admitted that the mortality rate around that period was "significantly high".

I therefore do not share Professor Rubin's cosmetic viewpoint. I am also of the view that Dr Illagaratne's knowledge of the GMC appears not to be detailed. Dr Wilmshurst view has always been an accurate reflection of the manner in which the GMC behaves towards those who raise legitimate concerns.

Many thanks to the BMJ for mentioning the 2004 case by name. The above issues are a matter of public record featured previously by Private Eye. There is no risk for defamation.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Competing interests: Claimant in Pal v GMC 2004

This was Tony Delamonthe's response. He can't help himself of course because he is partisan to the establishment.

Dear Dr Pal

Thank you for your most recent rapid response.

We don't think republishing details of a six year old case serves any purpose at this stage, so we won't be publishing your response. Things may have moved on at the GMC since then; Professor Rubin is only recently in post.

Your gentle digs at Dr Ilangaratne can only really be interpreted as an attempt to provoke a response from him - and then you two can be off, hammer and tongs, ad infinitum. We haven't got any interest in providing you with that opportunity. It' s so boring to all but the protagonists.

As you know from past experience, once we've made up our mind about something we're reluctant to be dragged into further discussion. So will it be in this case.

Best wishes

Tony Delamothe

deputy editor

_____________________

Anyhow, the facts are as follows, Dr Jay Illagaratne was a good friend of mine until his association with the Poisoned Dwarf - Jennifer Colman Ex GMC Committee member. Colman subsequently confirmed her meetings with Donald Irvine et al referring to me.

Illagaratne failed to declare these potential conflicts in his posts. Indeed, when the going got tough, Jay like most friends during that period made a sharp exit. These days he spends his time writing posts on the BMJ and resting from medicine.

He now opts to undermine the the manner in which the GMC treats whistleblowers.  I was with Jay when he lost against the BMA. I sacrificed the media interviews regarding the  Sunday Times feature to be with him at that hearing - in London. He has forgotten that, opting now to join the establishment in their party to pretend that the GMC has "changed". Jay of course has his own demons. Far more than I do and his envy gets the better of him. He is much the same as his friend Jennifer Colman - unable to see past their envy.

The GMC has not changed at all. Tony is just misguided and has no understanding of GMC jurisprudence. I can't blame him really. The man has a bald head an a narrow spectrum viewpoint of the world. I reminded him today that the Bristol Inquiry was more than 6 years old. It still continues to be referred to and mentioned. I had to break it to Tony that Fiona Godlee had previously invited me to write on Rapid Response and secondly, he had published quite a lot of drafts I had written for my friends :). Amazing what he can do without my name on it! 

Someone has to have the last laugh out of the BMJ - might as well be me. I really think Tony needs a wig of some kind. Perhaps a rastafarian wig to show his support for  ethnic minority doctors. Here was me thinking that the BMJ had turned a new leaf, had learned something about the past and was ready to mediate with the UK whistleblower population. I was clearly wrong.