Regulatory Bodies and Equality of Arms

Dear Diana Wallis, Timothy Kirkhope, Andrew Brons, Godfrey Bloom, Linda
McAvan and Edward McMillan-Scott,

Re Regulatory bodies and equality of arms

I wish to raise one very important issue with you.

In the UK there are several regulatory bodies for certain professions e.g. the Nursing and Midwifery council for nurses (www.nmc-uk.org), the General Dental Council for dentists (www.gdc-uk.org) etc.

As you may be aware in 2005 the ECHR ruled in the case of Steel and Morris Application no. 68416/01 15 February 2005 that there must be equality of arms in any legal proceeding and criticised the UK government for lack of legal aid.

This ruling has a profound impact on the regulatory bodies.

These regulatory bodies are funded by their professions. If a practitioner is subject to any form of investigation the prosecution has access to a huge pool of money drawn from the practitioners' annual retention fee. However these monies are not made available to the defence. If the practitioner’s trade union decides not to assist the practitioner then he may be without a defence.

The prosecution in effect has access to an unlimited pool of money. If you are subject to proceedings there is no legal aid to defend yourself. In some cases I have known accused practitioners to have to re-mortgage their homes. In one case I know of one doctor -who had a very strong defence – could not afford a legal team. As such he had to voluntary remove his name from the medical register.

Worse still if you are found innocent there is no means to recover the monies spent. The accused will be left with a huge financial burden for several years.

If you are sanctioned by a regulatory body then you do have the right to an appeal at the High court. Very few cases get legal aid. However the regulatory body will still have access to the huge pool of money drawn from the doctor’s annual retention fee. The sanctioned practitioner may have no means of supporting himself during the period of time between the sanction being imposed and the appeal hearing. Many
end up on income support or benefit. The reason being that if the sanctioned practitioner applies for a non medical job the first thing the employer will ask is why a doctor is applying for such a post. When the accused reveals a GMC finding then all hopes of employment ceases. However at this stage the doctor may well have to repay a mortgage.

At an appeal hearing the regulatory body will still have access to the doctors’ annual retention fund. However the appellant will not.

If the appellant loses then he will have to pay the regulatory body's costs which can worsen the situation.

I am therefore asking you to write to the appropriate commissioner to take action on this. I believe that if the Steel and Morris principle is to stand then the regulatory bodies should have to fund the defence and give a refund to all those practicioners who have had to fund their own defences since the Steel and Morris judgment was handed down.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely
Sushant Varma

"Investigate and Disband the GMC" Says Gosport Campaigner

http://www.doctors4justice.net/2009/10/current-aims-and-objectives.html

Dear Ms Mills,

1. I work for Doctors4Justice, a pressure group with the aims as set above.

2. The case of Dr Jane Barton has exposed the weakness of the General Medical Council once again. I have read your press statement that you plan to read the transcript of her case and consider referral to the High Court.

3. There are many cases of doctors who have done no harm to their patients but have been struck off medical register. Your organization has remained silent in all of those cases. Why?

4. There are doctors who are harassed for many years by the General Medical Council through the process of sham peer reviews, and who are ordered to undergo physical and psychiatric examinations for which there are no indications. I can provide a lot of evidence for that and you know about it too. Why you have done nothing about it?

5. Sanctions not indicated or workable are imposed by the GMC especially on Foreign doctors as a revenge for raising the issues in the interest of their patients and public. As a whistleblower I know all about it. Will you continue to avoid this issue?

6. I won many prizes at school and outside. I worked hard and conscientiously but 15 conditions were imposed by the GMC on my practice making it impossible to find a job only because GMC machine belongs to some doctors and not to others. Do you agree with this statement? Are you aware that there is such a thing as racism, sexism and ageism in NHS? Are you aware that as the result of these prejudices referrals are made to the GMC by the prejudiced doctors, for example? Are you aware that the GMC does not respond for years when requests are made for disclosure of information eg referrals of female doctors for psychiatric examinations?

7. GMC conducts sham peer reviews at the request of NHS medical directors who are racist but GMC fails to deal with doctors whose care of the patients is severely compromised. Dr Jane Barton is just one example of those doctors who seriously fail their patients.

8. Am I correct in saying that government is actually complicit in the elimination of the elderly and mentally ill people by doctors through their acts of commission and omission? These most vulnerable people who no longer pay taxes could be seen as a burden to the society. Do you condone such practices?

9. Similarly, do you approve of the elimination of foreign doctors in order to please local "gangs" ie professionals who are bullies and abuse the legal process by making false allegations to the GMC? Have you ever wondered why nobody is ever punished. What are your policies to deal with mobbing? Do you know what it means?

10. Do you agree with the GMC that their Expert Witnesses who give false evidence and know it should go unpunished contrary to the law and GMC's own Code of Medical Practice?

11. On your website CHRE I found this statement:


The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence promotes the health and well-being of patients and the public in the regulation of health professionals. We scrutinize and oversee the work of the nine regulatory bodies that set standards for training and conduct of health professionals.
We share good practice and knowledge with the regulatory bodies, conduct research, and introduce new ideas about regulation to the sector. We monitor policy in the UK and Europe and advise the four UK government health departments on issues relating to the regulation of health professionals. We are an independent body accountable to the UK Parliament.


12. I also found this statement on CHRE website:
Our mission
We protect the public by:
helping the regulatory bodies to improve their performance
setting and driving up standards for health professions regulation
encouraging greater consistency of regulatory practice and outcomes
shaping future developments in the regulation of health professions.

13. How do you manage to achieve your objectives if, in fact, you never examine consistency of regulatory practice in cases of disadvantaged doctors who are dealt with in a draconian fashion. As far as I know CHRE always refuses to look at the cases of excellent doctors who are treated badly by the GMC and CHRE is only interested if punishment is not severe enough. If the sanctions are imposed on a doctor who subsequently cannot work and patients die because of the lack of medical care CHRE does absolutely nothing.

As CHRE does nothing to protect excellent doctors would it be fair to say it is merely an extension of the government keen to deal with what is considered dangerous decision by GMC in one case but not in the other and contrary to your objective to have the consistency in the regulatory body decision making? How can you decide what is consistent and what is not if you do not examine it?

14. This email has been copied to the Human Rights Advisory Committee at United Nations because of the violations of the Human Rights both by the GMC and your organization.


Kind regards,

Dr Helen Bright
Doctors4Justice.net

Andrew Wakefield. Tears Before Bedtime

Stars in Pink and Pearls

Andrew Wakefield and his family have appeared in the Daily Mail. The piece hails Andrew as some kind of MMR hero. The Daily Mail article can be read here. Essentially, what can be read here is a list of traumas suffered by a upper class family. "Suffering" is all relative.

Of course, none of them really know what junior doctors or senior doctors go through when they lose their job, their family and support from their friends. Andrew Wakefield though had all that. He has a cushy job in the US, large amounts of money and star status. While we are provided with this tale of woe, we are all supposed to consider Andrew some kind of leading hero or whistleblower. Some of us who have been harassed by the General Medical Council for decades are not given such a hero's welcome. Doctors without the star status of Andrew have to make it on their own through the quagmire laid down by the General Medical Council. Their suffering is of course overlooked. I doubt they fit into the "happy families" box.

The General Medical Council has spent millions on a hearing when a 3 day trial would have done. The more they have bashed on at Andrew Wakefield, the more of a hero he has become. Lay mothers everywhere want to make him the speaker of the truth. Wakefield should remember that he had such a conviction for the truth that he ran out of his own libel case. Of course, the MPS ran with him like the large hens they are.

This opportunist who presents the public with his tale of woe, is on £200,000 per year. The Times article exposed this some months ago.

"In 2006, only months before the Department of Health announced that he would face GMC charges, he sold his house in Kew, London, for just over £1 million and bought a retreat in an exclusive suburb of Austin for $905,000 (£629,000).

Dr Wakefield, a gastroenterologist, told The Times that he was not practising medicine in the United States, where he does not have a licence, but was working on research as executive director of the clinic. His salary is understood to be almost £200,000 a year"

Of course, for any opportunist, it is advantageous to create a tale of woe so he is catapulted into legendary status by the MMR campaigners. Wakefield becomes an evangelist and as we all know religions don't require evidence to make large amounts of money.

Anyhow, for all those who wish to read some evidence based material, please read Brian Deer's website.

Of course, the other man on trial is Martin Walker. Apparently, if we are to believe the gossip mongering in the medical profession, his girlfriend ran off with Finlay Scott [ Ex Chief Executive of the GMC] so there is a certain conflict of interest there. Apparently she may have married Finlay. We certainly know that Fin's wife is a doctor.

Of the GMC, we should say that this has been a complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, legal fees and publicity. I believe doctors would want their GMC subscription fees to be spent wisely. Although, I suspect these days, they often turn a blind eye to the extensive hemorrhages of money occurring at the GMC.

As for Wakefield, he can return to his £200,000 job as advisor and spin us further tales of his high class woes Of course, we know more doctors who have suffered far more at the hands of the General Medical Council. These doctors stories are silent because the media at large are not interested in the catastrophic constructive erasures conducted upon decent doctors working in the National Health Service.

Will Dr Jane Barton be struck off?

We are now approaching the General Medical Council’s decision-making day on Dr Jane Barton… that is if anyone thinks they are capable of making a decision on this case? It certainly has been proven to be a very difficult task for the GMC; pushing paperwork round their establishment for some 12 years trying to justify how Dr Jane Barton can be allowed to practice.

It is very difficult for the public to understand how their system works. When you see good doctors struck off for “whistle blowing” – FACT! A number of people have ended up having to turn to the GMC with their complaints only to be let down time and time and time again.

Their code of practice is “Guiding Doctors-Protecting Patients” yet it appears to me that the GMC have not quite grasped the meaning of this. It is also extraordinary that the “Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence” (CHRE), that investigate into complaints have not started a serious investigation of their own? There again, those who have been through all these Government/Bodies will understand that it is like trying to tumble down the walls of Jericho and that is why probably some Doctors can, and do get away with Murder - in this case it appears with the assistance of our Health Service (NHS). I feel sure that if these alleged murders ,which could well go into the 100’s at the hands of Dr Barton were in a private establishment, then she would already be in prison.

Dr Barton has been called a Monster on National Television, hearing and seeing her at both the Inquest and GMC; I can understand where the families are coming from. This is a woman who has no conscience, she appears unstoppable and an untreatable predator. It is chilling to listen to her arrogant replies to anyone’s questions regarding her reasoning behind the overdoses of Morphine.

It is also concerning that the Barristers for Dr Jane Barton, Mr Langsdale QC and Mr Jenkins, turn to Dr Karol Sikora to ‘defend’ her. Dr Karol Sikora is a doctor specialising in Cancer patients, - ONLY ONE of these patients had cancer. Dr Karol Sikora, the same Doctor ‘hired’ to examine the “Lockerbie Bomber’s” state of health; the criminal whom he said had only weeks to live. Not surprisingly he lives on.

Dr Sikora considers that the morphine given in these cases was a small dose. Never mind that these patients were not in pain, terminally ill, and nor were they opiate tolerant. Mr Langsdale never considered asking those questions while trying to strengthen Dr Jane Barton’s defence. I would be very concerned under Dr Karol Sikora’s care if he considers the amount of Diamorphine given to these patients was a small dose. What amount of diamorphine will Dr Karol Sikora administer to his cancer patients if this dose is small? Very frightening indeed so all be careful under his care!

Brave nurses blew the whistle in 1991 on Dr Barton’s alleged killing of patients with morphine through Portable syringe drivers. Syringe drivers that she introduced when she took up her new post at Redclyffe Annex and Northcott House. The nurses were subjected to endless meetings with the attendance of Dr Jane Barton and made to feel like trouble makers and bullied into either leaving their posts or remaining silent.

What chance did they have to stop her practices and why was this allowed to happen and why was it allowed to continue? I think we all have to ask Mr Max Millett the Chief Executive of the Portsmouth Healthcare Trust for the answer to this! One year’s worth of meetings, letters and concerns continued from February 1991 until January 1992, all those letters and minutes landed on the desk of the Chief Executive Mr Max Millett but did he deal with it? No, he put it in the shredder and awaited his golden handshake. As he/they been made accountable? No! He/they received a big payout in 2002 along with Tony Horne and Ian Piper who were also aware of Dr Jane Barton’s regime.

No doubt whatsoever the GMC decide, there will be no remorse from Dr Jane Barton. No apology to the families from her for their loved ones who were put to sleep worse than animals without justification or knowledge that they would not speak to their loved ones again. Her smiles and laughter at the GMC tell you all you need to know about this woman! When the chairman at the GMC said that her actions caused severe respiratory depression, and premature death, she did not hang her head in shame, she turned to her dedicated husband Tim an Ex Naval Doctor and they smiled at each other…. No doubt Dr Tim will be by her side at the GMC for the verdict, or will they hide at home like they did at the Inquest?

How much more will these families have to endure to see justice?

They have had a shambles of an Inquest at great cost to the taxpayer where the Coroner Mr Bradley refused the jury sight of all the evidence and allowed witnesses to clearly perjure themselves on the stand without question. Mr Bradley will not release the transcripts; he thinks he owns them, for the time being that is.

Let us look at what Dr Jane Barton has so far cost the taxpayer as this government continues to try and cover–up her malpractices:

1. 3 Police Investigations
2. Commission of Health Improvement (CHI) commissioned by Sir Liam Donaldson
3. Professor Richard Baker commissioned by Sir Liam Donaldson to do an Audit on the deaths at the Gosport war Memorial Hospital, that report Sir Liam Donaldson will not release.
4. An Inquest of 10 deaths at Portsmouth Magistrates Court
Now we all wait in anticipation for the General Medical Council!

BUT most of all we all wait on the CPS and Mr David Perry Q.C. to put Dr Jane Barton in a criminal court. Or is the Government machine going to stop it for a third time – after all, they’ve had the opportunity to prosecute twice before.

Rest assure JUSTICE will be done.

J Marples

Saha v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1907 (Admin)

Source - Penningtons.co.uk

As the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is to protect the reputation and standing of the profession, rather than to punish the practitioner, factors of personal mitigation carry less weight

This involved an appeal against the decision of the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP) that the doctor's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and ordering his erasure from the register.

The appellant surgeon had a contagious medical condition. NHS guidance required healthcare workers with that condition to undergo tests and to refrain from work in certain circumstances.

The GMC became aware that the appellant had undertaken tests other than through formal NHS screening procedures (as required by the NHS guidance). The GMC made a number of requests of the appellant to provide information as to his current and past employers, but he failed to do so That failure was found by the FTPP to have constituted misconduct, leading to a finding of impairment of fitness to practise and his erasure from the register. The appellant appealed on several grounds:

1. Although it would have been 'better' if the FTPP had indicated distinct consideration of the two issues of 'misconduct' and 'impairment', there is no requirement in all cases for there to be a formal 'two stage' process.

The court held that 'the requirement under the Act is that there are two 'steps': the panel must consider whether there has been misconduct and further whether that misconduct is such as to impair fitness to practise. Whilst misconduct is about the past, impairment is an assessment addressed to the future albeit made in the context of past misconduct'. It was held that the FTPP had considered both issues and found, broadly, that one and the same facts gave rise to the misconduct and the impairment. The approach was not erroneous as a matter of law.

2. It was held that 'impairment' is not only an 'elusive concept', but is essentially a matter of overall value-judgement, as well as being a matter of professional judgement. Further, the court noted the concept of impairment in the fifth Shipman report, where one of the four possible bases of impairment cited by Dame Janet Smith is where the practitioner has, 'breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession'. The FTPP finding of impairment was upheld.

3. It was held that the FTPP is essentially concerned with the reputation and standing of the profession, rather than with punishment of the doctor, and thus factors of personal mitigation carry less weight. The court held further that particular regard should be had to the special expertise of the FTPP, being the body best qualified to judge what measures are required to maintain the standards and reputation of the profession. The court did not accept the appellant's argument that either a short period of suspension or the imposition of conditions would have been an appropriate and sufficient sanction. The court held that the FTPPs 'decision of erasure was proper and should be upheld'.

Download the case here.