Count Rubin's Fangs. Another Whistleblower Bites The Dust

Vampire Power.
Come into Count Rubin's Lair Little Whistleblower

The emergency dentist summoned sometime ago from the General Dental Council arrived too late. Count Rubin of the Dark Tower was found to be sucking the haemoglobin molecules out of another whistleblower. The NHS Blood bank at Manchester Royal Infirmary had run out of supplies for him and our resident medical vampire was desperate. Count Rubin's deadbeat entourage have been munching their way through various whistleblower's necks as recorded here. Dr Korashi is his latest victim.

Korashi has undergone a long and traumatic fight. His neck was left vulnerable for attack. The GMC's fangs have been inserted and soon he will follow the path that most whistleblowers do. His concerns have been shut down. Interestingly, the consultant he raises concerns about is given anonymity. I suspect the reason for this is so that none of us can investigate the consultant formally known as Dr A.

The Vamps at the GMC Press Room issued the following on the latest Whistleblower

Planned dates: 16 November to 11 December 2009
St James's Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at St James's Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ to consider a new case of impairment by reason of misconduct.

Name: Dr Ihab Mohamed KORASHI

GMC Reference Number: 4772972

Area of practice: South Wales

The Panel will inquire into the allegation that Dr Korashi, whilst employed as a staff grade in obstetrics and gynaecology, made various allegations to the police in relation to a consultant colleague's professional competence and qualifications which he asked the police to investigate. In providing this information, it is alleged that Dr Korashi gave names, addresses and dates of birth of four patients who, he claimed, had died as a result of the colleague's gross negligence. It is further alleged that Dr Korashi did not have consent to release these patient details.

The Panel will also inquire into the allegation that, at in the context of employment proceedings, Dr Korashi claimed to have prepared various letters to be sent to patients and the families of patients treated by the colleague cited above. It is alleged that Dr Korashi stated that he was prepared to undertake mediation, but that in the absence of a negotiated compromise, he would invite the patients and families to attend the Employment Tribunal in relation to the employment proceedings.

It is alleged that Dr Korashi's conduct as set out above was malicious, intended to cause harm to his colleague, unprofessional, liable to bring the profession into disrepute, not in the best interests of the relevant patients and inappropriate.

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the Panel may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.

This case comes a few days after the following statement from Count Peter Rubin. As everyone recalls, he was last found luring virgin whistleblowers to his Dark Tower by lying coldly to the British Medical Journal. Some of us who have survived the GMC bite, understood the methods of this predator.

This is what he told the BMJ.

"I want to make clear that any doctor who wants to report genuine concerns will have nothing to fear from the GMC. The GMC emphasises the responsibility of doctors to report their concerns and this is echoed throughout our guidance. In particular Good Medical Practice (2006) states both that doctors should raise concerns about inadequate resources and that they must protect patients from risk of harm posed by a colleague's conduct, performance or health. Raising Concerns (2006) makes clear that provided doctors have been honest, raising a concern is justified even if it turns out to be groundless" Peter Rubin 2009

This is a further example of the hot air produced by Count Rubin following a long hard day of tea and coffee with the Blackstone Brothers. The Blackstone Brothers are of course bleeding the General Medical Council coffers dry. In the meantime, doctors lie in their coffins and the rest of the doctors exist as the living dead - constrained from speaking out, speaking controversially or speaking out of turn. The above case shows that a whistleblower cannot even raise concerns without later being sanctioned for it. What happens when the establishment shuts down on you?

The GMC alleges that Dr Korashi broke confidentiality by reporting patient names to the police? What is he supposed to do - cover the patient's heads with paperbags and then report them? This should be a qualified disclosure. It clearly isn't. It should be noted that the GMC circulates patient data to all and sundry and cares nothing of it. Evidence of this can be shown in the Sarah Myhill case. The GMC itself cares nothing about confidentiality and indeed waved Ward 87 patient data in the courts without their consent. They subsequently told the Wakefield libel case that they could not maintain the confidentiality of patients. It appears rich that the regulator itself cannot practice what they preach.

And here we have a clear cut prime example of the GMC acting is Mobber By Proxy in the phenomena of Sham Peer Review. It is important to address this phenomena online as the GMC are too self obsessed to even consider it.

The facts are as follows :-

1. Dr Korashi claimed that after he blew the whistle on Dr A's lack of qualifications, and subsequently reported Dr A to South Wales Police, he was subjected to a "witch hunt" and victimised by other medical staff, and his career "had been damaged beyond repair".

2. He said that it was after reporting Dr A to the police, and making a complaint under the Race Relations Act, that staff within the NHS trust "closed ranks" against him. He had been suspended four times and reported to the General Medical Council, before being dismissed on grounds of gross professional misconduct. Dr Korashi said he had to wait three years before his initial complaint against Dr A was investigated, because, he alleges, he was racially discriminated against because of his Egyptian origins.

3. The tribunal heard that three years after Dr Korashi first raised his concerns, the Royal College of Surgeons issued a report which concluded that Dr A was not qualified to do his job.It concluded that Dr A "should never have been appointed in the role".

4. In particular, Dr Korashi has alleged to the trust, the General Medical Council and the police that Mr A was responsible for the deaths of four patients under his care through gross negligence."Those cases were thoroughly investigated by Professor John Shepherd, a distinguished expert in gynaecological surgery at Bartholomew's Hospital, who found that each of the four patients received the appropriate care, and that there was nothing to suggest that Mr A had in any way contributed to their deaths; in each case the patient was terminally ill on admission."

5. Dr Korashi alleges the surgeon, who is referred to as Dr A, was unqualified to perform complicated surgery on gynaecological cancer patients. He also said Dr A lied about his qualifications while obtaining patients' consent, and treated his patients "in a way which gave the assumption they were going to die anyway".

It is rather odd that the Prof Shepherd did not make any remarks about Dr A's qualifications etc and findings by the Royal College of Surgeons. Here he is writing a letter with Mr Simon Emery from Singleton Hospital Swansea.

It is interesting that Dr Korashi worked at Singleton Hospital. Did anyone ask Prof Shepherd about is potential conflicts or was that just missed out of the equation then?

The General Medical Council does not stand by its own Guidance on Raising Concerns.

I find this newspaper quote interesting

"the Royal College of Surgeons issued a report which concluded that Dr A was not qualified to do his job.It concluded that Dr A "should never have been appointed in the role".

We note that Dr A [the Consultant] is not subject to GMC Fitness to Practise Procedures despite the GMC's Guidance on Probity.

Any patients who wish to raise their concerns with NHS Exposed, please do so at editor@nhsexposed.com or join NHS Debate to discuss the issue. Dr Korashi should send his evidence to us for publication. We are particularly interested in the Royal College of Surgeons report referred to above. Perhaps Dr Korashi will detail his evidence and we will only be too pleased to feature it online. It may not please the GMC but then we aren't here to back down to a set of vampire deadbeats.


Dr Rita Pal

Declared Conflict - Whistleblower with ample experience on the GMC's Mobbing Habits.

Sphere: Related Content

GMC Gatekeepers. The Case Examiner Species Formerly Known as "The Screener"

The Screener/Case Examiner Hiding Under the GMC Bandages

The General Medical Council has a very swish website. When you observe the Role of the GMC as specified on their website, this is what you find.

Independent, accountable regulation must:

• Put patient safety first
• Support good medical practice
• Promote fairness and equality and value diversity
• Respect the principles of good regulation: proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting

That is all well and good, but are the General Medical Council transparent? Well, some poor soul tried to seek the identities of the screener in their case. The decision can be downloaded from the Information Commissioner's website. The Information refused the identity of the screener. This is interesting of course because the General Medical Council has released the screeners identities in the following cases.

1. Pal v General Medical Council 2004. Harris HHJ stated as follows "But it doesn't seem to me that this person's identity is necessarily entitled to be camouflaged or protected for ever in the course of this litigation". This comment can be found in the Transcripts

2. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Toth

3. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte McNicholas

4. Susan George v General Medical Council [ internal GMC case]

5. Dr Sushant Varma v General Medical Council.

So why does the General Medical Council withhold the identities of screeners/case examiners in some cases? Surely, there should be an element of equal decision making. Afterall, they do crow about consistency in their decision making process.

The next question we should ask is this, is the General Medical Council wholly transparent as it promises to be? Clearly the Information Commissioner's ruling conflicts directly with the General Medical Council's promise made to the public. It appears, all that the GMC has to plead is an imaginary risk of perceived harassment. As the General Medical Council always feels harassed by those who criticize them, this may well be a blanket policy for anyone who seeks to challenge the organisation in any way or form. For those people who have the temerity to challenge the General Medical Council, the screener/case examiner will be nothing more than the Invisible Man. It is though clear that the GMC cherry picks the cases it should release the identity of the case examiners to. Case Examiners/screeners identities are essential to determine their conflicts of interests and associations.

For all those who would like a complete list of them, here is the list below . This makes a mockery of the entire Information Commissioner judgment on the General Medical Council :). The GMC themselves have let the cat out of the bag - or in this case, those allowed out of the bag are the crumply old case examiners who neither know whether they are coming or going. I see no reason why the case examiners would wish to be huddled up in a group and be embarrassed of the decisions they make. It is clear, those concealing their identity have a lot to hide and wish to resist challenge in every way possible. I have to say that I was quite shocked when the General Medical Council told me that all case examiners/screeners were immune from investigation by the GMC. At least, the screener in the case Pal v GMC [ Dr Sheila Mann] was immune from investigation into her conduct. She subsequently serves as a GMC panelist having left her position as screener.

This follows that there is limited individual accountability for the haphazard, inconsistent decision making processes of the case examiners at the GMC.

Many thanks for my friend's sexy surgical hunky accessory
for sending me the above :)

Dr Rita Pal Sphere: Related Content

Professor Peter Rubin - Being a Dishonest Amateur

Hunting for Virgins

Count Peter Rubin, Chair of the GMC has bared his rather large teeth to the outside world. It appears that his bites are leaving a mark on many medical necks. He hasn't made himself popular. The Count conceals the fact his group of amateur vampires hunt for whistleblowers by night. Virgin whistleblowers are particularly sought after.

By day, Count Rubin has appeared in the British Medical Journal. He was seen penning a missive to Fiona Godlee while wearing his dark shades. Professor Rubin decided to open his creaky door and speak out into the big world. This is what he told the world of medicine with respect to whistleblowing. This is what the Count uttered for the world.

"I want to make clear that any doctor who wants to report genuine concerns will have nothing to fear from the GMC. The GMC emphasises the responsibility of doctors to report their concerns and this is echoed throughout our guidance. In particular Good Medical Practice (2006) states both that doctors should raise concerns about inadequate resources and that they must protect patients from risk of harm posed by a colleague's conduct, performance or health. Raising Concerns (2006) makes clear that provided doctors have been honest, raising a concern is justified even if it turns out to be groundless"

Count Rubin appears to be dishonest. We know he can't help it because all GMC Chairs have to lie in order to conceal what lies beneath. The Count had requested a head count on all whistleblowers locked in the lower dungeons in Manchester. Most whistleblowers looked anaemic, lifeless and souless. Count Rubin sucked the last droplets of blood before issuing a press release designed to lure more virginal whistleblowers to his crypt of darkness.The above statement by the Count therefore goes to his integrity and by the definition of the case created by the GMC itself, he should be investigated for Professional Misconduct. He won't be of course because he is a Count and has slimed his way to the higher echelons of power where he will never be held accountable.


Rubin wants the world to think the General Medical Council is a kind and understanding body. The GMC though has the largest net for the year's whistleblower season. Once you get caught in it, extracting yourself is extremely difficult as many doctors have found. In reality, the General Medical Council is a abuser, a career assasinator, a violator of rights and a organisation who mobs whistleblowers on behalf of their malevolent employers. I call this Mobbing by Proxy. The General Medical Council is a psychopathic organisation who harasses good doctors and allows killers into the big wide world to kill further [ Jane Barton, Gosport]. To compensate for the lost blood, Count Rubin was seeking new blood for the National Health Service in the Guardian some time ago.

The General Medical Council should be ashamed of the way it has compromised patient safety and mobbed whistleblowers. Having done so, it pretends that this phenomena does not exist.

Rubin has absolutely nothing to say about me - a whistleblower who raised concerns about inadequate resources, substandard patient care and a shortage of staff. These were reported to the GMC who dismissed them despite substantial evidence. Like his predecessors, he is of the view that keeping me at arms length and refusing to respond to email will place him at a higher plane. This higher plane means he can look down on the rest of the world, sniff the morning air and sprout rubbish in the media. Some whistleblowers have crosses to bare and the Count isn't dealing well with this. Perhaps he hopes that no one will notice his lying ways.

The General Medical Council failed miserably to investigate concerns raised by me regarding Ward 87. Instead, they conducted a sham peer review and reversed the investigation onto me. The details of this " covert discreet inquiry" is presented in the case R Pal v General Medical Council 2004. The GMC didn't just conduct one discreet inquiry, they investigated one case of defamation for 6 months then admitted that the GMC could never try defamation. They then investigated the issue of a "link". Read the case law here. Having extracted the Reports that vindicated me in 2001, the General Medical Council have had nothing to say for themselves. Indeed, they have remained tight lipped ever since.

Having subjected me to nearly three years of pointless investigations, files of paper and inordinate amount of litigation, they have nothing left to say about Ward 87. Having harassed me by subjecting me to revolving door vexatious complaints then cleared me, the GMC finally removed me from the Register for non payment of their subscription fees. Their disappointment at not being able to strike me off with a finding of professional misconduct is clear. The General Medical Council likes to pretend that their whistleblower Dr Rita Pal does not exist within the medical profession or that she will quietly and meekly skulk away.

Their pitiful squealing and overt collection of strategic lies at the Royal Courts of Justice always continue. Paying the Blackstone Brothers large sums of money to tell tall tales in court is probably one of the accessories in their armory in perverting the course of justice. This is because the General Medical Council is incapable of honesty, decency or honour. It has to create a facade of dishonesties to cover the dark reality behind the closed doors. Of course, the GMC wouldn't look upon it like that. They would say it was legal argument.

The harassment has continued against many other whistleblowers :-

Dr Raj Mattu of Coventry was substantially frisked by the General Medical Council. You can read his take on this website. Dr Peter Wilmshurst raised serious concerns about research misconduct only to find that the GMC had reversed the investigation onto him.

The list of casualties continues, Dr S Vaidya who raised concerns about dangerous working practices was stripped naked by the General Medical Council and thrown out on " attitudinal problems". Vaidya was last seen beating the hell out of GMC Towers in what has now become a battle of wits and survival.

Then finally of course, there was Robert Phipps, a man who had justified whistleblowing concerns, who won his Employment Tribunal but was sanctioned by the General Medical Council. His whistleblowing concerns were never considered or responded to by the General Medical Council.

There are numerous other whistleblowers who have met their downfall by raising concerns with the General Medical Council. Some of us survive the GMC, the rest of the whistleblowers are dead. The public can make up its own mind whether the General Medical Council harasses whistleblowers by the use of the phenomena known as Mobbing and Sham Peer Review.

The Independent wrote :-

Dr Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital who has written extensively about the GMC, said: "The GMC has a difficult job dealing with so many complaints, which it is not doing very well. It... is run by amateurs rather than legal experts. It needs a complete overhaul so that disciplinary matters are considered by a completely independent body."

Can the General Medical Council name one whistleblower whom they have supported? The answer is "no". In conclusion, Count Rubin's comments are merely a cosmetic foundation applied to satisfy public scrutiny. The General Medical Council is devoid of integrity and will do whatever it takes to create a facade. Its function is to create facades so that it avoids accountability and scrutiny for its damaging role within the issue of patient safety. In the meantime, the GMC continues to strategically hunt and devour whistleblowers by falsely claiming that we have nothing to fear. By doing this, the GMC lures the whistleblower then assassinates them then conceals their skeletons in their rather large closets.

Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Modernising Medical Careers. Creating High Risk Doctors

Paice remains under investigation by the General Medical Council for victimizing a MMC critic.

Remedy UK has campaigned on the Modernising Medical Careers fiasco. Indeed, it successfully achieved the Tooke Report and the Health Select Committee Review. These reports were severely critical of Modernising Medical Careers. The GMC was recently challenged in court regarding accountability of the architects of the MMC. Remedy UK won the permission hearing which is indeed a landmark judgment in itself.

Initially, the General Medical Council argued that the MMC fiasco had nothing whatsoever to do with patient safety. We now know that it has everything to do with causing a threat to patient safety. Remedy UK writes about some of these risks.

Recently, a study published showed that graduates were poorly prepared to be doctors. The study published in the Postgraduate Medical Journal stated as follows

"Overall, F1s in the study were not well prepared either to perform the tasks that await them or in terms of most of the specific background knowledge and skills necessary for the successful execution of those tasks. The level of preparedness raises important issues about medical training and transition from medical graduate to first year doctor. Further research is needed to determine whether this situation exists in other regions of the UK."

This effectively means that Modernising Medical Careers has failed in its task. The General Medical Council who consistently remain in denial stated as follows

“It is important not to jump to conclusions from this study. Much has changed in the two years that have elapsed since the original research questionnaires were conducted. In particular, following extensive consultation and in-depth research, the GMC re-launched Tomorrow’s Doctors which sets the standards for undergraduate medical education in the UK.

“Tomorrow’s Doctors will require that students have more opportunity to apply their medical knowledge and skills in hospitals and surgeries before they graduate. 'Student assistantships’ will be rolled out to help prepare medical students for the Foundation programme. Student assistantships are work placements where students will undertake most of the duties of an F1 doctor before they start their first job. This will help them get to grips with practical tasks such as ordering blood samples and filling in prescription forms.

“During the development of Tomorrow’s Doctors a lot of work was undertaken to map F1 outcomes to the undergraduate competencies, including clinical and procedural skills. The GMC also agreed a revised Foundation programme curriculum and specific outcomes for F1 doctors which will give medical schools a clear understanding of what they should be preparing medical students for in the workplace.

“It is important to remember that the point of the first year of the Foundation programme is for the new doctor to build on, under supervision, the knowledge and skills they learnt as a medical student, demonstrating performance in the workplace. It is inevitable that it will take some time for certain skills, such as advanced communication, to develop, that is why a whole year is allowed for the process. GMC guidance The New Doctor sets out what F1s are expected to be competent at demonstrating in the workplace before being eligible to apply for full registration.”

And what research is the GMC relying upon? Ah yes, none. It makes these speculative assumptions that are essentially the view of a GMC drone. The problem with drones is that they do not think in terms of "evidence". Research is indeed superior compared with mere personal opinions. It also shows that our regulatory body is currently divorced from reality.

Dr Rita Pal and Simon J Ford.

Sphere: Related Content

Justice in Health Network (JIHN). Adrian Delemore Answer The Questions

The power of questions

During the last week, we have all been investigating Nu Labour's use of Citizen's Juries/rigged consultations. The nature of the ingrained bias was first described by the wonderful Focal Spot. Over the last 6 months I have been chasing a Whistleblowers meeting that occurred in secret without any Whistleblowers. I described my brief investigations on Ward 87. I discovered that meetings were co-ordinated by a obscure little man called Adrian Delemore. Adrian Delemore runs something called the Justice In Health Network. It is a very exclusive group open to the chosen few. Adrian told the world that there were no Labour members in the group. The members themselves then admitted there were a few Labour members floating around. The identities of these people were concealed from prying eyes.

No one knows who Adrian is apart from the fact that he is able to command a Labour MP to chair his meeting at the Houses of Parliament. This is quite a feat for anyone. Adrian professes that his Network is non political. No one believes him. Indeed, his involvement in policy issues was advertised here.

"Adrian Delemore runs JIHN, which is concerned with health policy issues from a patient, family carer, service user perspective. JIHN is looking at how an online community in health may be brought into being to further a strong and informed patient voice on health policy issues"

In the case of the July 2009 meeting held in Parliament behind closed doors, the MP was David Taylor. David chaired the meeting about whistleblowers without the attendance of said whistleblowers. We assume Adrian wished to create policies about whistleblowers without inviting any whistleblowers. David Taylor MP is infamous for spending £300 plus on footstools then asking the tax payer to foot the bill.

On direct questioning of this meeting, his office wrote as follows :-

Daniel Crimes for Nu Labour wrote

"I can only add that this was in no way comparable to, say, a meeting of a Committee of the House. It was an informal gathering of members of the Justice in Health Network who hoped to discuss, from a lay perspective, healthcare regulation issues arising from the Margaret Haywood case. It was hoped that some Peers and MPs would attend but only David Taylor was able to"

I was a little puzzled by this given Focal Spot's submissions sometime ago :-

"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!"

Adrian Delemore then told me as follows :-

"In fact, whistle blowers were not ignored. However, the meeting was arranged at fairly short notice to fit in with a very limited window of opportunity"

Compare with Focal Spot who states

"The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event"

The matter progressed rapidly when I began asking Adrian about any connections with Nu Labour. I asked why Focal Spots report of a rigged consultation was almost identical to the one called by Adrian Delemore.

Adrian then wrote

"I wish to take things further on the whistleblowing front, but do not have time to discuss now in this email. I will also ask whether you would be available to attend a meeting in London on 23 November, which you may wish to do after we have spoken"

To test Adrian out to see whether he was a man of his word, I provided him with a list of people who were involved in patient safety issues who would benefit from the network. Afterall, Adrian admitted that "whistleblowers were not ignored". In this list, I provided all the names of the leading whistleblowers in the United Kingdom, these names included Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, Ian Perkin, Otto Chan, Raj Mattu. I was more concerned that they were all added to the network and were sent invitations to the forthcoming meeting on the 23rd November 2009. Unknown to me and similar to the traits of Nu Labour, some damning emails were being set around the Network about my innocent request to add "names" to his Network. These emails were subsequently leaked to me by a number of individuals belonging to the Network.

He then wrote as follows :-

I am forwarding the email below in order to keep you in the picture, and give you the opportunity to help me decide upon what action to take if any.

I have been hearing more in relation to Dr Pal which gives me cause for concern. She is also sending 'defammatory' emails to people both inside and outside the Network.

In my email to Dr Pal (below) in a spirit of openness I asked whether she would be available for a meeting 'in London on 23 November'. I had in mind inviting her to our meeting at the PDMF. She is now, incorrectly (par for the course with Dr Pal), emailing all and sundry inviting them to a meeting 'in the Houses of Parliament on the 23/11/09'. As she has sent the email to me, I presume it is our meeting to which she is referring.

I need to decide whether :-

1. To ignore her completely as at least one academic is doing.

2. To email correcting her error. In which case, do I withdraw the invitation to her, and by implication those whom she is inviting. This of course may give her more opportunity to circulate misleading or untrue comments/suppositions/conspiracy theories.

3. Do we give the correct address and allow Dr Pal's invitations to stand. In which case, I will need to have a substantial attendance at the meeting from Network members and participants, and hopefully other interested parties.

If the latter course were taken, one other option comes to my mind. If a delegation were nominated to attend for the Network (perhaps ten informed people) together with perhaps an academic or two by way of ensuring independent observation, a section of the meeting could be specifically to address the situation with Dr Pal and Dr Blumsohn.

If it were possible to have a statement correcting the misinformation being distributed by Dr Pal in her blog and otherwise, signed by many Network members and participants, this may be an additional or alternative way to deal with this matter. We may even then be in a position to establish some kind of relationship with responsible people.

It follows, that Adrian Delemore had no intention of accepting Whistleblowers or those who knew about patient safety into his fold. He has also failed to answer legitimate questions about his affiliations. In the meantime, discord hit the Network when the following exchanges occurred. I was sent a announcement from the National Patient Safety Agency. The NPSA were providing each participant with £65 as expenses. This was the flier sent by Adrian Delemore. Click here to download. The flier states

"We will provide up to £65 for travel expenses (with receipts) for attendance at the focus group"

And which NHS budget is that being extracted out of ? It should be noted that no one else was aware of this flier apart from the "Network".

Dr Umesh Prabhu who can always be found whenever there is an opportunity of fame. That is because Umesh is an opportunist. He had this to say

"Personally, I think NPSA has increased awareness about patient safety in the NHS and general public. NPSA has also has some excellent training programmes and has organised many events nationally to understand the route cause analysis and what to do when there is any tragedy. I think it will be a sad day if NPSA is closed.

But, NPSA should have been more proactive, should have the authority to deal with issues when Trusts are not being ‘Open and Honest’ with relatives, when Trusts fail to report deaths due to medical errors and Trusts who fail to listen to patients and public.

I also strongly believe that if any patient has died or has suffered serious injury due to medical errors then the Trust should always invite outside expert to advice the Trust. These experts should look at systems failure, individual doctors and nurses contribution and advice the Trust how to deal with these failures. Relatives/patients should always get a copy of that report. This is what I call ‘Fair and Open’ culture"

And of course the ex NPSA member would say the above.

"Fair and Open Culture" is an interesting phrase since the Network is only open to exclusive members.

This was the response from a very experienced member of the health profession and a Network member.

"Yes I agree with the content of your e-mail, but the NPSA cater for those who can and know the rules, take the case of JB just a few months ago where they wrote to her father who had died in 2006, J is not alone.

I contacted the NPSA earlier this year and I was told that they the NPSA do not do follow up for patients and families, they collate information for the Government.

I also agree that they hold many training programs including the program they set up in June 2009 when they invited an American house wife (as she proudly informed us several times) and her cortege to tell us how we could do the same as a small group of American housewife's had done when they forced their government to give them medical help.

I asked her why was she in England telling us how to do what we had already done, and asked here whether she was writing a book about our medical profession or the NHS in general, once again she proudly announced that she was invited by our Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson, he heard her speak on the world wide NPSA of her achievement.

I told her America did not have a NHS like ours. I had a nephew who is a barrister working for the American government in the UN, I have also visited my family in America .

I told her I was a member of the PPIF, the Elected Member of the PPIF Steering Group she ask what that was, I told her what she was telling us to do, that most of the people of England and Wales has told our Chief Medical Officer, and that either he was stone deaf and can not read, but one thing I was sure off, HE did not listen to the voice of the people, there were others at that meeting on the 11th June 2009 that heard me speak, the meeting ended at 3.15pm, my questions were too hard for them to answer.

The American housewife made sure we all claimed our travel expenses paid for by the NHS. She quickly left the meeting, their secretary made sure we all signed.

Umesh you as a pediatrician doctor you know how hard up the NHS is in the children wards, and can you imagine what it is like on the geriatric wards where they are the forgotten patients who had to pay £30.00 a month for their food and yet were dying of malnutrition as they were not able to eat. I was in the nursing profession then and went on the Kilroy program, yes Helped the Age heard me and it was dropped in 2002, those organizations were like the Chief Medical Officers they were stone deaf since the Labour Party brought this in, in 1965.

Umesh as a Trustee of AvMA. Anna Allford set up this Focus Group which was an American training program would you please inform me how much did it cost the taxpayer to bring Martin Hatlie, Susan Sheridan and their secretary to London for a week, holding three two hour sessions a day, telling us how to we can get better treatment from our NHS, perhaps AvMA could explain how those people who do not have a national health service of their own can teach us.

Also is Sir Liam Donaldson fit to be our medical officer, I would have thought he should have sent an English housewife to America to tell them about our wonderful NHS! It is the best in the world in spite of its faults.

AvMA should listen to us here and help the old and vulnerable that have problems instead of encouraging people to sue the NHS, only helping lawyers to get rich, those who give up their youth, made this country welcome to every one, are dying in such horrible conditions they do not have the money to pay a lawyer. The money spent on the American house wife could have given a few nice meals in some of our nursing homes or had helped to provide some quality care on my old ward where I worked.

She previously added the following in her email headed " I QUIT".

"They are there, because this government throws loads of money into black holes, people who pretend they are helping the vulnerable are not answerable to anyone, there is a lovely social life in attending meeting and talking about what to do, they know nothing about what is happening in reality"

Following the above, Adrian Delemore shut down the Network. Amongst a number of emails released today to me, one from Adrian stated as follows in response to my list of questions issued to him a few days ago. The list of questions can be downloaded here.

"A Dr Rita Pal has mounted an attack upon the Network, and others outside it. Someone, not I, has supplied Dr Pal with many Network email addresses.

As a result of Dr Pal's attacks and attempt to damage the Network, I must temporarily suspend the Network in order to minimise damage. Please do not reply to any emails from Dr Pal, or any emails that contain multiple names which you think are connected with the Network. Please do not send out any emails to the Network for the moment.

Dr Pal is including in her emails the names of people who have nothing to do with the Network. The result is that Network members and participants are responding to Dr Pal's emails, giving the impression that the Network is irresponsibly emailing people who have requested not to be included. Please await further contact from me or Penny Bunn.

Please do not copy this email to anyone else whether inside the Network or outside it.

If you want to find out more, please either email me alone, or phone me, or wait until I am able to contact you.

Kind regards

Adrian

A Network member proceeded to tell me :-

"I think Adrian used you Rita as an excuse"

Instead of adding legitimate names of whistleblowers and various individuals to the list of the Network, Mr Delemore decided to suspend his email list. These are the actions of a man who has something to conceal. He purported to welcome Whistleblowers but refused to invite any of them to the November meeting. He purported to be interested in those who have suffered medical neglect but decided not to include them in his Network. His front of inviting me to the meeting was a disguise. A reliable informer told me as follows :-

"They have also said that if you or your colleagues are going to attend the meeting on the 23rd that they will go for the showdown as well!"

Nu Labour has remained silent throughout the entire fiasco with David Taylor MP repeatedly checking his emails hence the read receipts received by me. I also now have the full list of the Justice in Health Network. Rebellion has broken out in this tight knit exclusive club of Network members who were allegedly part of the "rigging" system of consultations. Decisions about whistleblowers were made without the whistleblowers - what other meetings have been held without the public's knowledge?

This article is a preliminary to the extensive piece we are working on for the website. There is no doubt that Adrian and his Labour pals are running around like headless chickens as they discovered there are many many many leaks within their Network. Of course, blocking those leaks is going to be a mammoth task since there are infiltrators everywhere. Of course, there are conspirators, co-conspirators, conspirators by proxy, conspirators of those conspirators :) etc etc. All we wanted to know was how Nu Labour conducted its extensive puppetry within the NHS. Adrian Delemore had a overreaction to a list of simple questions. We shall leave it to the audience to examine why he overreacted in this manner. The simpler solution would have been to respond to the questions put to him. Perhaps those questions just touched a raw nerve. No doubt this post will have him and his Nu Labour colleagues playing the game of the headless chickens. Being out of control in an organisation that leaks like a sieve is extremely problematic for someone like Adrian. Afterall, he appears unable to maintain data security despite signing an interesting letter to Jack Straw on clause 152, he appears unable to control the large numbers of his Network who leak his information far and wide and he professes one thing but practices something different leading us all to question his real motives.

More on this another day.....

Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Media Request by Hardcash Productions

Hardcash Productions is in the initial stages of research into making a programme on palliative care for the terminally ill in the UK for Channel Four. Hardcash is a leading independent television company specialising in documentaries and current affairs documentaries. Our website www.hardcashproductions.com, gives details of our recent work.

We are looking at issues of care, pain management, specialist training, and communication between medical staff and both the terminally ill themselves and their families. Our plan at this stage is to look at these issues through a small number of personal case histories – ones that are on-going.

We would like to speak to patients, carers and family members who are in palliative / end-of-life care at the moment, whose stories would potentially illustrate the issues mentioned above.

Finally, I should tell you that we have a consultant on this programme who is an expert in palliative care. We understand how sensitive this issue is and we will absolutely handle it with the utmost care.

So please ask around to see if anyone you know currently in palliative / end-of-life care would be interested in telling their story to us. It would initially just be for a confidential chat. We could take it further later on if they feel comfortable enough to do so.

Contact Details

Caroline Marsden

Hardcash Productions for Channel 4

020 7253 2782 (office)

07931 303 318 (mobile)

caroline@hardcashproductions.com

Sphere: Related Content

THE NHS DEBATE

Following the demands from various sectors of the public, a Forum has been set up to ensure that there is good information delivery to those who require it. The email of the group has been set as follows

"A network where individuals can share their experiences, share information and request assistance on all matters related to the National Health Service UK. NHS Debate is intended empower individuals for the future by way of debate, discussion, information sharing etc"

Please click on this link and join the group.

Sphere: Related Content

Professor John Rees Sends a Smoking Gun.

To Prof John Rees.
Who requires psychiatric evaluation again?

Many of you will remember the case of Virginia Jibowu. Virginia was featured nationally and internationally for her case against Kings College Medical School. As many will recall, Matrix Chambers gave her an extremely good chance of succeeding in her case. During the various disclosures of documents, the following was uncovered.

From: John Rees [SeJohn.Rees@kcl.ac.uk]

Sent: 05 October 2007 17:57

To: Hannah Sewell

Subject: FW: Urgent problem- confidential

Attachments: Letter to Dr. Clarke - 4.10.07.doc; Virginia Letter 27.9.07 - Annotated Explanations.doc

Letter to Dr. Clarke Virginia Letter - 4.10.07... 27.9.07 - Anno...

Dear Hannah,

I wonder if you would be prepared to meet this student with me next week. It seems to me we have to ask her to withdraw her accusations in writing or it needs to go to the college complaints system as harrassment.

My view was that we ask her to withdraw in writing and suggest that this looks as if there might be a problem and suggest she sees a psychiatrist.

If she agrees to neither we go to a formal complaint if she agrees to the withdrawal but not the psychiatrist we say, ok if she doesn't agree to that and there really is no problem then we don't expect to have any further issues, if there were we would need readdress this.

Best wishes

John

letter 2 is a long read!

NB -We note that the good Professor cannot spell harassment. Actions speak louder than words I suppose :).

This is what Kings College states in their equality and diversity section

"King’s College London has a dedicated Equality & Diversity Department which aims to embed equality and diversity issues into every aspect of the College’s activity".

Apparently, after Virginia's case, Kings College have invented a new policy in the event of discrimination. Everyone can read it here.

No doubt Mr Rees of Kings College would have read the following present here.

2.3 Victimisation is defined as treating a person/group of people less favourably because of action they have taken under or in connection with equality legislation – for example, if someone made a formal complaint of discrimination or has given evidence in a tribunal case.

4 Students are advised to act promptly and should not feel that the unwanted behaviour is their fault or that they have to wait until the situation is intolerable.

There are a lot of sections in the document I could refer to and one section talks about taking the concerns seriously and instigating a formal complaints procedure. No where in the policy does it suggest that the mental state of the complainant should be questioned or referrals made to a psychiatrist. For avoidance of doubt, Ms Jibowu is a perfectly stable lady with no problems.

I am not really sure what Prof Rees has to say about this email. He appears to be head of division/Dean of Undergraduate Education at Kings College London Medical School.

Prof Rees has written extensively in the Student BMJ. He appears to be a consultant as well and is a registered medical doctor courtesy of the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council guidance states as follows. Good ol Jon boy would have read this. Rule 46 states as follows

"You must treat your colleagues fairly and with respect. You must not bully or harass them, or unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views* to affect adversely your professional relationship with them. You should challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance".

Anyhow, Jon boy will be acutely aware that what he has written is something called a legal smoking gun in terms of litigation. Most people are aware of Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

2. Discrimination by way of victimisation.

— (1) A person ( “the discriminator") discriminates against another person ( “the person victimised") in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if he treats the person victimised less favourably than in those circumstances he treats or would treat other persons, and does so by reason that the person victimised has—
(a) brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or
(b) given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or
(c) otherwise done anything under or by reference to this Act in relation to the discriminator or any other person; or
(d) alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which (whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of this Act,
or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to treatment of a person by reason of any allegation made by him if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.

I am sure Jon boy can read the above because reading is a basic skill for any doctor. It may have been wiser for him to have done his reading before opening his rather large mouth.

I suppose he had no idea that said email would end up online for millions to observe how Kings deals with a complaint on race relations. Whats he going to do? Is he going to place all of the ethnic minority who feel discriminated against under the psychiatrist's microscope? Given there is established evidence of racism at medical schools, that's going to be rather a lot of medical students subjected to psychiatric evaluation.

It is interesting to note that Kings College London's Institute of Psychiatry [ Maudsley] has a long history of their involvement in research relating to IQ differences between Caucasians and minority groups. The best known is Professor Eysenck'. This Professor of Psychology concluded "Among other things, he argued that psychotherapy was virtually worthless, that blacks scored lower on I.Q. tests than whites at least partly because of their genetic makeup".

Perhaps, this is why Professor Rees underestimates us all. Perhaps he feels we will not notice the meaning of his words and that the minority groups all deserve psychiatric evaluation by default. Actually, what Rees is telling us is this - you cannot be in a minority group and raise issues of discrimination. If you do this, you will immediately be subjected to psychiatric evaluation. This would be deemed discriminatory treatment and suppression of free speech. I believe that would mean a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 14 of the same act.

Perhaps he really is the superior white male and we are all simply inferior beings. Then we observe the psychiatric profile of a bully and victimiser. Bullying on Line has an interesting summary.

* is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
* has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
* excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive * uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
* is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance
* is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
* is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
* relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon * is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
* cannot be trusted or relied upon
* fails to fulfil commitments
* is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
* is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
* exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse * in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
* holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
* is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
* has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion * is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
* displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
* shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water * flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
* refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
* is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
* undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
* is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
* is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
* may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta
* is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
* gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
* is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)
* poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
* when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
* is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
* often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
* is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation * is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
* is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
* is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire * is always a taker and never a giver
* is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
* often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
* often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself
* knows the words but not the song * is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication * sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic

Who needs to seek a psychiatrist's evaluation again? :)

Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Calling valdan70. Please contact us immediately

The following message was left on the Independent newspapers following their articles on Gosport Memorial Hospital. The message was left on Sunday, 28 June 2009 at 09:38 am. We would be grateful if this person could contact us immediately through editor@nhsexposed.com

Inappropriate use of painkillers - GWMH valdan70 wrote: Sunday, 28 June 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)

I was the Patient Affairs Officer at GWMH during part of the period post 1994 when this situation was ongoing. Part of my job was to return personal effects, help with funeral arrangements and pass death certificates to the families of the bereaved. I was concerned about the number of deaths occurring, particularly when on one afternoon alone (I worked 15 hours a week, from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. Monday to Friday) the next of kin of 8 separate patients, who had passsed away during the previous night, were waiting to see me. The cause of death on most of the death certificates was given as Pneumonia.

I mentioned my concerns to several members of staff, and my manager, especially as I had been present on the wards when patients had been distressed and frightened about being prescribed painkillers administered via a driver. Some were frightened to go to sleep; they were afraid they would not wake up. I was always told I shouldn't involve myself in medical matters as it was none of my business. I have never been asked to give evidence at the inquests, or any of the enquiries. Eventually I resigned my post as I was unable to give the level of help necessary to the bereaved families in the 15 hours allocated to the post. In addition to counseling the bereaved, I arranged and attended funerals/cremations of those patients who had no family, and liaised with the Treasury Solicitor with regard to their affairs. I was also responsible for the patients' expenses and pensions, and the maintenance and auditing of the petty cash and other budgets on a weekly basis. The hospital's budgets were so tight, there was not enough money to fund the post in order to offer even a basic service.

Sphere: Related Content

The Wicked Witch of Gosport

The Wicked Witch of Gosport.

Her favourite GMC Toad.
Bulstrodius Maximus

The Witchfinder General at Hallam Street London and their hovel in Manchester appear not to have done very well in capturing the Sussex prime Wicked Witch. For the last ten years, The Wicked Witch of Gosport has ensured legions of elderly people have disappeared in a puff of smoke. These missing elderly inhabitants of Sussex are now feared dead.

The Witchfinder General recently denied any knowledge of said death rate of the current Wicked Witch of Gosport. They asked members of the public to do the job for them. When asked about the recent dangerous potion Chlorpromazine, the Witchfinder General felt they were in no position to respond and referred the enquirers to the Royal Society of Pharmaceutical Society, the leading wizards of potions. Lifting the phone themselves was apparently too much for the working weasles of the Witchfinder General's Towers.

Us poor peasants in ye ol' England were left to wonder what happened to the Memorandums of Understanding developed after Wicked Wizard Shipman was taken down the steps. Us peasants thought this would ensure quicker communication and data sharing between organisations. Ah, an internal source for the GMC told us that this memorandum of understanding was simply reserved for the species of misbehaving elves called Whistleblowers. Apparently, these elves are to be locked away at the London Dungeon if and when caught.

In the meantime, it has been established that the Witchcraft Act of 1736 was repealed into the Medical Act 1983. Sussex witches are well known from yesteryear. The current Witch of Gosport has reigned for a decade or more accompanied by her own spellbook known as The Barton BNF. Killing For a Living.

It appears that our forefathers were better at catching Witches then the current Witchfinder General. Rumour surrounding the medical profession suggests that this Witchfinder General currently has no teeth. Despite various fittings through Denplan, our Witchfinder General has been unable to grasp the basics. The cause of the endless decay appears to be the large fat toad who sat on all of them for nearly a decade. He croaked so loudly that no one could hear themselves think at the Witchfinder General's Towers.

The history of witches in Sussex goes back sometime

"Despite all that is said about the prevalence of witchcraft in the past, only few witch trials were ever held in Sussex and even then only one of the accused was put to death. This took place in 1575 when Margaret Cooper of Kirdford was found guilty of bewitching Henry Stoner on 1 April 'who languished until 20th April following, when he died.'

"At the East Grinstead Assizes in 1591 Agnes Mowser from Fletching was found guilty of bewitching Ann Flemens to death but was sentenced to only one year's imprisonment, a sentence which usually carried with it four six-hour sessions in the pillory"

As we can see, the repeated disappearance of people in Gosport remains uninvestigated. No one knows when The Wicked Witch of Gosport stealthily hobbles out at night complete with her potions of the day. She was though spotted once during her visits to the Gosport community. This was what one labourer told us all

"'My mates and me was resting under a hedge nigh Up Waltham, 'aving our dinner, when a hare comes lopping along. Darky Tussler says, 'That bain't a hare, that's that --- ol' 'ooman down along under, (speaking of a village where we was lodging). I takes up a stone and throws it, and catches that hare. She didn't half holler, letting out a screech just like an ol' 'ooman, an' then she goes limping away. That night, when we was down in the village, ol' Sary Weaver, wot people said could make a cow run dry by lookin' at her - folks said she were a witch - comes 'obbling outer 'er cottage. When she sees we, she lets out a screech, same as the hare did, and goes a-limping off, for all of the world as if she were that there hare. She were lame in the same leg wot the hare was, but she 'adn't been afore!'

Those who have followed the footsteps of the Wicked Witch of Gosport know that her path is laced with diamorphine crystalized drops. This overuse is noted to be the apparent reason for the National Shortage of Diamorphine these days. The Wicked Witch has escaped the notice of the authorities for many years. Most are convinced by her well presentable daytime disguise of a grey suit and Oxford University words of wisdom.

The peasants are not convinced. The peasants know better. They know that in the dead of night, the Gosport Witch prowls around and commits her dastardly deeds silently. When there is yet another burial in the county, the peasants gossip about the collection of ghosts that now haunt the foggy dark streets of Gosport Town. For today is All Hallows Eve and the Wicked Witch of Gosport will out on the prowl.

All elderly folk have been warned to stay in and lock the doors for we never know whether it is the night of a Barton trick or treat during the bewitching hour.


Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Gosport Deaths. High Risk Chlorpromazine Ignored

From the Shipman Inquiry

"On the other hand, a smaller overdose of chlorpromazine could have an indirect lethal effect in very much the same way as might be achieved by a sublethal dose of morphine or diamorphine". "The mechanism would be by suppression of the respiration, or of the protective cough reflex, of a frail person, especially where that person already had a chest infection or history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Depending on the circumstances of the individual and the dosage given, death might ensue by this indirect mechanism after anything between a small number of hours and several days. The patient would go into a deep sleep quite soon after the giving of the injection, a sleep from which he or she might well not wake if death followed as an indirect result of the injection".

The long arms of the British Government were well at work at both the Coroner’s Inquest and the GMC Hearing to lessen the charges against Dr Jane Barton.

Having read the Transcripts of the Coroner’s Inquest and the Transcripts of the GMC Hearing, a crucial drug was omitted from the charges even though it was so dangerous to Patient K / Mrs Elsie Devine than any other administered to her. Discussing this drug during the proceedings failed to give the impact it would have had if it had been added to the charges.

I will reiterate that Mrs Devine, an opiate naive patient woke on the morning of the 19th November 1999 feeling the effects of a 25mg Fentanyl Patch running at full strength (Equivalent to 135mg of Morphine). In her agitated state of mind she was held down and injected with 50mg of Chlorpromazine but this drug was not mentioned in the charges against Dr Barton, even though it was capable of ending Mrs Devine’s life. (Cardiac Arrest)

To highlight the power of this drug the following website states:

• Chlorpromazine may mask signs of over dosage of toxic drugs

• Chlorpromazine and other CNS depressants may result in additive CNS depressant effects. Monitor to avoid excessive sedation or respiratory depression.

• Geriatrics: 
 Use reduced dosages. Chlorpromazine may adversely affect many of the conditions commonly occurring in the aged, including cardiovascular problems.

• Elderly and debilitated patients should start with initial doses at the lowest end of the dosage range (e.g. 25 mg daily). Such patients are more susceptible to hypotension and CNS effects and special caution should be exercised when using chlorpromazine in this age group.

• SPECIAL WARNING: Along with their needed effects, phenothiazines can sometimes cause serious side effects.

• Other serious but rare side effects may also occur. These include severe muscle stiffness, fever, unusual tiredness or weakness, fast heartbeat, difficult breathing, increased sweating, loss of bladder control, and seizures (neuroleptic malignant syndrome). You and your doctor should discuss the good this medicine may do as well as the risks of taking it.

• General Systemic Events: Sudden death has occasionally been reported in patients who have received phenothiazines. In some cases, the death was apparently due to cardiac arrest; in others, the cause appeared to be asphyxia due to failure of the cough reflex.

• Overdose Symptoms: Symptoms of chlorpromazine over dosage are related to an extension of its pharmacologic action. The primary symptoms observed are severe extrapyramidal reactions, hypotension and sedation. Mild or early intoxication may cause restlessness, confusion and excitement. CNS sedation may progress to coma. Other symptoms may include: tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, miosis, hypothermia and respiratory and/or vasomotor collapse.

So let me reconsider the death of Mrs Devine and the use of Chlorpromazine:

Without any signs of pain and a Doctor’s notes saying he found her happy, waiting for her daughter and recommended no change in medication, she was administered a 25mg Fentanyl Patch without her or her family’s knowledge.

This Patch takes a minimum of 17hrs to peak, yet she was not given any other form of immediate pain relief, which signified that the Fentanyl Patch was administered for pain Dr Barton thought Mrs Devine would suffer the next day. Mrs Devine woke the next morning with the equivalent of 135mg of Morphine in her body and instead of Dr Barton considering that her symptoms might be due to an overdose, she administered an additional 50mg of Chlorpromazine. It is useful for the reader to read the Mayo Clinic website on this issue. The website states that using Fentanyl with Chlorpromazine and Midazolam is not usually recommended.

A notable warning here states as follows

"Using too much transdermal fentanyl, or taking too much of another narcotic while using transdermal fentanyl, may cause an overdose. If this occurs, get emergency help right away. An overdose can cause severe breathing problems (breathing may even stop), unconsciousness, and death. Serious signs of an overdose include very slow breathing (fewer than 8 breaths a minute) and drowsiness that is so severe that you are not able to answer when spoken to or, if asleep, cannot be awakened. Other signs of an overdose may include cold, clammy skin; low blood pressure; pinpoint pupils of eyes; and slow heartbeat. It may be best to have a family member or a friend check on you several times a day when you start using a narcotic regularly, and whenever your dose is increased, so that he or she can get help for you if you cannot do so yourself"

• Did Dr Barton then Monitor Mrs Devine to avoid excessive sedation or respiratory depression? No.

• Did she take special caution that should be exercised when using Chlorpromazine in this age group?
No.

• Did she discuss with Mrs Devine’s family the good this medicine may have as well as the risks of taking it?
No.

• Did she consider CNS sedation might progress to coma?
No.

• So what did Dr Barton do? She administered an additional 40mg of Diamorphine and 40mg of Midazolam via a Syringe Driver and walked her for 3 hours before being laid in bed to comatose.

• So what did the Coroner and the GMC consider this action to be? Therapeutic.

• Did Mrs Devine ever come out of her induced coma? No.

• With 135mg of Morphine, 50mg of Chlorpromazine, 40mg of Diamorphine and 40mg of Midazolam what chance did this frail 8st lady have? NONE.

This Government, the GMC and the CPS should come clean and permit criminal proceeding against Dr Barton and her regime, when lying under oath would be questioned and the truth be brought to light. Not like the farcical events of the Coroner’s Inquest and the GMC Hearing when lies under oath continued unquestioned, even though they were blatantly known to be happening.

If our leaders can’t be honest what chance do we have?

Richard Kimble

Sphere: Related Content

Bloggers at Rest

This is to announce that we will all be taking a short break from blogging. Simon J Ford will be around to place any urgent material online if required. Our primary interest is Gosport and therefore only their updates will take priority until Dr Jane Barton's hearing. Any other material will be dealt with in a few weeks time.

Sphere: Related Content

Our Yearly Appraisal :)

We are always humbled by the numbers of people who write to us and who take their time to visit our website/blogs. When we first commenced the project in 2000, few people thought that 9 years later we would still be going. Indeed, Richard Smith the then editor of the BMJ felt that no one would visit us and that we would be obsolete by the end of the year. Richard had nothing to say when the Times awarded us a position in the top 50 Health Websites in 2006.

Our aim was to keep information completely free and accessible to members of the public. I should say that our aims in doing so have not made me immensely popular with the medical profession. Many doctors are still of the view that the public should not be given free information with which to challenge the status quo. My view is rather different. For me, I have been taught in detail by Will Powell, Chris Askew and Arpad Toth - all of whom have helped me try and see the world from the public's view.

A doctor and a previous friend of mine wrote to me recently and said

"You'd be exhausted turning away non-doctors with their woe-tales of injustices"

And that I think is generally the medical profession's attitude to the public. I should say, I wasn't impressed with the above sentence. It made me understand the value of all that I have been taught by those who have tried to change the world we live in. I was grateful that I didn't have an insular view of the world - ie that because I was a doctor, I should only care about doctors.

I often look towards those who have fought and admire them for their tenacity and determination for giving the authorities a run for their money. More recently, the Gosport campaigners should be admired for their ability to fight against all odds. I admire them greatly for their efforts to teach us all about the respect for life. I very much hope they do succeed in the future where many of us doctors failed.

The person who I hold in great esteem is the longest running fighter - Mr Will Powell. Will and I go back a long time. Will teaches us all about stamina, about self belief and about never giving up. These are lessons that every person fighting an injustice should understand. Will tells us that when one door shuts, you get back up and fight for another day.

Hopefully, we will continue to raise important issues that are not presented by the mainstream media. Our main purpose is to create an internet archive of historical material that will be useful in the future. This website is currently available at the British Library's web archive project.

Amongst our many emails, I found a particularly interesting one recently. I wanted to feature it, not because it is complimentary but because it shows that our aims to empower and inform the individual/members of the public can sometimes be successful. Those who run this website [ myself included] have always acknowledged that we cannot change the system. We can though provide the necessary information for others to effect change and indeed that is what we all continue to aim for. We wish to thank Mary Foord-Brown for taking the time to email is.

Anyhow, here is the email.

I find your publication and blogs very informative and whenever I attend meetings at the DOH or WHO regarding my concerns about things not looked into (despite warning letter from HCC 2007, re complaint laundering and bullying), I always mention that people prefer to read your sites and blogs rather than anything they or the GMC like to put out.

One thing, Ipswich Hospital, which is very good, and vital for patients in my area, especially due to long established bypass pattern of a particular area, this hospital has had various services removed. The consultants have clubbed together and written a hard letter in the media, (over 100 of them). For instance now in our area of Suffolk should somebody have a stroke or heart attack they will be ambulanced off to Cambridge or Norfolk.... very poor survival rates will be the case, and various other services disappearing.

I don't know if it is appropriate to send this site petitions, but I have started this one, and various groups are going to take it up.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/IpswichHospital/

Your work is fantastic and vital for public information.

Signed

Mary Foord-Brown

And from Will Powell recently.....

I have just read your recent article and would like to thank you for all you have done, and continue to do, personally and through NHS-Exposed, for me and many many others that have suffered at the hands of the medical profession, the NHS and the GMC. I would also like to thank you for your kind and very supportive comments about me in your article. But more importantly, I would like to thank you for the stance you took many years ago when you witnessed elderly patients dying unnecessarily in the NHS. As a consequence of your refusal to accept this unacceptable situation you have been punished by, inter Alia, the GMC, to such an extent that your beloved career, in my view, has been irreparably damaged. All the concerns that you raised so many years ago, are now being highlighted, almost daily, in the media and one could only speculate as to how many of our elderly would be alive today if your concerns had been addressed, at the time, and not brushed under the carpet of deceit.

For all the reasons set out above, I would fully support a public inquiry into the initial concerns that you raised back in the late 1990s and also into the way in which you have been treated subsequently by all the authorities and the government.

Please keep up the good work.

Kind regards.

Will Powell



We wish to thank the many many people who visit us on a daily basis.

Post Written by Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Doctors4Justice

Visit http://www.doctors4justice.net/

Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist, activist and human rights campaigner has currently set up a new pressure group called Doctors4Justice. The aim of this group is to effect accountability, justice and equality within the medical profession.

As such, the group aims to support doctors, medical students and the public with their medicolegal issues. The group which is currently in its fledgling state and will require a development. The group has been developed as it was recognized that information sharing is required, support is essential and the strength to challenge is only possible together. We aim to develop a like minded thinkers with the aim to empower individuals and to provide fast, effective support for any problem they may have.

In an era where good doctors are being made scapegoats and the public are being failed by the establishment, we aim to provide information, support and essential assistance to ensure each person is able to cope with the long journey through the current systems. In the future, we hope to make representations to the European Commissioner of Human Rights as well as contribute to consultations. We hope members of the public and grass roots doctors will support these aims. Please therefore join us and participate in discussions related to the GMC, the NHS, the Royal Colleges etc. It is true that doctors together can make a difference to the future to improve the systems we have today. Join the group through the Google Group Link below or visit here.

Their email is doctors4justice2009@googlemail.com

Their website/blog is currently under development at
http://www.doctors4justice.net/

Subscribe to Doctors4Justice

Email:

Visit this group

Sphere: Related Content

Elsie's Law. Gosport Campaigners strike back.

Sign the Petition - For Elsie's Law.

The brave fighters from Gosport went to meet the Crown Prosecution Service. This is what the CPS says about their service "Fair, fearless, effective". We shall see whether they live up to our Great Expectations.

The families were armed with files of concrete evidence concerning the killing ways of Dr Jane Barton. The BBC report can be read here. The best speech can be reviewed here. It is worth watching the BBC interview of the families - because it shows they mean business.

I certainly hope the campaigners can change the way the establishment's medics have conducted themselves in blocking the prosecution of Dr Jane Barton by using a flimsy palliative care defense. More coverage can be found in their local newspapers. It is clear that the CPS have a hot potato in their hands. The Gosport Campaigners want answers and they are not leaving without those answers.

Ann Reeves, Bridget's mother, said:

'We're back here again trying to persuade the CPS that there's a case to pursue

'But we shouldn't have to search for evidence for them.

'We just want them to deal with this case as they should. We want closure on this.'

Bridget Reeves is kicking the establishment and her words are likely to open the doors to the Criminal Courts where Jane Barton should be tried.

This is the circular we received :- A petition has been set up. For the reasons below I have started a petition called “Elsie’s Law” and ask for your support and signature. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/

In 1999 my Mother was administered a cocktail of opiates which caused her premature death. She was not in pain, she was not dying but she was old and she was vulnerable. My family have fought so that she may see some justice for the fact that her Right to Life was taken from her by Dr Jane Barton. Drugs, such as diamorphine used in the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) have been under much speculation.

Although an audit of Care of the Dying, by the Marie Curie and the Royal College of Physicians found that nearly 4000 terminal patients found the framework to be of high quality, there is no doubt that some patients remain at risk. There is room in current practice for elderly, vulnerable patients to be started on the LCP without their or their family’s consent; it is not good enough to assume that in all hospitals, hospices and care homes that conversations will take place and that patients and families will be kept informed.

The audit reveals that two thirds of the 3,893 patients whose deaths were assessed needed no continuous infusion of medication, and all but 4% only needed low doses of opiates.

However, in the case of Dr Barton (Gosport War Memorial) patients were started on high doses of opiates and sedatives via infusion, sent into comas and to their deaths. We shouldn’t have to fight for justice after death; the law should be there to protect us when we are alive.

Please send this message on.

In my own view, physicians are so obsessed about the comfortable death of patients, few remember that there should be some protection for those who are wrongly diagnosed as "dying".
Clive Seale's research provides interesting evidence of the culture of palliative care.

"A report by Clive Seale, professor of sociology at Brunel University, said 1,930 deaths were as a result of a doctor ending a patient's life without the patient's consent, a practice known as "non-voluntary euthanasia" or "mercy killing".

Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content

Gosport Whistleblower Silenced

I recently read for the first time what Nurse Giffin remarked on her time at Redclyffe Annex when at the Coroner's Inquest, which highlighted the sinister part Sister Hamblin played as Dr Jane Barton's henchman. The 1991 documents are available here and here.

Nurse Giffin tried desperately to blow the whistle in 1991 but it fell on deaf ears and I allege, allowed Dr Barton and Sister Hamblin to continue to choose which patients should die for a further nine years. It was the responsibility of so many people to question what was suddenly going on at Redclyffe once the 'syringe drivers' were introduced. If you were the Coroner would you not have been suspicious of the increase of bodies coming out and death certificates to sign? Even if you were the Pastor, would you also not have noticed a sudden increase in your wealth as payments for visits were credited to your bank account?

Here we had a loving caring Nurse Giffin happily attending to her patients until Sister Hamblin enters the Annex. Nurse Giffin placed her job on the line to let the authorities know of the new regimes' use of the killer machine but they turned their backs on her. What were some of her words:

I worked happily at the unit and felt we treated the patients well based on love & care.

However this all changed when Gill Hamblin took over and encouraged syringe drivers.


Prior to her coming we rarely used a syringe driver and when she came they escalated.

Dr Barton asked my opinion once about a patient Sister Hamblin wanted to start on a syringe driver and I said it was unfair and she should go back on Valium/Diazepan and she lived for a further 10years.

I would like to add that I worked on nights at the Annex for 10 years before someone died on nights. However once Sister Hamblin arrived it became a regular occurrence and I can remember the ambulance drivers joking about it.

Why did this not ring alarm bells and not taken into consideration by the health authorities? I can only imagine that when it is not you doing the killing, not your head on the block and the NHS is saving money, why change it. Is it not true that a hospital receives money for each patient admitted that is impossible to partially return if a patient dies within only a few days? If this is so, I often wondered if this was how the Gosport War Memorial Hospital funded their maternity section or am I being too sinister?

If a public survey was taken by asking people on the street if they would have wanted answers to Nurse Giffin's concerns, would it be 100% in favour of a public inquiry? I rest my case.

Richard Kimble Sphere: Related Content

Trouty Tales. Arise Sir Swindon Seven.

Trust Police " The Dead Don't Lie Down At Our Trust"

Swindon's Great Western Hospital Trust has made quite a name for itself - and boss man Alf Troughton [The Swindon Trout] - just lately, albeit, perhaps, not quite the name that most right-thinking Trusts would desire.

Not for them the tireless quest for clinical excellence, although I suspect that might happen almost accidentally, thanks to the unofficial efforts of the shop-floor medical staff. No, this Trust has sought, and achieved, the not-at-all-coveted Miserable Buggers of the Year award, for their unequalled pursuit of Humourless Stupidity.

And how did they manage this breathtaking feat? Well, it's like this. Readers of the Facebook generation will no doubt have heard of the Lying Down game. I'm not, and hadn't, and when I'd managed to throttle an explanation out of a passing PFY I realised how little my life had been enriched by this new-found enlightenment.

I wouldn't trouble the blissfully ignorant with details of this so-called "game", save for the fact that it is an integral part of Great Western Hospital Trust's achievement. Put simply, the objective seems to be for players to be photographed lying face down, arms by their sides and toes pointing down. The photographs are made available on Facebook, with extra kudos going to participants who can pull off this death-defying stunt in unusual locations.

Gripping, isn't it? I can't wait for it to become an Olympic event, alongside paint drying and grass growing. It seems that seven members of staff at Swindon's Great Western Hospital couldn't wait, either. In August this year, during a weekend night shift at the hospital, they got in a little extra practice, grabbing pics of themselves Lying Down (naturally) in such unlikely places as the hospital's resuscitation trolleys, ward floors and the Wiltshire Air Ambulance Helipad.

I think it's a little disturbing that allegedly intelligent, well educated individuals could be so limited as to find this entertaining. What's wrong with a book? Crossword? Casual sex in the on-call room? On the other hand, I've done my fair share of night shifts, too, and I know that sometimes entertainment has to be where you find it. A dumb way to pass the time it might be, but it's not as though they're doing any harm to anything other than their own reputation, and even that's restricted to the (unimportant, by definition, to the real world) sad buggers who hang out on Facebook.Or so, I think, these unfortunate individuals could reasonably be forgiven for assuming.

The Trust, however, thought (for want of a better word) differently, and promptly suspended the lot of 'em pending disciplinary hearings. It's difficult to imagine anyone, much less responsible individuals tasked with running an NHS Trust, having their head so far up their own asshole as to think such a step was necessary or desirable, but you don't get to be Miserable Buggers of the Year without sticking your neck out!

And so seven well trained (at public expense), highly skilled and much needed medical professionals have spent several weeks away from the jobs we pay them to do because their seniors have even less of a sense of humour than they do. They have garnered a lot of sympathy amongst the people whose health they're responsible for, while the Trust has, quite naturally, been lambasted mercilessly for its pathetic, nitpicking attitude.

Surely, surely, by now, somebody in a position of some responsibility at the Trust must have realised how much of a monumental fuckup the Trust has made of this issue, and how utterly ridiculous its stance has been? We know some very senior figures in the Trust have been paying an awful lot of attention to this blog's coverage of the debacle, but we can't say for sure whether they're in league with their beleaguered Chief Exec or are quietly scheming against him. We can hazard a guess, though! Isn't office politics fun?

Either way, the Trust has, according to the BBC , finally come to its senses and reinstated the suspended Lying Down Seven. While proudly announcing a total lack of dismissals, the Trust's spokesman apparently said,

"We're glad the staff are back doing what they do best. They need to understand unprofessional behaviour is unacceptable."

Seldom have I heard such outrageous bullshit. Participating in the Lying Down game during a quiet spell at work is not unprofessional. It might be a sad commentary on today's society, but it isn't unprofessional. On the other hand, depriving the tax-payer of the services of these staff members while the Trust goes through the motions of disciplinary hearings, and exposing the entire Trust to ridicule as a result, is truly unprofessional.

If Alf Troughton's mob really couldn't face the idea of younger members of staff getting some harmless amusement out of something their seniors can't understand, the appropriate thing to do would be to have a quiet word, in private, and make it clear that Lying Down is frowned upon. That would have been the grown up, professional approach, and it would almost certainly have worked.

Instead, by throwing its weight around, the Trust has created the impression that it is run by unimaginative, miserable, humourless bullies - just the sort of chaps we want to managing our healthcare. Not. It's going to take quite some time for the Trust to live that down, and it may well seem to some ambitious individuals within the Trust that a new man, or woman, at the top would be the best way to start. If so, maybe they would Stand Up for those Suspended for Lying Down.

James Landon

Related Links - Tickling the Swindon Trout
Media Articles - read here. Sphere: Related Content

BMJ BANS BMA MEMBER.

Fiona Godlee. Gagging Free Speech.

Since the reign of Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, we have had numerous complaints regarding the BMJ's stalinist control of Rapid Responses. For those who are not aware of Rapid Responses, it is essentially a forum of debate. The unfortunate issue is that it is controlled debate.

There is no doubt that the BMJ often prevents free speech and is clearly proud of it. Very few controversial posts are allowed on there. One such post was recently written by BMA member Dr John Hart. His response related to the letter issued to the US and co-signed by numerous people. The letter was entitled Setting the Record Straight About the NHS.

Having waited for sometime for Rapid Response to publish his opinion, he approached us. As the opinion was well written and a true reflection of the NHS today, we decided on publication. There is nothing libelous in the opinion piece therefore we have no idea what the BMJ's justification is for preventing publication.

Recently, he wrote to Sharon Davies in the following terms

"Thanks "very much. As this is a HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS I am writing under a pseudo name (ie Dr John Hart). Can you kindly please ensure that if published it goes under the the name Dr John Hart. I am a member of the BMA"

He then wrote to us

" I sent almost the same to the Rapid responses in the BMJ almost 2 weeks ago and it has not been published"

We present a Response written by a BMA member and clearly banned by the BMJ.

In response to the BMJ Open Letter by 100 NHS professionals & patients on “Setting the record straight about the NHS” by J Hart.

Patient choice

The NHS proudly performs > 500,000 abortions/year at tax-payers’ expense.

We have a recent report on cruelty to the elderly in the NHS

There are limitations on GP services, next year the government plan lifting geographical restrictions

When admitted to hospital, you can be lucky and be looked after by a caring highly skilled consultant or otherwise. In general, you don’t have choice and are assigned to a consultant (among whom there is huge variation in levels of care)

Care for those with pre-existing conditions

UK Private health insurance companies also fails people with pre-existing health problems. Governments must ensure that people with chronic illness get excellent health care.

Care of the elderly

I doubt if the average 77 years old man with a brain tumour (or most surgical conditions especially if complex) in the UK will have as good treatment as someone of 37 years. Neurosurgical units and ICU beds in the NHS are restricted which influences the consultant’s decision on whether to operate or not as in general older patients require more ICU care. There is no official age cut-off in the NHS but practice is often very different. There are at least 4 fold more specialists, ICU beds/million population in the USA than UK which gives choice.

Care of disabled people

Governments must ensure excellent healthcare for disabled people.

Free medication

Insurance

UK Private hospitals only give privileges to NHS consultants. Once appointed as NHS consultant you get both life tenure and private privileges. Only NHS consultant’s are allowed work in Private hospitals (or receive payment from BUPA)

The cost

If USA health care costs more, maybe that is the cost of competition, good for patient care the economy and employment.

There is usually a set fee to the Primary Care Trust per procedure which leads to a tendency to avoid surgery in more risky patients, whose operations may take longer, have longer hospital stays and may adversely affect statistics.

Background

The NHS is the third largest employer in the world with 1.4 million employees. In 1948, there was resistance by doctors to the introduction of the NHS. Bevan commented that he had to stuff the consultant’s mouths with gold. By this he meant that he had to introduce a merit award system which pays consultant’s extra and which New Labour renamed as clinical excellence awards. Awards are for life and may double a consultant’s salary & pension.

Government “Waiting list targets” are often met by paying consultants extra – classified as “waiting list initiatives”. Consultants often have additional remunerative NHS management roles. There is no competition to the NHS it is almost the sole provider of UK health care. Much support for the NHS is for personal reasons and most who signed this letter are beneficiaries of the NHS.

Politicians know that promising more for the NHS wins votes. Daniel Hannan is to be congratulated for triggering much needed discussion about UK healthcare. Healthcare is complex and I don’t know the answers – NHS, Medicare, Medicaid, Australia, Singapore etc.

Yours sincerely

Dr John Hart

Sphere: Related Content

GMC Visits The Gosport Files. The Tottering Times of A GMC Temp

The Temp CEO at The General Medical Council

It is clear that Paul Philip, the local Temp at the General Medical Council has been consuming vast amounts of cake during his reign. The above picture shows us how busy Paul Philip actually is. His priority of course is to wear a proper dress during interviews for the press. He was last spotted at a Laura Ashley sale wasting the GMC's medical subscription funds on a pink floral outfit. Christopher Bulstrode opted for a floral gown and mask for that truly feminine touch. Paul Philip insisted that Christopher Bulstrode check his high heels. He was fearful that he may not be able to master the skill of resident GMC drink maker. Apparently, he was spotted crying over the spilt milk in the Gosport case having repeatedly tripped over and fallen flat on his face. High heels were not suiting this particular GMC Temp. He was last spotted moonlighting at the General Social Care Council. Practise makes perfect when it comes to tottering in High Heels Paul!

For those searching for real macho men, they can be found in Gosport. One of them is the hunky Richard Kimble, the author of the most frequently read post this week. Gutsy Richard told the GMC how real men tell it how it is. Real men don't pussy foot around. Real men don't wear high heels and totter around the subject. Real men take action. Given this blasphemous suggestion, the GMC were found tottering all over his post in a nervous state.

We enclose the current logs showing the reading patterns of Paul Philip's resident cake makers. It appears that this is the first time they have read about the murders in Gosport. Now that we know that they can read, we hope the GMC will be able to use its memorandum of understanding and encourage the CPS to prosecute Dr Jane Barton - who too is no doubt eating large amounts of cake.

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name
IP Address 80.169.163.211
Country United Kingdom
Region -
City -
ISP Gb-colt-general-medical-council
Returning Visits 23
Visit Length 3 hours 13 mins 56 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution 1280x1024
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
13th October 2009 08:53:21 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/gosport-murders.html
13th October 2009 09:44:30 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/gosport-murders.html
13th October 2009 09:45:17 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/gosport-murders.html
13th October 2009 12:06:04 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/jane-ann-bulstrode-christopher-jk.html
13th October 2009 12:06:37 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/oxfordshire-trio-professor-christopher.html
13th October 2009 12:07:17 No referring link
nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/oxfordshire-trio-professor-christopher.html

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link http://www.nhsexposed.com/
Host Name mailhost.gmc-uk.org
IP Address 80.169.194.133 GMC
Country United Kingdom
Region -
City -
ISP Gb-colt-general-medical-council
Returning Visits 28
Visit Length 0 seconds
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution Unknown
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
13th October 2009 12:39:30 www.nhsexposed.com/
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/ Sphere: Related Content

Liz Miller in the Independent

Steady Heart Rate

We are all so proud of Liz Miller, not only does she show an immense amount of self control when standing next to tall, good looking men but she is and always will be a beacon of light for all doctors.

Here is Liz in the Independent. Just for the General Medical Council attention, I have cut and pasted the most relevant part for them :).

There is still, in her view, more to do. She is critical of the General Medical Council , the doctors' disciplinary body, which recently reformed its fitness to practice procedures. "In the past, doctors whose health was affecting their work were siphoned off into a separate stream by the GMC for assessment and treatment or removal from the register. Now, they have put them all together, examining whether their performance and skills are up to scratch, whether their behaviour is appropriate and whether their health is OK – and I think they are very different.

"Three friends of mine committed suicide while under GMC provisions. They were among nine doctors who took their own lives out of 214 who were under GMC provisions in 2004. If that had been an intensive care unit there would have been an investigation. I don't think that needs to happen. There has to be a better way."

Dr Rita Pal

Conflict of interest - fellow rebel blogger and regular plotting sessions over the net with Liz Miller. Sphere: Related Content

Margaret Haywood Wins. NMC Settles with Undercover Nurse

NMC Eating Humble Pie.

The NMC has had to eat humble pie. As everyone will recall, the NMC had struck off Margaret Haywood citing a breach of confidentiality. The BBC reports the settlement between the NMC and Margaret Haywood. The sanction has been replaced with a 1 year caution. This is a about turn by the beleaguered regulatory body who clearly felt unable to sustain their bizarre sanction. We all knew that the judgment by the NMC was misdirected and faulty. For a start, there was never a complaint by any patient as to a breach of confidentiality.

Peter Walsh for AVMA always keen to have the first say in the band wagon of publicity told the world

"This is a victory for common sense. Our only regret is that it has taken legal action in the High Court to arrive at it. Margaret Haywood should not have been struck off in the first place, and we hope that the NMC and other regulators will take note. Patient safety should always be a health professional’s primary concern. Health professionals have a duty to raise concerns, and if circumstances dictate that this needs to be done through working with the media that needs to be taken into account. It has always been our view that the NMC should have been more concerned about the failure to raise concerns or take action by other nurses and managers rather than Margaret Haywood’s technical breach of the rules. The fact that she had the support of patients and relatives including those whose confidentiality she was accused of breaching really said it all. AvMA is now working with the NMC on guidance on raising concerns and hopes that this will be coupled with clearer guidance on the professional duties not only to act on concerns about safety but to be open and honest with patients or their next of kin when harm has been caused – the ‘duty of candour’.”

There is always a first time for everything in AVMA's case since they have been tight lipped about their support for any other whistleblower in the National Health Service. It is therefore excellent to see Peter weigh in so eagerly for Margaret Haywood. The good thing about Peter is this, not only does he like to tell us all what to do, he is also fabulous in summarising the issues succinctly. Let us hope that as relays the information to the WHO patient safety workshop.

The joint statement by the RCN and the NMC can be read here. I must say that the RCN has done wonderfully for Margaret Haywood. By comparison, the medical defence unions and the trade union, the BMA are toothless.

The NMC said

Raising concerns about poor standards of care is a difficult and brave step for any nurse or midwife to take and is vitally important in driving improvements in patient care. One of the lessons of Margaret Haywood’s case is that nurses and midwives need clearer information about how to appropriately raise and escalate concerns in a way that is safe for patients and in a way that will not bring them into conflict with their code of conduct.

"We are currently developing guidance with patients’ groups, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, UNISON, Unite/CPHVA and organisations such as Public Concern at Work on how nurses and midwifes should appropriately raise and escalate concerns. This will be published in the summer of 2010.

“We are also taking steps to remind employers and managers of the need to establish clearer reporting procedures and to ensure that these are widely promoted amongst staff, so that nurses and midwives can feel confident that employers will listen to and respond appropriately to their concerns.”

Peter Carter who mounted a excellent defence and media onslaught on behalf of Margaret Haywood said

We are pleased with today’s outcome which means that Margaret will be able to continue practising as a nurse. In reaching this conclusion it has been recognised that, while the case raised complex questions about competing duties, Margaret had an unblemished career as a nurse and contributed significantly to the care of patients. We would like to thank patients and the public for the vast support they have given her.

“We consider the matter satisfactorily resolved and all parties can now move on.”

Peter Carter actually comes out as the real hero of this episode. At least the RCN never gave up on their whistleblower. It is also true to say, Panorama should never have been reckless enough to place a nurse in jeopardy. Had the roles been reversed, and had I done Undercover Doctor [ as asked by Panorama in 2000], I would have remained struck off. I am simply grateful that I did have the foresight to refuse the offer made to me by the Panorama researcher. I know full well that I would not have been defended properly by the toothless BMA or the idiotic Medical Protection Society.

Well done to the Royal College of Nursing. I certainly hope, the medical colleges use them as a shining example of how whistleblowers should be supported and defended. Of course, the bottom line to this issue was that Margaret Haywood was a cosmetic whistleblower, with the maximum support of the media, the Royal College of Nursing and Panorama [ not to mention, the finances used to support her]. Nevertheless, her bravery in caring nothing for her registration is laudable. Actual whistleblowers who raise concerns within their workplace have a longer road and more difficult road to travel. Many whistleblowers know that road only too well.

Dr Rita Pal

Related Interview - BBC Ulster. Scroll down to 0.45.49/2:30:39 on Good Morning Ulster.

Sphere: Related Content

The Gosport Murders.

Let me take you back to 2002 when one of our leaders dismissed someone for tying a patient to a commode.Yes, that was regarded such a serious offense but the murder of innocent elderly patients at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital? Of course not, especially if the offender Dr Jane Barton's alleged brother was Professor Christopher Bulstrode working for the GMC. A doctor is not allowed to cause distress whereby murder is permitted.

Bulstrode is the man who is a neighbour and close friend of Dr Neil Bacon who set-up http:www.iwantgreatcare.org. But don't search for Dr Bacon, as you may well be disgustingly shocked to see a man on 'Google Images' as he really is.

So how many patients were murdered at the hands of Dr Barton and Sister Hamblin? 5? 10? 93? 100's? or 1000's? You may well ask yourself why I have included Sister Hamblin in this equation but if you check the drug's register, you will see the evil single signature of this woman signing out diamorphine when she knew it was illegal and required two signatures. She obviously required it so badly but when you're on an undetected killing spree and your adrenalin is on a high when the day of a kill comes by, and you have run out, what to do?

We would all know the answer to the number of murders that took place in the Redclyffe Annex and the Gosport War Memorial if the government released the death rates. Why can't we see how many patients entered the Annex or Gosport's Cottage Hospital and either walked out or were carried out in a box? What's the government scared of? Is it the immortal words of Tony Blair when he said? "There will never be another Shipman" and spoken at a time when Dr Barton's regime were well established and well in front on murdering numbers.

Now let me mention the CPS, where everything stops or goes forward -unbiased, of course not? Government controlled of course. Reading so much about one of the most serious cases, did Mrs Ann Reeves not have a meeting with Mr Paul Close and QC Mr David Perry on the death of her mother Mrs Elsie Devine. A frail elderly lady who on the morning of her programmed death was reported as HAPPY, waiting for her daughter, not paranoid and said that tablets made her mouth sore. Did anyone check her mouth for ulcers, of course not? They simply injected her with 50mg of Chlorpromazine and 55mins after commenced her on a syringe driver with 40mg of Midazolam and a further 40mg of Diamorphine, all of which were established as 4 times separate overdoses. All of this whilst still wearing a 25mg Fentanyl Patch running at full strength and then walked for 3 hours until she fell unconscious, where she stayed comatose for 2 days until she died.

Did the GMC take this blatant murder forward for Criminal Prosecution, of course not? The QC David Perry just said sorry to Mrs Reeves “Mrs Damilola never got justice for her son either did she” Sounds like words spoken by God but it was and in hope that Mrs Reeves would go away. It appears now how wrong they were.

Now let’s come up to date, what has happened recently?

Oh! A strictly come dancer spoke out of turn and a presenter standing by him by saying it was said in fun received full coverage by TV, Radio, Media and everyone wants heads. Yet the murders at the GWH are not classified serious enough to give more that a couple of minutes. This hospital’s regime could well become the worst serial killers in history, well, outside of Genocide. So wake up all of you and do something about it and not allow the government to cover-up anymore. Let’s get this into a criminal court where it should be and get justice for the poor elderly patients who were prematurely taken from their loved ones.

Life is a one way street, and we should be cared for in old age so that we can spend our closing days with our loved ones until we leave this life through natural causes. In one of Mrs Reeves’ writings, I believe she spoke of how cruel it was that Dr Barton did not inform the family what was going on until she had comatose her mother. Not being able to say goodbye to your mother must be so difficult to live with.

NEVER give up Mrs Reeves you are a very brave lady to have fought such a remarkable long fight for justice.

When things go wrong, as they sometimes will

When the road your trudging seems all up hill

When the funds are low and the debts are high

And you want to smile but you have to sigh.

When care is pressing you down a bit

Rest if your must, but don’t you quit.

Life is queer with its twists and turns

As every one of us sometimes learns.

And many a failure turns about

When we might have won had we stuck it out

Don’t give up though the pace seems slow

You may well succeed with another blow.

Success is failure inside out

The silver tint of the cloud of doubt

And you never can tell how close you are

It may well be near when is seems so far.

So stick to the fight when you’re hardest hit

It’s when things seem worst you must not quit.

Regards

Richard Kimble

Ed Note - Many thanks for the contribution. Please will anyone with detailed knowledge of Gosport Memorial Hospital please contribute to this collection of articles. The above is presented as an opinion piece under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The calculated deaths of the elderly at Gosport Memorial Hospital cannot be couched as anything but unlawful killings. Simply because the CPS refuse to prosecute does not mean this isn't murder.

Sphere: Related Content

Gosport Deaths. Hail Emperor Nero Bulstrodius Maximus

Nero Bulstrodius Maximus.
Made in Oxford University.

Continuing on from my last episode of Rome is Burning, I felt it was only right and proper to write episode 2 of the continuing adventures of two legless, brainless and toothless wicked Emperors of the medical profession - Bacon and Bulstrodius.

The relatives of those who died at Gosport Memorial Hospital have set the profession on fire by virtue of their bravery, determination and courage. These few relatives who stand firm refuse to be beaten by those who rule Rome. Rome is Burning and the Emperors are eating grapes.

Luckily, Cleopatra has spotted the unforgivable stain on Nero's jumper that let the cat is out of the bag on his gluttony. Apparently, the GMC refused to provide the emergency bib.

The problem with the Gosport Memorial Hospital case is this. Only the local papers have reported the tales well. The rest of the media have remained tight lipped opting to provide us with small fragments of the evidence. No doubt, the BBC continue to eat the vast array of grapes provided by the Home Office.

Our aim is of course to expand the availability of such material on the internet so it is available internationally. This is what you do when the government has dictated a silencer on details related to these cases. I have had to rely on a cached copy of The News today. It is an interesting narration of how various reports have been concealed from the authorities.

Empress Jane Barton and Emperor Christopher Bulstrode [Now Ex GMC Committee member] appear to have nothing to say about the wealth of evidence available and withheld from the Inquest into the 10 deaths some months ago. No doubt, excavation work is ongoing to discover the asses' milk that is the key to immortality on the GMC register.

In 2001, just after Empress Barton had ended numerous lives, Emperor Bulstrode wrote in the BMJ. The article can be read here.

"The third meeting is needed by those held accountable by the public to uphold standards of safety. All professionals who are trained and then licensed to perform a potentially dangerous task on the public must have a regular objective external review of a their performance against defined standards of quality of clinical practice.⁴ This cannot rely on the consultants submitting evidence of their own competence (self assessment), because the system must be robust to lack of insight. Neither can it rely on simple peer assessment because this is not objective. Complaints by patients are only one important source for identifying unsatisfactory practice, necessary but not sufficient to do the job required.

There is nothing pleasant about this task. The public has the right to expect it to be comprehensive, quick, and merciless. A meeting that tries to blend the functions of mentoring, job review, and assessment cannot work: each has a different task and structure.⁴

At the moment we do not have the objective criteria on which standards of clinical practice can and should be regularly assessed. Only when we do can a statutory body undertake the duties the public has every right to expect if they are to have trust in the profession.

In 2002, the GMC was to reject one of the most important complaints in diamorphine abuse. In 2009, all the skeletons fell out of the closets for all Emperors.

So come on Emperor Bulstrode, let us [ the public] have your comments on Dr Jane Barton. You were very happy to comment on our website in the dim and distant past, cat got your tongue this time?

I am of the view that Bulstrodius Maximus thinks this entire issue will disappear or blow over and that I will move onto writing about something else. Well, that is unlikely for the time being. Essentially, what we need here [given the Bultrodius Maximus admissions all over the media] is a statement from Bulstrodius saying that Dr Jane Barton should be struck off.

Afterall, we look upon those educated by the esteemed Oxford University Medical School to lead the way for truth, honesty and justice. Afterall, Bulstrode is a Emperor specialising in "trips and falls" and we would hate to see the old hairless bald, toothless bib requiring emperor of Oxford tripping all over his words of wisdom. So, let us see whether Professor Bulstrode is able to be a man of his word. There is nothing pleasant about this task. The public has the right to expect it to be comprehensive, quick, and merciless. Hail Bulstrodius Maximus, we bow down to your wisdom and crave to have a grape stain like yours.

We look forward to you sending us a press statement on Dr Jane Barton. Nice to know a number of doctors from Oxford are reading our blog. Welcome to you all. Please stay on and debate on how common we are. I know it is a awful thing for commoners to challenge the Emperors of the medical profession. Anyway, that's what happens when the commoners and peasants are taught to read and write. It can get to be such a messy business when revolt begins and skeletons fall out of the esteemed Roman closets in Oxford.

What a surprise that both Chris and Jane Bulstrode have not been added to the list of famous Oxonians. I suppose we could suggest that they write up Dr Jane Barton, The Terminator Of Lives. And Professor Christopher Bulstrode, Her Lord Protector.

So, we shall see how long Bultrodius Maximus takes to stand by his pearls of wisdom. The public may wish to know that Christopher Bulstrode's and Neil Bacon's pet project of patient safety [iwantgreatcare.org] has yet to place Dr Jane Barton on their lists.

I searched for Jane Barton but it resulted in as follows "Doctors in Gosport called Jane Barton who are General Practice specialists". It says " Your Search found 0 Doctors". Jane Barton was inputted early last week by the Gosport families but alas we can't find her.

So iwantgreatcare is quite happy to input the names and defamatory comments of doctors without findings against their names but isn't happy to place up Jane Barton. Neil Bacon was last seen selling his tin pot website to the BMJ. It appears that Dr Neil Bacon told the world

"There is no better way of ensuring transparency, engagement, and dissemination than using the web to capture and share patients’ accounts of their experience"

In reality though, Common Purpose graduate Dr Neil Bacon appears to be blocking the relatives from Gosport from relaying their evidence based experiences of Dr Jane Barton. Ironically, their blog comments on Mid Staffordshire and exclaims - why was no body listening to patients.

At present, it appears to us that Dr Neil Bacon and Professor Christopher Bulstrode are not listening. The question is why? Anyhow, episode 2 of Rome is Burning will be due soon. Will Bulstrodius Maximus eat another grape? Will, the Emperor be able to consume said grapes without a stain on his jumper or his character?......

Until next time, I leave you with a summary of reports that has caused Rome to Burn.

Reports sourced from The News Portsmouth.

REPORT NUMBER ONE

Professor Gary Ford, expert in pharmacology of old age at Newcastle University.
Report not revealed to jury.

Investigated five elderly patient deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital at the request of Hampshire Constabulary.

Two of those – 88-year-old Robert Wilson and 79-year-old Arthur Cunningham, known as Brian – were the subject of the inquests.

Prof Ford branded levels of diamorphine administered through syringe drivers 'reckless' and 'poor practice.'

And he said Mr Wilson's rapid deterioration after being admitted to the Dryad ward at the hospital could have been caused by the diamorphine he was given.

Alcoholic Mr Wilson, who had a broken arm, died four days after being admitted on October 18, 1998.

Prof Ford, whose evidence was handed over to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2001, said the skills of nursing and non-consultant medical staff, 'particularly Dr Barton, were not adequate'.

Concluding his report, he wrote: 'Routine use of opiate and sedative drug infusions without clear indications for their use would raise concerns that a culture of involuntary euthanasia existed on (Dryad] ward.'


REPORT NUMBER TWO

Professor David Black, an independent specialist in elderly care, consultant geriatrician at Queen Mary's Hospital,Sidcu, Kent, and chairman of the England Council of the British Geriatrics Society

Details of report partially revealed to the jury.

Professor Black was asked by Hampshire Constabulary to look at the elderly patient deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

He was called on to give evidence at the inquests but Andrew Bradley, deputy assistant coroner for Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire, ruled the jury would not be given the full report and it would not be read out in court.

In giving evidence, Prof Black raised concerns about the levels of medication given to 88-year-old Elsie Devine prior to her death.

He told the jury: 'I remain concerned about the levels that were given and I would want to see and hear the justification for it.'

He said doses of morphine given to 82-year-old Leslie Pittock, who died on Dryad ward on January 24, 1996, were 'more than I would have conventionally expected, and I was not able to find a reason for that in the notes'.


REPORT NUMBER THREE

Details of report partially revealed to the jury.

Dr Andrew Wilcock a consultant in palliative care at Nottingham City Hospital and clinical reader at the University of Nottingham's school of molecular medical sciences.

Hampshire Constabulary called on Dr Wilcock to look into the deaths of 10 elderly patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

Dr Wilcock had conducted research into pain relief medication prescribed to 100 terminally-ill elderly patients in Nottingham. He found the median dose of the drug prescribed to them in the last 24 hours of life was just 40mg – far lower than doses given to some of the 10 patients at the Gosport War Memorial who were the subject of the inquest.

During evidence he said there was 'no defence' for giving elderly patients excessive doses of powerful drugs at the hospital.

Dr Wilcock said he could find 'no justification' for the wide range of morphine and sedative doses prescribed to some patients, and 'disagreed completely' with the pre-prescription of 20mg to 200mg of the painkiller diamorphine to some patients.He also criticised poor note-keeping by GP Jane Barton.

Dr Wilcock also claimed Dr Barton exposed patient Elsie Devine to inappropriate and/or excessive doses of midazolam and diamorphine that could have contributed to her death.

But his full report was not fully released at the inquest.


REPORT NUMBER FOUR

Professor Richard Baker, head of the Department of Health Sciences and professor in quality and healthcare at the University of Leicester

Report was not revealed to the jury.

Professor Baker was drafted in by the chief medical officer to conduct what is believed to be an audit on deaths of elderly patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

Liam Donaldson called on Prof Baker following his independent report into murders of more than 200 elderly patients by serial killer Harold Shipman in West Yorkshire.

It is believed Prof Baker's report shows an increase in deaths at the hospital in the 1990s.

The government has so far refused to publish the report, despite appeals by relatives, and a request made under the Freedom of Information Act by charity Action Against Medical Accidents.

The Department of Health says it could be used as evidence if the General Medical Council decides to hold a fitness-to-practise hearing for Dr Jane Barton – the doctor at the centre of the inquest.

And Andrew Bradley, assistant deputy coroner for Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire, announced that he would not take the report's findings in evidence before swearing the eight-strong jury in at the inquest into 10 elderly patient deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.


REPORT NUMBER FIVE

Toxicologist Professor Robert Forrest, an honorary professor at the University of Sheffield and a world leader in his field.
Report was not revealed to the jury.

Led a team of four experts who investigated drug doses at Gosport War Memorial Hospital after being commissioned by Hampshire Constabulary.

The screening team – which consisted of four doctors including two experts in palliative care and a nurse – produced notes and minutes which were handed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

It is believed the teams findings were then handed to experts for analysis and to help form part of subsequent reports.

A number of the deaths were categorised as being 'of serious concern'.

However, Andrew Bradley, deputy assistant coroner for Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire, decided not to call Prof Forrest to give evidence.

Following a short debate on day one of the inquests Mr Bradley decided – before the eight-strong jury was sworn in – that the team's findings would not be presented to them.

Sphere: Related Content

Dementors Fail to Spot The Terminator

Christopher Bulstrode and Jane Barton Effect The Expecto Patronum Spell

In the year 2000, a piece called Elderly Helped to Die in the Sunday Times was downloaded by the General Medical Council. Amongst the allegations of poor care were those of inappropriate diamorphine use. The GMC was then informed by me by letter of the same issues. The Department of Health was also informed.

Between 2000-2002, the GMC had reversed the investigation onto me culminating in a court case. While large investments were made into the two year discreet inquiry into me [ the whistleblower] in 2002, the General Medical Council rejected a complaint made by the relatives of the elderly patients who died in Gosport Memorial Hospital. I find that fascinating because - having been told repeatedly that inappropriate diamorphine use was a problem, the GMC cast aside cases detailing this was the case.

This is what the General Medical Council promised

"I also believe passionately in fairness, both to patients and to doctors. At a minimum, processes and procedures should be fair, objective, transparent and free from unfair discrimination. Decisions should be made on the basis of clear, transparent criteria, with all relevant factors taken into account and irrelevant factors excluded. We should investigate legitimate concerns fully and thoroughly; and act swiftly to protect the public interest when this is necessary. We should equally swiftly conclude complaints against doctors when their fitness to practise is not in doubt; and we should be sure of our facts if a doctor’s livelihood is at stake" Professor Graeme Catto

The General Medical Council was recovering from a number of high profile scandals and telling the world they had improved.

Paul Philip, the current temp Head Honcho of GMC Towers told us as follows

"The vast majority of doctors do a good job under increasingly difficult circumstances but patient safety must come first.”

He told Onmedica

"“But where our standards have not been met, we must - and will - act to protect patients and the public interest."

So let us see if Paul Philip was able to stand by his words.

This is the decision related to Elsie Devine . Everyone can read about Elsie Devine here. Elsie is like any patient in the National Health Service. She was a frail elderly lady at merely 8 stone with renal problems. Patients like that need to be taken care of. No one took care of her but they did effect her demise. In ordinary criminology, these kinds of events are called murders or manslaughter or killings. In the NHS hospitals, they are called inappropriate prescriptions causing death. The language used is important because the NHS often couches it in warm fluffy terms.

Logical deduction would lead any doctor to understand that most neuroleptics may be toxic to her. That is a basic fact of life in patients with renal problems. Logic would also lead us to believe that a small dose of Lorazepam 0.5-1mg would have caused sedation. A dose of diamorphine 2.5mg would have caused treble the effect. Those of us who have played with diamorphine know that a small dose is likely to knock out our elderly patients. This is why we are extremely careful with the elderly. Now, the usual BNF guidance on all drugs is usually to halve the doses used for a average weight adult when treating the elderly. The elderly tend to be highly sensitive to drugs in general. Those of us who have used neuroleptics are also aware of the high level side effects of neuroleptics when given to the elderly. The Chlorpromazine entry in the BNF states " Elderly or debilitated third to half adult dose". There is a reason for these warnings.

So, we have to ask ourselves, why a patient like this who signed her pension book in the morning and was quite happy to chat to her family was given a combination of Fentanyl, Chlorpromazine, diamorphine and Midazolam within 1 hour. We have to ask ourself, what was Dr Barton's aim? It should be remembered that all these drugs have a cumulative effect. So what would the effect be of high doses of those drugs administered to a frail elderly lady all together? Well, she would die. So, Dr Barton's rational aim was to end her life. There cannot have been any other aim.

The General Medical Council can be seen to assess this issue at here in 2009. Refer to allegation 12 Patient K. The General Medical Council tells us that the patient was suffering from multi-infarct dementia although no proper assessment was ever done and neither did they look at the CT scan results.The radiology results have mysteriously gone missing. I disagree with this assessment of multi-infact dementia but for these purposes of argument, we shall follow the GMC's own logic right through.

Dr Barton and cohorts may have the argument that she was suffering from dementia. So for instance, lets take end stage dementia where sedative drugs may be prescribed. Of course, no one we have ever treated with end stage dementia was ever able to sign their pension book. As the GMC will be aware, signing a pension book requires the preservation of high level motor and cognitive function. Indeed, on previous day, a psychiatrist trotted onto the ward and penned the following

"Happy, NO complaints, waiting for her daughter, obviously not paranoid says tablets make her mouth sore, no change in medication"

The mere act of a signature and the communication with the psychiatrist requires a number of steps. This certainly wasn't end stage dementia.

In any event, anyone with end stage dementia at 8 stone would be completely sedated by a very minimal dose of just diamorphine. There was no requirement for huge levels of medication enough to kill 2 horses. This analysis is based on Dr Barton's probable logic and the various medical justifications that may have been mooted.

The drugs were

1. Fentanyl 25ug [ given the day before the rest of the medication 18th November 1999] which continued

19th November 1999

2. Chlorpromazine 50 mg [intramuscular injection] [ discussion below]

3. Diamorphine dose range 40-80 mg
4. Midazolam dose range 20-80 mg

Both over [3] and [4] over 24 hours S/C

So, orally, the above drugs would have flattened the patient. Given S/C, [subcutaneous] the effect would be twenty times worse

Just before that of course, there was Chlopromazine 50 mg stat. Errrm yes, I wonder who would be brave enough to roll in with that kind of dose in a person at high risk of hypotension. If the GMC are postulating that the patient had multi-infarct dementia, I wonder how they could justify a neuroleptic in a patient who would be highly sensitive to EPSE [Extrapyramidal side effects]. Those with dementia are highly sensitive to the side effects of neuroleptics. Here is an interesting 1992 study Dr Barton may have heard about at the time she prescribed the medication.

The conclusion is as follows

"Severe, and often fatal, neuroleptic sensitivity may occur in elderly patients with confusion, dementia, or behavioural disturbance"

If the GMC are going to plead an absurdity like multi-infarct dementia then they are going to have to stand by their logic and look into the Chlopromazine. Was chlorpromazine appropriate? Why wasn't a short acting benzodiazepine appropriate? If it was Dr Barton's understanding that Elsie had dementia then let us hear her justify her reckless prescribing of neuroleptics in a allegedly demented, physically ill, frail 8 stone lady who signed her pension book.

Having dealt with the elderly, I normally would tip toe in with baby doses of benzodiazepines and monitor the effect for a number of hours and titrate accordingly. And I have dealt with some problematic elderly patients on medical and psychiatric wards and been hit by on the head with a large handbag by about 3 patients. In those 3 patients who were about 9 stone, I prescribed 1mg of Lorazepam. They were asleep in one hour.

The terminal half life of a drug like chlopromazine is about 30 hours and variable due renal problems. So we have to assess the cummulative effect of all these drugs together. I have no idea why the GMC have left omitted this drug but there we go. Thats the GMC's rationality for you. Completely divorced from reality.

So, lets recap, we have a frail old lady with renal problems who would probably have been sedated with a minimal dose of a benzodiazepine or diamorphine 2.5mg - who was then given a massive cocktail of drugs. And we shouldn't beat around the bush - the drugs were given to kill the patient.

So with all this history in mind, we go onto assess what the General Medical Council did the first time around in 2002. None of us understand why the screeners at the time [ who were probably all council members] decided to dispose of this case. It isn't one of those borderline cases. It is barn door case. Any reasonable screener would have pushed this to hearing given the case law of R v GMC Ex Parte Toth. The case law essentially gives the green light to cases of evidential dispute to go ahead in the procedures. During that period, it must be remembered that the Shipman Inquiry was underway. Phase 2 of the Public Hearings commenced in March 2002. The Final report was published in July 2002. A month before the report, the General Medical Council issued the letter below to Elsie Devine's relatives. The leaders of the GMC walked into the Inquiry and shamelessly told Dame Janet Smith that things were improving.

The original decision can be downloaded here. For ease of reference, I have typed it up here. Essentially, the GMC threw out the complaint in 2005. Following the inquest and expert reports, the GMC were forced to reconsider their initial misguided and laughable decision. Dr Barton is currently being tried for this case as we speak. Could we say that the screeners below misdirected themselves on the issues before them? Which part of the cocktail of drugs given wasn't understood then?

Our reference 2002/0553
11th June 2002

Dear Mrs X

Dr Jane Barton [1587920]

I am writing further to our previous correspondence concerning your complaint about Dr Barton and to thank you for providing us with your mother's medical file. I trust that this has now been returned safely to you.

Your complaint has now been reviewed by both a medical and non-medical member of the Council responsible for considering complaints and information about doctors' conduct and performance. Both members have asked me to pass on their condolences for the death of your mother.

The Medical Act 1983 [ as amended] gives the GMC powers to take formal action in response to a complaint or information about a doctors conduct or performance only where there is evidence that the doctors behaviour is so serious that it could justify restricting or removing the doctors registration. The Act describes behaviour of this sort as " serious professional misconduct" or " seriously deficient performance". Whilst not specifically defined in Act, a generally accepted definition of these terms is conduct or performance which is so seriously below the standard expected of a doctor that it calls into question that doctor's right to registration.

Having carefully studied all the available information the members do not consider that the actions of Dr Barton raise any issue which could be regarded so serious as to justify formal proceedings which may result in the restriction or removal of her registration.

In reaching their decision the members noted that your complaint has been the subject of a local review and also independently considered by the Office of the Health Services Commissioner [ the Ombudsman] and that both reviews had sought professional advice and guidance on nursing and medical issues.

The members accepted the criticisms contained within the reports that there had been recognised failures in communication for which the Trust had apologised and which, as a result, had led to the inrtoduction of new procedures to ensure improved communication between medical and nursing staff and patients and their relatives or carers. However, by a similer token, the members also accpted the professional views that the clinical response to your mother's care was appropriate in the circumstances. Whilst fully acknlowledging your dissastisfaction with those findings, the members did not consider that the informjation as a whole raised any issues if serious professional misconduct or seriously deficient performance on the part of Dr Barton.

I am sorry to send what may understandably be a disappointing response to your complaint but, for the reasons given above, we are unable to take this matter further.

Yours Sincerely

Michael Hudspith
Fitness to Practise Directorate
GMC Towers.

So lets go back to Paul Philip's [GMC] crowings.

“But where our standards have not been met, we must - and will - act to protect patients and the public interest"

Thanks Paul. We believe you [ NOT]

In 2009, Geriatric expert Professor Ford told the GMC hearing Dr Barton's prescriptions were 'not justified, reckless and potentially very dangerous'. Gary likes to flower up his words. All professors do. Any barn door jobbing doctor would agree, that combination cocktail of drugs listed above would "kill" a frail elderly patient.

Just for a comparison here, Michael Jackson's doctor has been charged for manslaughter by administering a fraction of the above drugs. Dr Barton has not been charged. Nevertheless, she killed a number of patients. If Dr Barton will allow me to say "'it won't be long now' before the CPS does charge her. Perhaps the GMC could use their memorandum of understanding and refer the matter for prosecution :) or perhaps putting that pen to paper is a difficult task for Paul Philip the Temp CEO at GMC Towers. Cat got your tongue Paul?

Dr Rita Pal

PS Welcome to those at the GMC who spent a number of hours reading the Barton Tales yesterday. Any rogue doctors to catch these days? Ah yes, we have killer on the loose with "conditions". Silly me thinking they should be in prison.

Extract from our logs

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link http://www.nhsexposed.com/
Host Name
IP Address 80.169.163.211 GMC 2
Country United Kingdom
Region -
City -
ISP Gb-colt-general-medical-council
Returning Visits 26
Visit Length 0 seconds
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution Unknown
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
6th October 2009 13:50:40 www.nhsexposed.com/
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/

Sphere: Related Content

Dr Jane Barton. The Terminator. Made in Oxford University

How many visits to Gosport Memorial Hospital?

I feel physically sick. I have read some material from the Gosport Memorial Hospital. It has shocked me. I never ever thought I would read such documentation from the NHS.

I feel as physically sick as the first time I saw senior doctors end perfectly viable elderly patients. In those days, I was told I was too oversensitive to the shortfalls of the system. I then discovered that this kind of action was widespread.

As junior doctors, you sit quietly, observe what is done and move onto the next day. We all know it's wrong. We all have stories to tell but most of us are not free to tell them. The product of the code of silence is further unnecessary deaths of patients. I believe the reason this has happened is because we have all sat in silence. There are many ways to end a person's life. Drugs are dangerous. Inappropriate doses kill patients. All doctors know that.

In those days, I had to remain silent and occasionally go down to the toilet and vomit quietly after witnessing an illegal death. I have seen it a few times - prescriptions of death designed in "the patient's best interests". I must have heard that tiring phrase many times over. This was done by failure to feed, failure to provide fluids and on occasion a PRN prescription of diamorphine. I understood many things but apparently I didn't understand that this was the way things were done. It had been done for many years and I was asked to accept the way the world worked. I came to the conclusion that this cultural flaw of lethagy was all about economics. It is economical for the government to ensure controlled death. This becomes an unspoken law of how things are done. Perhaps its social adaptation. I have no doubts that Jane Barton certainly thinks that this is the way things are done - because let's face, it some doctors may well tread the path towards the God Syndrome.

I am not a pro-lifer. I am a person who became a doctor to ensure patients had a right to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. Many elderly patients do not have a say in what happens to them. I saw doctors as people who delivered information so patients and their relatives could make the best decisions for themselves. I didn't see myself as the prime decision maker. I don't think any good doctor sees themselves as a ultimate decider of life or death. Our job is to technically halt death.

Not all doctors end life prematurely in the way Jane Barton did. Most doctors care about life. Barton though has a indifference to life in general. There is a school of thought that perceives the disabled and the frail as not worthy of saving. Perhaps, that is her view.

I knew of Jane Barton a long time ago. During the year 2000, my warnings to the media were sparked by her and others like her. I have monitored her ways for quite sometime. She makes us embarrassed to be doctors. She makes all of us embarrassed that our hands tied. All good doctors should stand by those fighting in Gosport. We should stand by them to support them. Yet we won't do that because all of us are too fearful of what will happen to us as doctors. We will simply watch the drama unfold. Each news story comes and then disappears. We pay no attention to the daily struggles in the families' search for the truth. We lead our lives. That is what we as doctors do. We have left this group to fight the most important battle of them all. It is an embarrassment that we aren't brave enough to stand by hand in hand to demand justice. I am one voice of a former doctor and my view makes little difference although it has always been offered freely. I am able to do so because I have never cared about losing anything. It is though natural for doctors to care, they have much to lose and nothing to gain by supporting controversial issues. It is a cultural flaw that obstructs their freedom.

The authorities have led them all on a wild goose chase. I know about wild goose chases because the same authorities have led me on one. As the Gosport Campaign group have found - slowly there are trickles of justice after endless paperwork, endless research, endless fights, endless letters to MPs etc.

Few of us sit silent in disbelief. Surely, Dr Barton could not have ended lives this way? Well, I have seen some of the doses used, high dose neuroleptics, midazolam and diamorphine combinations. The combinations are so high that they would kill a horse never mind a frail elderly lady. There was only one intention by that combination of medication. The intention was to cause death. Death often isn't painful and most people die painless deaths. It is possible to die without an injection of drug cocktails. Amazing isn't it? Few doctors understand that concept.

I know no doctor who would prescribe medication to that level unless their intention was to end life. We can call it murder or manslaugher - it is still killing. Indeed, I have never seen it done with such a massive cocktail of drugs despite working in elderly care, elderly psychiatry and general medicine. Sure doctors have used single doses of diamorphine that have made patients keel over or made rash decisions about the futility of life. The doses on in Gosport are out of this world. Normally, a very small dose of diamorphine would knock out an frail elderly lady, why on earth did Jane Barton prescribe multiple cocktails? Some of these doses and regimes are beyond belief for me.

The GMC will couch it in many terms. The fact remains is that they should hold their heads in shame for screening those complaints out in the early part of this decade. Barton insists that she did everything in the patient's best interests. Well, you know something Jane, that defence is getting to be a bit like a defence union formulated broken record? I wonder why Jane and her husband appear so smug these days? Is it because their connection - Christopher Bulstrode GMC Council lessened the blow? Must be great to have connections.

That's the reason why Barton currently works in the NHS and I as a whistleblower have been constructively erased for 2 years. We shouldn't think anything of such things. The NHS and Department of Health made their choice of type of doctor they wanted.

Dr Barton had more doctors supporting her than I have ever had. I could never say the following " I thank my colleagues for supporting me" because none of them ever have. And that says something about the medical profession we all exist in. It tells us that few are prepared to stand by whistleblowers but many are prepared to make numerous justifications as to why Barton should still continue to work.

This is what one poster said :-

What were Tim Barton's only words "We are pleased that the jury found that these deceased died of natural causes" - what an appalling man. Even a non-medical person would question whether organ failure was deemed 'natural' after a lethal overdose. Then during the GMC he sat smiling at Jane when the Chair read to her the charges. "your prescription and administration caused severe respiratory depression and premature death" - doesn't sound so 'natural' to me. The Government needs to get behind these families who have done the public an amazing service in getting this out there. When Blair said there would never be another Shipman - he clearly meant that there would never been one that we would 'know' about. They have protected a killer to make their 'system' look like its working and its time that the public got behind these families and force the hand that's working all of this to finally give them the answers they deserve and get this woman behind bars where she belongs!

I wonder how other doctors feel about the favourable treatment meted out on Plain Jane. There is Dr India, on a severe condition regime, Dr Pakistan on a 18 month suspension for - lets just note this eh " intemperate correspondence and rudeness". There is Dr British Indian who was struck off on one UCAS error at the age of 19. What of all these doctors? They aren't killers. They are simply GMC determined misfits who are politically incorrect. In the eyes of the GMC, these are the doctors to be sanctioned but Dr Barton is the doctor they have allowed in the NHS for the last decade.

So, I emailed the GMC because I wanted to know about the numerous numbers of people supporting our diamorphine happy Dr Jane Barton. I know its not a popular thing for the establishment to find that their Oxford qualified golden girl has actually ended the lives of so many. Apparently, I am not allowed sight of the transcripts just yet. It's all supposed to be a big secret from the public despite the GMC's crowings on "transparency and consistency". Mind you, Finlay Scott did say that "Transparency is like a greenhouse, you can look in but you can't enter the room". Anyhow, this was the GMC's response.

"I confirm that we will provide you with copy public session transcripts at the conclusion of Dr Barton's hearing. Please note that the panel has yet to consider and decide whether Dr Barton is guilty of serious professional misconduct and, if so, whether it should make any direction regarding her registration"

It is interesting to note that the Interim Order Panel hearings are all held in secret as well. I wonder if Christopher Bulstrode sat in just next to her? That would be for moral support of course.

Bulstrode remained silent when he watched many innocent doctors fall foul of the GMC's assasinating knife. He has though remained tightlipped about Jane. Of course, these are the doctors who wallow in the higher echelons of power, who exist by looking down on the rest of us mere mortals and tell us that we don't know what we are talking about. The real issue here is this - we do know what we are all talking about. We know what is right and what is wrong. Our lines are not blurred.

Anyway, I think it is always nice to see how much the GMC and all the authorities missed so here is the 1991 documentation from the hospital. Concerns of diamorphine overuse were being raised from 1991. Where was the GMC, the police, the authorities? Asleep no doubt. In the event anyone attempts to remove this document, I have other copies and other spaces untouchable by the current Labour government. By the way, I should welcome the General Medical Council who have been camped on this website for some hours today. Clearly, they have nothing better to do than stalk a small website in cyberspace. Please do return back because I am due to publish the GMC's catastrophic mess-up on this case during the early part of this decade. All in the name of transparency of course.

Download a full copy of the Gosport Hospitals Internal Documentation.

Dr Rita Pal

Conflict of Interest. Raised concerns on inappropriate use of Diamorphine and poor elderly care on the 2nd April 2000 Elderly Helped to Die Sunday Times. Department of Health spent an excessive amount of their resources undermining my concerns and defaming me. Their documentation can be read here. It was made clear to me that any concerns raised on elderly mistreatment are summarily dismissed by the authorities. I am also told that there is a directive by the government not to prosecute diamorphine cases. Indeed, this trend is shown by the CPS's stance in many cases UK wide.

Gosport Memorial Hospital's campaigners have made history with their hard work and persistence over a decade in uncovering bad practices that are well known in various hospitals in the UK. I hope their cases finally serve to highlight the nature of involuntary euthanasia in this country.

Sphere: Related Content