Dr Esperanza Cabal acts contrary to Catholic Church wishes

Dr Esperanza Cabal sworn in By President Arroyo (on the left) as Acting Health Secretary in January 2010 already has Catholic Church Bishops asking for her dismissal. On Valentine Day she ordered distribution of condoms which Catholic Church opposes and claims that it would not help the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Philippines have 40% of population earning about $2.00 a day and population control as well as health improvement are obvious needs. Last year Philippines recorded over 800 new cases of AIDS.
In UK Labour administration did not have such a problem with condoms but they certainly do when it comes to the wearing of religious uniforms in inappropriate settings. I am not talking about fetish here, but the needs of mentally ill to be given free space to trust their doctors and nurses as well as their social workers who do not wear uniforms unless they happen to be Catholic Mother Superior.
When Mother Superior gets a job in UK as a social worker all the ethics flies out of the windows and Health Ministers away from their jobs.
Pathetic state of affairs. Maybe UK should have a woman with courage to put the right policies through rather than kneeling Health Secretaries who put their personal interests first and patients second.

Support Elsie's Law

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION ELSIE's LAW

On November 21st 1999 Elsie Devine died at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital her life was shorten without justification or logic. Elsie was not a lone in meeting her fate at the hands of Dr Jane Barton there were many other elderly.

Elsie did not have a incline when she kissed her son good night that she was already on the terminal pathway and that the very next day she would be drugged unconscious and nor did her family. Elsie did not deserve her life to be terminated, let alone without her or her family’s knowledge. Elsie is one in many and this practicing must be stopped.

After 4 Police investigations, an Inquest and a GMC hearing it is clear that Elsie’s life was terminated at the will of one person; the Doctor who saw her as a bed blocker and worthless.We the undersigned petitioned the Prime Minister to create a law that states caring professionals alone do not have the legal right to start a patient on drugs that are included in the Liverpool Care Pathway, without the consent of either the patient or the next of kin.

Drugs used in the Liverpool Care Pathway have been under much speculation. Although an audit of Care of the Dying, by the Marie Curie and the Royal College of Physicians in 2009 found that nearly 4000 terminal patients found the framework to be of high quality, there is no doubt that some patients remain at risk.(Full Audit)) 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 by 4% only needed low doses of opiates.

However, there have been cases where patients have been started on high doses of opiates and sedatives via infusion and died prematurely.

We should not have to fight for justice after death; the law should be there to protect us when we are alive.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/

When the ‘system’ fails who will protect us when we are too vulnerable to protect ourselves. Read the full story here.

Mr Gordon Brown, PM, Anger Management

Today I read about our PM allegedly having temper outbursts, sometimes with swearing, thumping of upholstery and throwing of small items at the staff/advisers at 10 Downing Street.

London dinner parties must be lively tonight with numerous jokes about what one can do with a mobile phone, newspapers, pencils and tins of Coke when faced with infuriating subordinates. As I am busy blogging I have to entertain myself by making up some things:

Q What you do with an empty can of Coke?

PM: Throw it until you get a call from National Bullying Helpline. After that recycle.

Q: What do you do with a pencil?

PM: I use it to sharpen the minds of my advisers. After that I use pencil sharpener. (See PM's artistic potential in the right upper corner. Is there an Occupational Therapist who could resist giving him urgent assessment?)

Q: What do you do with newspapers?

PM: Read, then throw at my advisers. After that recycle both.

Q: What do you do with your mobile?

PM: Make it more mobile. I let it fly at my advisers. After that recycle both. Ask Sarah if Naomi Campbell has a spare one.

I am a compassionate Consultant Psychiatrist having suffered false allegations of madness for more than ten years thanks to the incompetence of my colleagues and the General Medical Council (GMC) in London.

Our dear PM would be delighted to know that GMC investigator, one Bill Sukhbir accepted a complaint from a Labour Party member and GMC FTP panelist, Dr Peter Jefferys , that I discharged a mentally ill person to a hotel. Must have been NHS Hotel Grand, as the patient was on Section 3 (compulsory admission to hospital) at Northwick Park Hospital, NHS. Wonderful achievement both for Labour Party and myself. Our NHS hospitals are now better than ever.

One thing that may help Prime Minister is the knowledge that GMC can produce a list of Hired Guns, psychiatrists one can depend on to write anything for a payment. Presumably, these are exactly the sort of people PM should avoid. I have the list and it is free of charge.

I am not worried about PM's mental health. Firstly, he is not female. Although, allegedly temper problems started in 2007, the same year GMC had assessed twice as many female doctors by psychiatrists compared to male doctors. Gordon is definitely a man. No, Ms Harriette Herman, Equality Minister, he is not equal to others. The man has got an advantage, and I can prove it. And you do not need my address, you know who I am.

Anger management is very easy. The only thing that is required is to change one's expectations. One has to stop projecting one's intelligence onto others.

Having lived in communism I do know about passive aggressive behaviour from those who have no incentives to do better. One finds those kind of personalities in state institutions.As the previous administration is known as the religious one and according to Bible expression of anger is a sin, I wonder if Mr Brown, a son of a religious person has finally liberated himself from some bad habits of keeping it all in.

Samar Singh Discusses " Student Fitness to Practise"

Bare Bones of Student's Fitness to Practise.

For information regarding the manner in which the GMC treats medical students who raise valid concerns about inequality - see www.examfraud.co.uk . Following the piece regarding Professor Timothy David's role in Student Fitness to Practise issues, we present the following as a historical snapshot of how matters have developed. Essentially, Student FtP is a pointless concept that only serves the establishment and not the public.

We refer to the article below first published in the Times Higher Educational Supplement on the 21st July 2006. Following the furore regarding medical student regulation, we felt it was important to turn back the time clock and analyze a number of issues.

"Medics riled by training reforms" Claire Sanders
Published: 21 July 2006 [THES]

Medical schools reacted with alarm this week to news that the General Medical Council could lose its regulatory role for undergraduate education, writes Claire Sanders.

In what is being seen as the biggest shake-up in medical regulation in 150 years, Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has proposed radical changes to how doctors are assessed and disciplined, many of which will mean a reduced role for the GMC.

The move is in response to criticisms of the GMC by Dame Janet Smith, chair of the inquiry into the Harold Shipman murders.

Katie Petty-Saphon, executive director of the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, said: "The GMC has an outstanding track record in safeguarding the standards of undergraduate medical education and stimulating curriculum reform. This success has been recognised internationally."

Sir Liam is proposing transferring these roles to the newly established Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board. "This will enable the approach to curriculums, standards and inspection in medical education from undergraduate through to postgraduate to be addressed more seamlessly than at present," says his report, Good Doctors, Safer Patients.

Dr Petty-Saphon said: "The training board is a fledgling organisation that is only just getting to grips with major reform of specialty training. It simply lacks the experience and infrastructure to take on regulating undergraduate education, a task the GMC does extremely well."

Medical schools are calling for the role of the GMC to be extended to cover postgraduate training, rather than see a transfer in the other direction. While many of the reforms were widely anticipated, the decision to remove undergraduate education from the GMC took medics by surprise. Sir Graeme Catto, president of the GMC, said: "We had no idea this was on the cards. I have asked Sir Liam if he was dissatisfied in any way with our work and he said 'no'." But what he wrote in his report is in public domain and it makes sense! (Kindly read ‘archive’ on “GMC and medical education (‘Meducation’)” below).

Dr Petty-Saphon added: "The proposed transfer would erode the essential autonomy provided by the current reporting structure." Under the proposals, the GMC will report to Parliament, whereas the board reports to the Department of Health.

The board was set up last year to oversee postgraduate medical education, including the second year of the foundation programme that all medical students undertake in hospitals.

The British Medical Association was also concerned about the proposals, which are out for consultation until November 2006.

Archive on “GMC and medical education (‘Meducation’)”:

Further to the news item in 18th May 2006 issue of Hospital Doctor [‘GMC to advise on ‘student-FTP (Fitness-to-Practise)’] here are , some common-sense observations on GMC’s bungling of medical education in particular & medical regulation in general.

1. Student FTP is a silly misnomer. As everybody except the arrogant clerks at GMC would understand, one doesn’t get ‘license to practise’ until after passing their basic medical qualification examination MB BS or MB ChB, etc., and naturally isn’t fit to practise’ as a medical student. A qualified doctor gets ‘full registration’ only after completion of a year’s supervised practise as PRHO [nowF1]

2. Fitness-to-learn’ (FTL), perhaps? If the GMC (clerks or Catto) meant ‘fitness-to-learn’ (FTL) then this must be the most crackpot concept by GMC to date! Ivory-tower-vultures are wrong again as assessing prospective ‘wannabe’ doctors’ ‘fitness to learn’ is the remit of the universities at the admission stage through UCAS and GMC rightly should have no say in it.

3.Medical Curriculum and educational standards: But of course, under the Medical ‘Act’ the GMC was responsible to set medical curriculum, to supervise and maintain standards of medical education (‘Meducation’) in UK. GMC’s greedy fiasco of exporting PLAB to the third-world over past 10 years resulted in draining young medics from these countries and effectively putting them out of circulation and out of pocket. The GMC were filling their coffers in the style of the colonialist 21st Century East India Company! Sir Liam must be right and seamless regulation of all stages of medical education by one single body makes obvious sense.

4. Back to GMC’s brain-storm of ‘student-FTP’. Students qualify to enter medical schools on their academic grades, then they are like a lump-of-clay in the Meducators’ hands! If the universities couldn’t impart that education to adequate standard, it can be the fault of the system, not the individual and the buck would stop with the University-schools, or again the GMC. It can not be the fault of a student’s ‘fitness to practise’… “studying”; precisely.

5. Even thinking of “judging on any medical student’s fitness-to-practise” is preposterous; and can be compared to diagnosing a newborn baby with ‘feco-urinary (stool-urine) incontinence’, ‘learning disability’, ‘autism’, ‘dyslexia’, ‘ADHD’, etc.’ all at once and then declaring it "unfit to become an adult" in its bare infancy!

We have stalwarts like Count Peter Rubin as the then Chairman of GMC’s Education Committee who mistakes ‘campus-conduct and disciplinary procedures’ as the impossible “medical schools’ current FTP proceedings” for students. Who can blame the GMC clerks for their incompetence?

Perhaps Prof Rubin needs a Frankenstein designed 440 volt to make him understand that a ‘yet-to-be-licensed-to-practise’ medical student can not be ‘danger to public’ any more than any other uni-student ‘trashing the student-bar’!

Mr Irfan Halim was stating the obvious that GMC is unfit for the purpose (see attachment Dame Janet Smith’s lecture before RSM in May 2005, published 2006). There is over 23 years of catalogue of blunders and gaffes in opaque, inconsistent and patently incompetent medical regulation by the GMC since the Medical Act of 1983; to cap with the recent indictment of Prof James Drife, a GMC member, medical screener & Catto’s rival who was found guilty of ‘serious professional misconduct’ of being directly instrumental to Richard Neale’s spate of maiming mayhem up and down England for 14 years.

What did GMC do to Prof James Owen Drife, who gave 2 references to Richard Neale [even without knowing him professionally] and 'screened out' a complaint about the same Neale while sitting as medical screener on the GMC!

Nothing much! They just ousted him from the GMC [to Catto’s relief] which stopped him ‘being a medical screener’! “Protecting patients, or protecting Drife-Neale?”

It goes to prove that subjective professional regulation by the GMC (GentleMen’s Club) in UK-NHS has been strategically protective of the GMC, for the GMC (GentleMen’s Club): people in grey suits with English birth, who fit into the club; including people like Shipman, Neale, Ledward, Kerr, Haslam, Drife, etc.

Time and again, the GMC has failed public and doctors alike. Most of GMC’s significant decisions are overturned by High Court on referral by CHRE, or on appeal; trampling the doctor under multiple jeopardy in the process, funded by doctors alone!

The Shipman Inquiry has found GMC unfit for the purpose of medical regulation [as well as revalidation] and recommended that this should be conducted by ‘anybody but GMC’. Dame Janet Smith has recommended that GMC should be removed from the FTP function which is unconstitutional by its nature, as it breaches doctors’ Human Rights.

This is because the GMC has all 4 functions converged into one body.

These are

(1) the legislative (“Rules on Good Medical Practice”),
(2) the administrative (conducting investigations on doctors in response to complaints from public, NHS-employers and other bodies ---but not from other doctors of junior grade and/or or alien-origin!),
(3) the judicial (subjecting doctors to inquiries on their professional conduct or performance and making findings of ‘serious professional misconduct’-SPM or ‘seriously deficient performance’-SDP; both without any objective definitions or thresholds) and
(4) the executive (suspension or erasure of the doctors from the medical register). In other words, GMC is the kangaroo-court of ‘MP-police- jury- judge-executioner all rolled in one’. This is just like how Saddam Hussain’s rule was in Iraq.

If a shop or a business provided substandard service, consumers could complain to the Trading Standards. With the GMC, they are vastly incompetent but there is no recourse in the law to the wronged. This state of affairs is untenable. The best way forward to end this ‘double jeopardy’ against doctors seems to be by ‘removing the incompetent body GMC --the ‘weakest link’-- from the process of medical regulation. GMC should be abolished.An organisation who cannot get its own house in order is in no position to judge medical students.

As Prof Richard Baker once put it, ‘a fantastic opportunity for the government to make medical regulation more accountable to public’.

All ‘complaints against doctors’ should be processed by CHRE and heard by court judges, so that fairness and transparency are maintained and doctors victimised wrongly could obtain due redress for malicious or unsustained complaints. This could also mean that 100 good testimonials would (as they should) be considered in ruling on an honest mistake or a clinical error, and findings of SPM could be considered ‘spent’ after, say - 5 years.

This would also diffuse the “blame culture” prevalent in medical practice [which could never be entirely free of a certain small amount of unaccountable risk].

Samar Singh

LAWYERS AND CPD (Continuous Professional Development)

I was shocked to discover that in UK lawyers do not have to do more than 16 hours of CPD per year and that in some countries there is no compulsory CPD at all. So if the lawyers are living in the darkness like mushrooms, is it really good for them or the public?

While some lawyers have managed to defend themselves as not having a prescribed form like doctors, I think, 16 hours a year is a joke.

It is a bit like keeping women uneducated for centuries, except that today's lawyers have at least one university degree.

And as if memory was not an exponential decay curve.

I predict that this will change and that in the future lawyers will have at least 40 hours of CPD per year.

Psychiatrists in UK have at least 170 hours of CPD per year and not because we are mad.

Afterall the less one knows the more one is likely to be abused and used. Click on this link and watch.

SCAPEGOATING and WHITE GOAT

So much human energy and lives has been wasted in scapegoating others for deficiencies within the system or individuals in positions of relative authority.

(click on the paragraph above to read more about psychology of scapegoating)

Today in countries where human violence is regulated by law, intimidation and harassment may arrive on written paper, especially for professionals. The written content of scapegoating material is of such low quality that the best use of such paper is to make it into toilet paper.

Now Japanese have finally made it come true for the rest of the world. Click on the link below to watch the video of the White Goat:

I guess, our regulatory authrities could make a good use of it. In fact, there might be a family size one produced soon for every home to have one. No need to guess why.

Maybe, there will be a reduction in the price of toilet paper after elections in many countries, as the demand drops and production increases when wild shredding starts taking place.

12 Complaints against Legal Representatives of the GMC

This is a Freedom of Information Request result that was sent by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. These statistics are interesting as is the response of the SRA. We have often postulated that the reason that complaints against representatives of the GMC are not taken up is because the SRA employs an an ex GMC henchman as their member. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in the SRA's decision making nevertheless in conversation with Anthony Townsend, he denies there is a conflict of interest after his own assessment of the matter in question. He also denies the existence of a list of "difficult doctors" at the GMC. This conflicts with the current statement by a ex GMC Committee member which states

"The GMC dropped the case and Jeffries then reported her to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority BUT the real rub here is that the CE of the SRA is none other than Antony Towsend who from 1991 until 2001 was a senior official investigating docs in the GMC and he especially kept the list of what he described to me as difficult doctors. He went from the GMC to be CE of the Dental Council and then onto the SRA"

Freedom of Information Request – Our Ref: FOI/BS/326

I write further to my emails of 13 and 14 January 2010.

Please find below the response to your request for information under the Law Society's Freedom of Information Code of Practice ("the Code").

Your request was for the following information regarding Antony Townsend::

Please confirm

1. When he worked at the General Medical Council. The time periods would do. During this period it is rumoured that he had a informal list of doctors who had uncomfortable personalities. Please will Mr Townsend confirm whether this is true or not.

This is personal data and is being withheld under section 16 of the Code

2. During that period please confirm which solicitors at the GMC he had day to day contact with.
This information is not held by the Law Society.

3. In the last 10 years, how many complaints has the SRA or its predecessor received regarding legal representatives of the GMC. If so, what were the outcome of these complaints. Please provide this in a table.

Final Outcome

Complaint/Allegation upheld but no action 1
Complaint/Allegation not Upheld 12
Customer has not responded 1
Complaint outside our jurisdiction 1
Within jurisdiction but investigation declined 2
Grand Total 17

Please see the following explanation to put the information in the above table into context:

The table is limited to those allegations of misconduct where either the subject firm was recorded as the GMC or the subject solicitor was recorded on the SRA database as employed by GMC at the point of the complaint. So it would not include any complaints made about solicitors acting for GMC where they were not employed by the GMC. We do not have a way of identifying solicitors acting for GMC, if they were employed by another firm that was the subject of the complaint. So the table does not include information about solicitors instructed by the GMC.

4. Please outline whether the solicitors complained about in point 3 also worked with Anthony Townsend at the GMC.

This information is not held by the Law Society.

I hope the above information is of use.

Yours sincerely




Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green – keep it on screen

PRAYER DOES NOT WORK

Yet another case of a child dying because prayer was used instead of the medical treatment. Click on this link to read about the case in Oregon.

The above event reminded me of the General Medical Council in UK as a religiously biased body where religious fanatics can exercise their power over doctors, remove them from the workforce and kill patients as a consequence. They sit as members of Fitness to Practice Committee and decide on doctors registration which is an essential legal requirement to practice as a doctor.

There is religious bias in British courts too. Ms Cherie Booth QC is a subject of complaints and investigation by Office of Judicial Complaints (OCJ) because of her conduct of Miah case. Click on link below to read more about Miah case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245506/Cherie-Blair-spares-violent-queue-rage-thug-religious-man.html

However, medical profession's regulatory body does nothing to repair the damage done to innocent doctors caused by their own Fitness to Practice members.

A doctor who judged me at my Fitness to Practice hearing wrote in his book how he prayed for his patient in his surgery for her chronic headache, shivered violently, felt something cold skid across the floor and leave the room. A demon, presumably. He also wrote about his belief that demons cause epilepsy. He has been left with unblemished GMC record, I assume, and is free to go and work anywhere in the world.

Those doctors who declare their conflicts of interests that should exclude them from the hearing process at the General Medical Council in London carry on for many years at GMC and elsewhere.
The same applies to those who do not declare their conflict of interests but should. These doctors can practice and earn millions completely unafraid that they would ever have to face justice.

Thinking is not illegal and neither is acting responsibly.

Injustice to Insurers, Zurich

I cannot believe just how slow I have been in realizing what has been done to medical insurers by medical profession.

As human being when we are ill we want the best medical care there is. Doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of patients and this would include excluding those doctors whose performance is poor so that the best possible medical care is available at all times.

However, when doctor is wrongly accused and mobbed by those doctors who are less capable, jealous, vindictive mobbing has occurred. Excellent doctors have been kicked out by their own profession by further incompetence at the General Medical Council. This is particularly true in the cases of vulnerable doctors such as foreign doctors in UK.

Doctors have to be insured when practising medicine and Zurich provided insurance to both Medical Protection Society (MPS), Medical Defense Union (MDU) , solicitors and barristers.

What MDU and MPS did was to provide weak defense for the mobbed doctors (or none at all) at the General Medical Council instead of taking the vexatious complainants to court and seeking court order for those doctors to pay court costs, damages and Insurance costs.

It is obvious that in the case of a mobbed doctor insurers would be reluctant to pay several times huge sums of money for the mobbed doctor and for the mobbers who would all seek from insurers to pay their lawyers.

Psychologists and sociologist know that when something horrible happens to a person (eg severe burns causing disfiguring of face) they are perceived by normal human beings as likely to have been less attractive BEFORE they got burns.

Beautiful people when exposed to the same imaginary injustice (without any disfiguring) as less attractive people are perceived by normal people to have suffered greater injustice. In other words beautiful people have suffered more, in the minds of the normal people performing psychological testing.

Psychologists found that attractiveness is also related to self perception and that there are people who are xenophobic. Research by medical doctors in UK has found racism in medical profession.

Medical care in UK depends on foreign doctors, and science is international as are the insurers who provide global services.

Therefore, doctors should be made personally accountable for the damages they have caused to insurers and their victims.

"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

Measles, Autism and Stock of God

As if there has not been enough controversy regarding Measles, Autism, vaccinations and the proceedings against Dr Andrew Wakefield before the General Medical Council (GMC, UK, now I feel I should write an article about it.

I met Dr Andrew Wakefield during his GMC hearing in 2007 which was running concurrently with mine. I introduced myself to him because I went to the Royal Free Medical School where he did some of his research and where I studied medicine. As a psychiatrist I had enough experience of looking after patients who have autism to know how difficult it can be. We exchanged a couple of short polite phrases and that was it. I did not think I would ever meet him again and did not see any reason why I would write about his case before the GMC until today when I discovered some historical aspects not known to me previously.

Dr Andrew Wakefield's case is complex due to many factors including political interests which is completely natural in the case of measles, illness that killed estimated 200 million people in the last 150 years.

The history of measles starts with political controversy around the second century when two Roman Emperors died from either measles or small pox and further five million people including one third of the Roman Army. Famous Roman physician of Greek origin Galen described the epidemic. (His father wanted him to be a politician or a philosopher).

However, it was Persian doctor Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Zakariya Razi who described measles as a separate disease in ninth century. He was a genius of his time who also founded paediatrics (amongst other medical specialties). His classic description of measles included fever, diarrhea and inflamed pharynx. Therefore, it was known for centuries that measles can cause gastric problem in acute infection.

The first known case of autism was probably described in nineteenth century although not under that name.

In 1911 Eugen Bleuler used term autism to describe one of the features of schizophrenia ie social withdrawal. The origin of the word is from Greek "autos" meaning "self".

In 1943 Leo Kanner described Early Infantile Autism, now believed to be a group of neurodevelopmental disorders distinct from Schizophrenia.

In 1944 Hans Asperger described a syndrome with some of the features of autism but in people who had normal or high IQ.

Viruses that cause measles, mumps and rubella can cause central nervous system damage each in their own right. Various syndromes have been described for example congenital rubella.

The matters can be further complicated by the fact that viruses can be reactivated in human body many years after the initial infection.

Autistic people do have a high incidence of GI problems. Some are simple such as constipation. Others are difficult to understand.

It is known that measles can cause enteritis before any vaccination is given.

Thus, there is nothing illogical in the fact that Dr Andrew Wakefield and his co-authors decided to study autistic children and gastrointestinal problems.

The allegations about the conduct of Dr Andrew Wakefield were made by a journalist working for Times newspaper allegedly owned by Rupert Murdoch Empire whose son sits as a director on the board of a company producing MMR vaccine (since May 2009). The allegations by Times journalist were made prior to this appointment.

Rupert Murdoch, I discovered only today received Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great from Roman Catholic Pope in January 1998 and made large donations to Catholic Church ($10 million contribution towards the construction of a new Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles). One wonders what confessions would be heard by catholic priests from media people in LA and if any would go any further. The knighthood, bestowed on behalf of the pope is given to persons of unblemished character who have promoted the interests of society, the Catholic Church and the Holy See (Vatican).

The role of Catholic church is infamous when it comes to mentally ill. For example, during Nazi period in Germany Operation T4 was conducted by government's department to eliminate mentally ill and deformed leading to murder of 100 000 mentally ill Germans and forced sterilization of about 200 000 German people from 1939- 1941. Both doctors and church were complicit and only protested after so many died.

Apart from his generous donation to Catholic Church, Murdoch bought Beliefnet in the hope of reaching out to millions (80 at least)surfing the net. Millions of emails are sent with heavenly news by Beliefnet. Somebody named Rupert's ownership as 100% Stock of God. Ideal business in many ways as no production costs or storage required for heavenly matters. Beliefnet is not just about supernatural, it contains news and entertainment links.


This is what Beliefnet advised me:

The Moon's return to your sign today reminds you that you have more options than you previously realized. Although this is an exciting prospect, it also poses problems of its own, for you might not be able to decide which course of action makes the most sense. Don't waste energy spinning your wheels trying to force an answer now, for it probably won't be the right one unless it comes to you easily. Wait for your intuition to guide you in the right direction.

Wow! What a revelation.

And what would Catholic church say about horoscopes:

"The Church Fathers were willing to impose strong sanctions against astrology to protect their flocks. In A.D. 120, the noted mathematician Aquila Ponticus was excommunicated from the Church at Rome for astrological heresies. In the quotes below, Augustine records that such sanctions were still in force in his day, three centuries later, and could result in a person’s being excommunicated. "

The General Medical Council accepted a doctor who thinks that demons cause epilepsy and mental illness and even headaches . He prayed for his patient's headache before the patient in his NHS surgery, shivered violently and felt something cold skid across the floor and leave the room.
This Christian extremist also believes that God is formed in the image of man. Presumably, not deformed and not mentally ill.

GMC never acted responsibly by accepting that Article 6 of Human Rights was breached in my hearings even when they had the firm evidence of the overwhelming conflicts of interests. They continued to harass me with endless requests for psychiatric examinations and supervision despite the fact that I never had any mental illness and they knew about it for years. I never harmed any patients and was declared not a danger to public by their own findings which did not stop them from imposing 15 conditions on my practice making it impossible for employers to give me work in a medical specialty known to be a shortage specialty. In 70% of the world's population there is 1 or less psychiatrists per 100, 000 people. GMC commanded that the world must know about the conditions they imposed on my practice and that I must not accept a post abroad without informing them and the employer abroad.

At another hearing before the GMC, they employed a Fitness to Practice panelist who did not declare her conflict of interests. She was never called to answer for that before the GMC. The conflict of interests was relevant as she was a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Spirituality Section whose members believe in supernatural forces and can act out their hatred of atheists.

There were Expert Witnesses including a Consultant Psychiatrist who wrote a sixty page psychiatric report on me although he never met me, never spoke with me and never communicated with me in any way. The GMC paid him to justify their request for psychiatric examinations which were never indicated. A Hired Gun. He gave his reasons why I should undergo psychiatric examinations: if a number of people complain about me that is an indication for psychiatric request, and that writing a six page letter also indicates mental illness. The GMC never did anything about requesting he undergoes remedial training and learns what are the symptoms and signs of mental illness. He was their Expert Witness, so they would not.

Another of GMC Expert Witnesses claimed that I started a sentence with a word "but" and that was an indication of thought disorder, a symptom of psychotic illness. According to that Shakespeare, Mark Twain and the rest of UK population can all be declared mad by the GMC's own Expert Witness. We all start our sentences with word "but" sometimes. GMC never asked him to undergo any remedial training either. Well, they paid him to work for them.

The above is only a selection of conflicts and there were more, for example, a doctor who made a complaint about me was allowed to sit on Fitness to Practice Committees at the GMC after he made his complaints and the head of Fitness to Practice was from the same hospital where he worked at the same time.

A Professor of Psychiatry who tried to stop me from finding out what mentally ill think about the wearing of religious uniforms by social workers employed to work with mentally ill, did not declare his conflict of interests to the GMC either. He is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Spirituality Section. Faith is more important than science to some medical people. Not ethics. The GMC acted unethically itself by allowing these people to carry on for a long time. This Professor of Psychiatry has been friends with the doctor who made initial allegations to the GMC for more than thirty years and even told the GMC he did not want the research to be done because he knew I had Employment Tribunal Hearing against his friend and did not want me to have the evidence against him! Old boy networking has never been condemned by the GMC. Infact, it seems the panel members may have wished for such loyal friends for themselves. What a noble act to save a friend! Never mind about the mentally ill, surely one should not bother about their opinions.

Mentally ill are not a priority, but egos are.

Expert Witnesses do carry out research when writing medico-legal reports eg reading scientific literature and do get paid for it. That is not a conflict of interests, presumably.

Many times I have done research for which I was never paid and did not expect to be. Countless doctors have done the same.

I have done research financed by big pharmaceutical company which had nothing to do with any drugs testing but did find that neuroleptic medication has side effects on brain functioning which was published with no pressure from anyone not to publish it.

There were reports I wrote that solicitors did not like and I never got paid for it. Once I wrote that client was high on drugs when driving and had a car accident for which he was claiming damages. There were other cases where again, truth was not welcomed and I never got paid. Other Expert Witnesses have experienced the same.

I heard from a colleague she was threatened with legal action by a very famous drug company after she wrote a paper showing one of the indications for the drug use was not valid. She told them: "Sue me, my brother is a lawyer". They did not and the drug is no longer used for that indication.

Who judges the conflict of interests? When and why? What would have happened if all the researchers in Dr Andrew Wakefield study were equally paid?

Is it easier for GMC to deal with a smaller number of doctors than a group?

Is it really necessary to give any mentally ill people who have conditions known to have immunological defects vaccines in the same way? Do mentally ill people matter?

Mental stress does have effect on the body and mentally ill have shorter life expectancy. Normal people stressed chronically have shorter life expectancy too.

Stress also switches genes on and off leading to changes in behaviour. There are genetic elements to Autism. Many questions remain on how some genes are switched on and off and by what.

Immune system is affected by chronic stress in all of us. Therefore, it is logical to consider a better approach to mentally ill people when it comes to stress physical and mental. There are problems when one is dealing with a small child and the science of psychiatric diagnosis is not accurate.

What are the basic human motivators? At its most simple, three:

1. Laziness
2. Fear
3. Pleasure

Fear can include fear of facing one's own inadequacy. Fear when faced can lead to the need to do more work which may not be pleasant. No wonder many people never face their fears and get stuck in sad or angry phase of their grief, for example.

There are people who feel confident that once they have been vaccinated they are safe for ever. But that is not the case. Previously vaccinated people can get infection although rarely.

Immunocompetent adult cases of measles subacute encephalitis are also known as well as a case of death following MMR eg in a boy who had epilepsy before he was given vaccination. Many patients who are Autistic have epilepsy. Thus, difficult ethical/medical issues do arise when vaccination is to be considered, anyway.

The cost of looking after Autistic person long term can be huge. About $3.5 million per person. Many legal/political questions do arise as the result of that cost alone.

Parents of autistic children would have all sorts of questions and conflicts of interests every day for example, what to do first in their life, what are the priorities and what is a fair thing to do. That is normal reaction if one has a sick child and others to look after, including oneself.

There are many questions to which I do not know the answers, but I do know that being before GMC may not lead to considerations one would like it to lead to.

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.

Norman Lamb MP Calls for Public Inquiry into Gosport Memorial Hospital

Norman Lamb MP of the Liberal Democrats has called for a Public Inquiry into the sham treatment received by the victims and their relatives of Gosport Memorial Hospital. Jane Barton's future should be sealed by the General Medical Council. 51 days later, the General Medical Council are still deciding on what to do. Public interest appears to be balanced between the dead and the pitiful defences put forward by Dr Jane Barton's barrister Mr Langdale. There should not be any problem with striking Jane Barton off the Register due to the example set by the GMC . These are the examples.

1. GMC v Gopakumar - An innocent doctor struck off due to inappropriate examination of a patient".
2. GMC v Varma - Junior doctor struck off one year after qualification for minor application form problems during a time he wasn't even registered with the GMC.
3. GMC v Satya - Junior doctor struck off one year after qualification for a minor issue with his UCAS form.
4. GMC v Vaidya - Consultant struck off due to "attitudinal problem". No patient concerns.


These are just a few minor issues that have engaged the striking off process. In each of the above cases, the GMC took a few days to decide. They had absolutely no problems in striking off the above doctors. In the meantime, Dr Jane Barton has enjoyed a lax interim sanction despite effecting the end of many lives.

Remedy Wins

This is the latest newsflash from Remedy UK.

Remedy is delighted to announce that our legal team has forced the government to delay their plans to exempt Deaneries from Employment Agency legislation.

This is of significant importance to any doctors caught up in the recruitment process, who would have been deprived of many employment rights by these proposals.

The legislation governing the conduct of Employment Agencies was passed by Parliament in order to give protection to vulnerable workers. A government consultation in early 2009 stated that they “… consider that [Deaneries] operate as employment agencies within the definition contained in the Act” and that they wished to introduce an exemption. Their reasons for doing so
were unclear.

The Act gives the power to introduce exemptions by regulation, subject to consultation, and a consultation took place in the summer. Both Remedy and the BMA opposed the change, arguing that it was not in the best interest of doctors. But the government announced in November 2009 that the respondents on the issue of Postgraduate Deaneries ‘mainly comprised a number of Deaneries who were in support of the proposal’. They also stated that they had been presented with “evidence that the potential consequences could be to seriously hinder the recruitment and training arrangements for juniordoctors with a subsequent impact on both costs and staffing for the NHS.”

Remedy believes that the consultation was not carried out properly. We had no idea what the “potential consequences” were, and we have had no opportunity to comment on them, or on the “evidence” which is referred to. Our lawyers sent a ‘Letter Before Action’ to Peter Mandelson on December11th, challenging the veracity of the consultation.

In their reply, the government solicitors agreed to re-consult on whether or not to introduce the exemption. They offered to consult specifically in areas around training and recruitment. No date has been set for this re-consultation.

The status quo has been maintained, and the proposed exemption has been delayed – possibly indefinitely. We are very grateful to our legal team at Blackstones and Leigh Day in securing this result.

This delivers a major blow against a concerted effort by government to limit the employment rights of doctors. We anticipate further attempts in the future and will do everything to resist them if they are unfair.Doctors should enjoy the same level of protection against abuse as other
parts of the workforce.

The government has also agreed to negotiate a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Deaneries, and Remedy has been asked to join these negotiations alongside the BMA. We have drafted our thoughts on this and are now seeking the views of our supporters.

Our views on the implications of Employment Agency legislation and the issues that we feel need to be addressed can be read on the Remedy website here .

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

Cat and mice

It is a high time that regulatory bodies learn how to hunt mice. Like a lazy cat fed regularly. for example, the General Medical Council gets any money it demands form its subscribers (doctors).

Badly behaved doctors who mess up as hospital managers in NHS have been allowed to have full use of the prosecutory machine that regulatory body has at its disposal.

GMC turns a blind eye to lying Expert Witnesses despite huge volumes of evidence that would allow GMC to do their job properly and strike a number of doctors off the medical register.

Instead of taking legal action against the doctors who abused GMC and cost GMC huge amounts of money and patients their lives, GMC lawyers are saying nothing. Nobody at GMC thought of claiming the damages from those doctors for what they did to GMC as they do not appear to have the legal support to do it.

Is it because GMC lawyers are terrified of having to act also against their own colleagues who are lying on behalf of the GMC in courts on regular basis when they screw up innocent doctors' cases?

When the state machinery descends into a corrupt state inevitably there are social consequencies, eventually. When truth does not matter, and science does not matter what kind of health do lawyers expect for themselves?

I guess many live in a fantasy land where they are special persons and especially good things happen to them when they need it. No botched up medical jobs on lawyers, of course. That does not exist. Perhaps, all lawyers think they are simply dying of old age.

It is not charitable to let people die out of laziness.

What kind of personal development plan do lawyers working at GMC have? I have no idea.

APA Criticises Scientology

Scientology in UK medicine appears to be present. The most detailed investigation is listed here. The above video shows the American Psychiatric Association to be taking a robust defensive stance against the Church of Scientology.

We suspect that the General Medical Council may be used as a mode of getting psychiatrists struck off. To date, the GMC have not developed a vetting system whereby a conflict of interest and association with Scientology should be disclosed. The most damning evidence comes from the Patrick Cosgrove trials at the General Medical Council.

This is an interesting FOI request found on a website. It can be read here

Further info sent to the ICO 21 May 2009:

Dear David,

Thank you for your email in response to my first FOIA complaint against the GMC.

Here are my responses to each of your questions:

*Please inform me that you are content with the scope of the case as outlined above.

Yes, I'm happy with the scope of the case as outlined in your email.

*Please provide me with any additional arguments (besides those in your internal review request and complaint form) about why you feel that section 40(2) should not apply in this instance.

It is already in the public domain that Mr Brightmore has links with Scientology and was a Commissioner of 'Citizens Commission on Human Rights (UK) Ltd', a Scientology organisation, as detailed in the following documents:

1)

'DISCUSSION re perceived bias of Panel Member' on page 14 ('D1/12') of the Cosgrove hearing transcripts for Monday, 19 January 2004:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/77...

2) Page 153 ('D5/1') of the same transcript, in which the Chair says:

"Good morning. Before I ask the Legal Assessor to tender his advice I would wish to report that following on from a letter which was submitted to the Panel yesterday, D17, the question was raised as to whether the Christopher Brightmore whose name featured in the left hand side of that page was the same person who originally started on this Panel on Monday of last week. As you recall, Mr Brightmore stood down.

Last night I had a telephone call from Mr Brightmore and he confirms that he is one and the same person who features on this letter. He was a Commissioner of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, but he informs me that he resigned that position on 1 January 2001. This letter is dated 28 March 2001 and the explanation that was given to me was that his name featured on that document, because the Commission was using up old notepaper, but that his name has been removed from it subsequently. It does not alter the fact that he was a Commissioner on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. That piece of information was not known to us last week when he stood down."

This paragraph also places into the public domain the information that Mr Brightmore did not declare his conflict of interest (as a former Commissioner of CCHR) at the start of the Cosgrove hearing.

It is also already in the public domain that the Cosgrove hearing was the final hearing where Mr Brightmore sat on the GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel, as shown in Elizabeth Hiley's response to me dated 5th March 2009 at: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi... i.e. that after the Cosgrove hearing he left the Panel.

*It would be helpful if you could inform me how you became aware that Mr Christopher Brightmore may be connected to scientology. This information may be useful when I am assessing arguments aroundthe data subject's expectations.

Mr Brightmore has spoken publicly in favour of Scientology organisations on a number of occasions. For example: http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/020219a.htm

Mr Brightmore is pictured on the Scientology website, and listed as a 'keynote speaker' at their opening ceremony for their new office in Brussels:http://www.scientology.org/humanrights/n...

Mr Brightmore is pictured and quoted praising Scientology in the Scientology magazine, Freedom ('The Voice of the Church of Scientology Since 1968'):

http://www.freedom.org.uk/mag/issuea19/p...
http://www.freedom-belgium.org/article/n...

Mr Brightmore 'officially [opened] the Crime and Fraud section of CCHR's Exhibit on psychiatry' (CCHR is a Scientology organisation):

http://www.psychassault.org/cchr.html

Mr Brightmore is quoted in The Guardian praising Scientology:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/scient...

Mr Brightmore is quoted in a CCHR document, praising CCHR:
http://www.psychiatric-help.org/PSYCHIAT...

So, broadly speaking, Mr Brightmore's support of Scientology organisations is pretty widely documented. A Google search of his name combined with those of Scientology organisations shows 175 results: http://tinyurl.com/pfs6b3

I hope this information is useful to you, please feel free to come back to me with any further queries.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

William Thackeray

Sadly, Patrick Cosgrove appears to have disappeared from view. We wonder how many other injustices are taking place within the General Medical Council. There has been no investigation of the Church of Scientology and its influence in medicine.

Dr Angus Thomson, De Clerembault Syndrome and Involuntary Orgasms

Recently, we read about Dr Angus Thomson's ordeal at the hands of his patient who made various allegations of sexual harassment including that he gave her leg buckling orgasms during gynaecological examination. She clearly was not diagnosed with a rare psychiatric syndrome described for the first time by the brilliant French forensic psychiatrist Gaetan Gatian De Clerembault.

At medical schools they thought us not to bother about rare medical syndromes and to concentrate on common causes of diseases. I remember not being able to resist reading Rare Psychiatric syndromes as a trainee psychiatrist. It is difficult to forget erotomania which is what De Clerembault syndrome is. There are several causes of De Clerembault Syndrome: bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, depression, epilepsy, right frontal lobe lesions and even Alzheimers disease can cause it. Treatment is for the associated disorder. For example, there a case or erotomania caused by bipolar disorder which was treated successfully by Lithium salt.

Dr Thomson's patient described involuntary orgasms and was described as oversexed in the press. Some time ago, I read an article in The British Journal of Psychiatry about involuntary orgasms caused by a very rare form of epilepsy. I wondered if Dr Thomson's patient had something like that.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Dr Thomson as I suffered for years at the hands of an ex-patient of mine who terrified me at times. She once tried to set fire to a psychiatric ward with twenty eight in-patients. At other times she would pretend that she was a doctor, a GP, who was in the process of referring a private patient to me and hospitals gave her my private telephone numbers. She was very plausible as a doctor and spoke with an upper class English accent. Three times I had to change my telephone numbers. Not very convenient at all having then to inform everyone about the change. For years I received unwanted presents from her which I would return to the hospital where she was hospitalized under care of a different psychiatrist. I complained many times to the hospital management about unwanted mail and would collect a bunch and send it to the Chief Executive there.

Harassment stopped when I said I was going to sue the hospital for not using their powers under Mental Health Act 1983 to stop her from sending me the post.

Dr Thomson and his family have been going through the hell of harassment, legal proceedings and will not forget it for a while. Patients who have De Clerembault Syndrome are convinced that a person of a higher social standing is in love with them. Sometimes they are dangerous. Less often they attempt suicide. For the victim of their delusions there is a long path to safety and I do not think one ever forgets the ordeal.

Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings

Andrew Carnes, the co-author of this book is often unhelpful but I think he often feels that he is a barrister and we are all mere mortals. Well, to be fair, he may not be unhelpful to everyone but he was fairly shut down when I approached him. He curtly wrote

"I regret I am unable to assist you or enter into correspondence on this matter"

Of course not, because time is money and money is time. No doubt Andrew would happily enter into correspondence if he was paid a handsome sum of money plus VAT plus enhancements and refreshers - isn't that what barristers do - provide their view in exchange for money? Money certainly makes all barrister's wigs twist at warp speeds. The more they are paid, they better their arguments.

Nevertheless, the book produced is exceptional so we can forgive Andrew for his wig flying episodes. His colleague Brian Harris is a decent chap who appears to be fairly reasonable. Both have created a leading textbook in the field of regulatory law.

A member of Doctors4Justice is of the view that this should be on every doctor's shelf. The General Medical C0uncil is clearly after a few medical necks as target practice and what better way to defend yourselves than to understand regulatory law better than your defense union.

Their website which is also fairly useful exists here.