Assisted Dying Bill and Dr Michael Irwin

Dr Michael Irwin (photograph on the left, click on it to read more) worked as the medical director at United Nations. He is known for his humanitarian work in assisted dying which led to him being struck off medical register by the General Medical Council. He campaigned tirelessly for the right to die before and since. Now, new proposed changes (private bill by Lord Falconer) in law would mean that at least those with mental capacity and physical ability to take medication that would end their life would be able to do so if they have less than six months to live. Doctors would be allowed to prescribe such medication but not administer it themselves.
Dr Michael Irwin is a prominent member of the National Secular Society(NSS). Each year Irwin Prize, which he funds, is awarded to a prominent secularist.  Recently, NSS wrote about him HERE 
And here is the judgment by the General Medical Council to erase him from the medical register:
 

Fitness to PractiSe Panel

26 – 27 September 2005

Hearing Room 2, Regent’s Park, 350 Euston Road, London

Name of Respondent Doctor:       Dr Michael Henry Knox IRWIN

Registered Qualifications:              MB BS 1955 Lond

Registration Number:                      0014922

Type of Case:                                     New Misconduct/Caution

Panel Members:                                Professor K Hobbs, Chairman (Medical)

                                                               Mr R Bergman (Lay)         

                                                               Mr M Chapman (Lay)

                                                               Dr M Johnson (Medical)

                                                               Mrs L Lloyd (Lay)

                                                              

Legal Assessor:                                Mr R Hay    

Secretary to the Panel:                    Christine Challis

Representation:

GMC: Miss Alison Foster QC, instructed by GMCLegal represented the GMC

Doctor: Dr Irwin was present and not represented

allegation

A.

“That you were on 6 July 2004, at Guildford Police Station, cautioned for an offence, which you admitted, that on 18 October 2003 at Cranleigh in Surrey, had in your possession 30 20mg tablets of Temazepam, a controlled drug of class C, with intent to supply it to Mr PK.” Admitted and found proved

B.

“And that, being registered under the Medical Act 1983,

‘1.        On the dates specified in the allegations set out below, you were a UK registered medical practitioner; Admitted and found proved

‘2.        You were interviewed under caution by the Surrey and Sussex Police on 2 March 2004; Admitted and found proved

‘3.        At the interview under caution you admitted that,

a.         On 18 October 2003 and at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you submitted a prescription for and obtained, in your own name and using your GMC registration number, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, Admitted and found proved

b.                  You travelled to Isle of Man on/about 19 October 2003 to visit

Mr PK, Admitted and found proved

c.         On your visit to the Isle of Man you had in your possession, a quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets, which included the 30 x 20mg tablets obtained by you on 18 October 2003 at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Admitted and found proved

d.         You intended to supply Mr K with the quantity of Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide, Admitted and found proved

e.         i.          you also obtained travel-sickness tablets to provide to

Mr K to take with the Temazepam, Admitted and found proved

ii.         the travel sickness tablets would have assisted Mr K to hold down the Temazepam, which may otherwise have been difficult for him; Admitted and found proved

‘4.        You did not eventually supply to Mr K, the Temazepam that you had intended to supply to him, as he had become too ill to take it himself; Admitted and found proved

‘5.        On 6 July 2004, you accepted a caution from Surrey Police, for the offence of having in your possession with the intent to supply to Mr K, a Class C controlled drug, namely Temazepam; Admitted and found proved

‘6.        Your actions as set out at paragraphs 3.a., c., d. and e. above were,

a.         Unprofessional, Found proved

b.         Inappropriate, Found proved

c.         Irresponsible, Found proved

d.         Likely to bring the profession into disrepute; Found proved

[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations 6a, b, c and d, the Panel took into account the undisputed evidence that you obtained in your own name Temazepam, a Class C controlled drug, immediately before travelling to the Isle of Man intending to supply it to Mr K.  This was an act of deception.  Moreover, on 6 July 2004 you admitted an offence contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and, as a consequence, you were cautioned at Guildford Police Station. 

It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions in relation to allegations 3a, c, d and e to be unprofessional, inappropriate, irresponsible and likely to bring the profession into disrepute].

 ‘7.       You self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam, using your GMC registration; Admitted and found proved

‘8.        At the interview under caution on 2 March 2004, you further admitted that,

a.         You had self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets on 13 December 2003, being the day after your arrest, Admitted and found proved

b.         You had been self-prescribing Temazepam over a period of time, for the purposes of stockpiling it; Found proved

‘9.        On 25 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from Lloyds Pharmacy, Hove; Admitted and found proved

‘10.      On 31 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from Glaibyer and Kemp Dispensing Chemists, Hove; Admitted and found proved

‘11.      Your actions as set out at paragraphs 7. to 10. above were,

a.         Inappropriate, Found proved

b.         Irresponsible, Found proved

c.         Unprofessional;’ Found proved

[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations 11a, b and c, the Panel has taken account of your evidence that you self-prescribed Temazepam over a period of time with the intention of stockpiling the drug for your own use.  The Panel finds that the quantities self-prescribed were excessive.  Moreover, it is concerned that you kept these large quantities of Temazepam without secure storage arrangements.  Temazepam is a drug of addiction with a street value in the illicit drugs trade.  It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions to be inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional. ]

Determination on impaired fitness to practise

“Dr Irwin

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster, your own comments to the Panel and the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel has determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct and the Police caution.

The Panel found that the Police caution and your misconduct were sufficient for it to determine that your fitness to practise is impaired.  Indeed, the Panel regard either of these matters individually as serious enough to amount to impairment.

The Panel has referred to the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and avoid abusing his position as a doctor.  Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory bodies.  You must observe and keep up to date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your work”.  The Panel is of the view that you have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious criminal offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent to supply.  This resulted in the Police caution. 

Furthermore, you admitted that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated self-prescribing of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for your own use against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an abuse of the trust placed in you as a doctor.  In all the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.

The Panel will now invite further submissions from Miss Foster as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to be imposed on your registration.  Following Miss Foster’s submissions you will be given the opportunity to respond and to call any evidence if you wish to do so.

As is usual in these proceedings, the Panel will expect both parties to make reference to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance when making submissions.“

Determination on sanction

“Dr Irwin

The Panel hereby revokes the order for the suspension of your registration made by the Interim Orders Panel on 3 February 2005.

On 6 July 2004 you were cautioned at Guildford Police Station for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  You had admitted that on 18 October 2003 you had in your possession 30 x 20 mg tablets of Temazepam, a controlled drug of class C, with intent to supply it to Mr PK.

When you were interviewed under caution by the Surrey and Sussex Police on

2 March 2004 you admitted that on 18 October 2003 at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you self-prescribed using your GMC registration number and obtained

30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, a class C controlled drug. 

You travelled to the Isle of Man on 19 October 2003 to visit Mr PK and you had in your possession, a quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets.  You have admitted that you intended to supply Mr K with the Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide.  You also obtained travel-sickness tablets to provide for

Mr K to take with the Temazepam to facilitate his oral retention of the tablets.  In the event you did not supply to Mr K the Temazepam as he had become too ill to take it himself.

The Panel has found that your actions as set out above were unprofessional, inappropriate, irresponsible and likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

You also admitted that you self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam, using your GMC registration.  At the interview under caution on 2 March 2004, you further admitted that you had self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets on 13 December 2003, the day after your arrest. 

On 25 January 2005 and 31 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained from different pharmacies using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam on each occasion.   You issued the prescriptions immediately before the scheduled hearing of your case before the Interim Orders Panel on 3 February 2005. You had been self-prescribing Temazepam over a period of time, for the purposes of stockpiling it.

The Panel has found that your actions were inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional.

In all the circumstances, your actions fell well below the standard expected of a registered medical practitioner and the Panel determined that by reason of the Police caution and the above misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired. 

The Panel has referred to the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and avoid abusing his position as a doctor.  Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory bodies.  You must observe and keep up to date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your work”.  The Panel has found that you have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious criminal offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent to supply. 

Furthermore, you admitted that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated self-prescribing of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for your own use against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an abuse of the trust placed in you as a doctor.  In all the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.

Medical practitioners have a duty to act honestly and within the law, and uphold the trust placed in them.  The matters before this Panel are serious and give rise to a clear and obvious risk to patients and could seriously undermine the confidence and trust that the public is entitled to place in the medical profession. 

The Panel was concerned also about your lack of insight into the seriousness of your actions and your lack of professional judgement. 

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster on behalf of the GMC as to the appropriate sanction it should impose, your comments to the Panel and the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel has also had regard to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the GMC’s publication ‘Good Medical Practice’. The Panel is conscious of the fact that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect patients and the public interest. Public interest includes not only the protection of patients but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. 

In determining the appropriate sanction in your case, the Panel first considered whether it would be sufficient to place conditions on your registration.  In doing so it has had regard to the issue of proportionality and has balanced the interests of patients and the public interest against your interests. Any conditions would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. The Panel considers that your actions were so serious that it is insufficient, in the public interest, to impose this sanction. Further, the Panel considers that it would not be possible to formulate any appropriate conditions. 

The Panel then went on to consider whether it would be sufficient to direct that your registration be suspended.  Your actions amounted to a serious abuse of your position of trust. The Panel is concerned that you do not fully accept the seriousness and potential consequences of your actions for which you have expressed no remorse.  The Panel has also concluded that there would be no remedial value to a suspension of registration.

Your actions were:

• A serious departure from the relevant professional standards set out in Good Medical Practice
• An abuse of position of trust
• Dishonest
• An indication of persistent lack of insight

The Panel has therefore concluded that it would not be sufficient to suspend your registration.  Accordingly, the Panel has no alternative but to direct the erasure of your name from the medical register.

This means that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, this direction will take effect 28 days from when written notice of this determination is deemed to have been served upon you.  A note explaining your right of appeal will be provided to you.

Having reached a decision that your name should be erased from the medical register, the Panel is minded to consider whether your registration should also be suspended immediately. The Panel will now invite submissions from Miss Foster and then from you, Dr Irwin, on this matter.”

Determination on immediate sanction

“Dr Irwin

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster as to whether or not the Panel should direct that your registration be suspended with immediate effect.  The Panel notes that you do not oppose this course of action.

In view of the serious nature of matters for which you received a Police caution and the findings in relation to your misconduct, the Panel considers that it is necessary, for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest and in your own interests, to exercise its powers under section 38 (1) of the Medical Act 1983, as amended.  The Panel has therefore directed that your registration shall be suspended with effect from today.

The effect of this direction is that your registration will be suspended from today.  Unless you exercise your right of appeal, the direction for the erasure of your name from the Medical Register as previously announced, will take effect on the expiry of the 28 day appeal period.

That concludes the hearing.”

Confirmed

October 2005                                                                                                    Chairman

Foreign/ethnic doctors in permanent danger in UK

   

Recently, British Medical Journal (BMJ) published several articles about foreign doctors' high failure rates in British specialists' exams and their very high presence in the disciplinary proceedings before the General Medical Council (GMC), regulator of medical profession. GMC decides which doctors should have the right to practice medicine in UK as registered doctors. The failure rates in some of the professional exams are just an amazing: fifteen fold difference, for example, in Clinical Skills Assessment as administered by The Royal College of General Practitioners. The research above was funded by GMC and published by the medical trade union, British Medical Association, owners of BMJ. Some of the researchers are of the opinion that foreign men (doctors) should work twice as hard to be likely to pass British specialists' exams. However, in today's Times a doctor, Shaukhat Ali writes that in an experiment 50% of British medical graduates failed PLAB test, the same test that GMC demands non EU doctors pass before being allowed to be registered with them.

Nobody has come forward to admit it is their fault that foreign/ethnic doctors perform so poorly in British exams, or to say they are responsible for so many foreign doctors being subjected to disciplinary procedures leading to sanctions on their practice. 75% of those erased from UK's medical register are from ethnic minorities.

So, what is the solution to these problems?

It appears to the author of this article that one should take a lesson from the Chinese students in Hong Kong. Firstly, they got rid of the British rule and then, over 70% employed private tutors. Now Hong Kong students have the first place in the world in mathematics, science and reading.

While some foreign doctors do see reality in UK promptly and flee to the better countries, others take a long time to realize that they will never win through the British courts, even if they try. It is not enough to be clever, to have evidence, good lawyers and money. Judges in the UK courts have commitment to denying that there is racial/ethnic discrimination. It is as if in their minds the preservation of the medical institutions' reputation is paramount.

The General Medical Council do their best to keep poor records of doctors' ethnicity. The so called independent information regulator and courts collude with them. The mortality rate in those facing disciplinary procedures before GMC in twenty times higher than that of the normal British working age population. It is as if specific targeting of some doctors has occurred. There is evidence in policy making that indeed, this is the case. We are aware that some unlawful targeting has occurred.

The government must have public interest at heart and supply adequate numbers of doctors whatever their nationality, but medical profession works against it in order to decrease the supply of doctors and increase the price of their own services. In other countries in Europe one can get better private medical care and at a lower cost. It is not a secret. One of the principles of European Treaty is to increase competition in order to increase prosperity of the citizens but this is not what the UK medical regulator wants. Like those who write poisonous letters of complaints against foreign doctors to GMC they want conformity, not excellence. Even when evidence is sent to GMC showing that patients are dying and will continue to die because of some poor UK practise GMC would insist for decades that a foreign doctor is guilty of serious professional misconduct in order to deflect the responsibility from those really culpable. International scientific community may regard a doctor to be impressive but GMC would stick to their guns that doctor's innovative thinking is nothing more than serious professional misconduct. GMC is a body with no moral conscience. You will not hear their executives pleading before Parliament to allow them to correct their mistakes when they punish the wrong doctor and allow the local medical mobbing gangs to escape.

One of the expressed interests of GMC is education but they, actually, actively work against the education of foreign doctors. A good example of that is the ethnic doctor who trained in UK as a medical doctor but whom they convicted of serious professional misconduct because she wanted better administration of how status of educational supervisors was regulated. The Royal College of Psychiatrists would not issue certificates to Educational Supervisors in order to prevent foreign doctors teaching (even when the same foreign doctor had the status of educational supervisor before when in permanent NHS consultant post). In a fury, GMC convicted doctor to be supervised herself for over 4 years and then struck her off the medical register for refusing to comply with their wicked demands.

This doctor learned only when she became NHS Consultant that she is meant to give one hour per week of supervision to her junior doctor on one to one basis. She never had it in six years of her training. What is happening in UK is very easy to explain: NHS Trusts get the money from the government to train junior doctors. This training should include one hour of personal supervision (teaching by Consultant, not based on patients under their care already) per week. Clinical supervision of juniors occurs in ward rounds, and multidisciplinary meetings in addition.

So, unlike the Chinese in Hong Kong who got personal private tutors, foreigners/ethnic doctors in UK are undereducated when it comes to the specialists exams.

The additional factors may be present too, such as discrimination in oral exams when examiners actually see and hear the foreign doctor. All of these exams should be recorded and the copies given to those being examined. Why not if there is nothing to hide?

Suffering from oppression can lead to anxiety and depression and poor performance not just in IQ tests but in medical exams. Poor motivation can lead to poor remembering. How motivated can one be when anticipating that one would be trashed?

BAPIO loses High Court battle against RCGPs and GMC

The action against alleged racial/ethnic discrimination in the examination for the general practitioners' membership exam of The Royal College of General Practitioners filed by BAPIO (British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin) ended with a loss and a considerate advise from the judge that the RCGPs could address the differences in the pass rates between those who are white UK graduates and non-white non- UK graduates. Neither RCGPs nor GMC said anything against not talking about it.

Rat takes the train, men start screeming and climbing on the seats

             A bit of a shock on New York underground train when passengers noticed a rat taking the train with them (Click HERE to watch) . Rats are social and intelligent animals and would leave the train like everybody else eventually.
Recently, a mouse entered my house and was a bit noisy at times seeking company and following me from one room to another especially in the evening. I fed it and watered it but also wondered what to do with it. As it liked to be under the washing machine in the kitchen one evening I opened the door to the garden and left it open for a couple of hours. It left, presumably, looking for better company and more interesting environment. So, mouse traps are probably, not necessary in every situation.
There are people who like training wild mice to do tricks as they learn much faster than a dog would. Click HERE to watch them perform some tricks.
There are some domestic animals like cats who use public transport every day on their own initiative.Read here.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/8958012/Owner-surprised-to-find-cat-regularly-catches-bus.html

The Shame of the Church - New York Times video report

 

We received the link to this important video published by New York Times from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). The President is Barbara Blaine (photo on the right, click on it to read more about her work).
Click HERE to watch The Shame of the Church).
It does not look like anything radical is going to happen unless there is a proper scrutiny of judiciary at international court that would be prepared to deal with this criminal offending against children on a large scale. International Criminal Court in Hague even had a judge who had supported in some ways pedophile network exchange.
In this document the court sets out how they would like to be understood with respect to their functions: HERE
However, when courts receive applications that need corrections they could ask for application to be corrected, for example, to include allegations of crimes that happened only after 2002 (establishment of the court).
It also appears that because of the attitudinal problems to rape, not just of women, but also men (more relevant perhaps, to abuse of boys by clergy who are the majority of the victims of abuse by clergy) a special division should be formed at ICC to deal with sexual crimes and those against children. Expertise and training of the judges is required in order to understand psychological manifestations of trauma and attitudinal problems that exist socially to male rape (denials in particular) and female rape. The court needs to appoint a judge who is not fearful and unprepared to compromise on children's anywhere in this world.

Mr Ben Cowburn, Cornwall Coroner's Inquest, Dr Peter Jefferys evidence and the trail of suicides

    Updated 30-3-2014

 

Dr Emma Carlyon, Cornwall Coroner, conducted inquest into the death by suicide of Mr Ben Cowburn. Court proceedings have been reported widely in the press and on the Internet drawing criticism from Conservative MP Priti Patel because of the Coroner's decision not to disclose the name of a man whose conduct towards Mr Ben Cowburn was at least questioned by some. However, The Needle blog exposed the name here:
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/ben-cowburn-and-the-x-factor/
It was inevitable that bloggers would investigate and expose court secrecy. The Needle has a mission statement:
 A needle can lance a boil or it can burst a balloon, in the hands of a pathologist it can draw blood, and in the hands of a doctor it can vaccinate a child.

Mr Ben Cowburn made numerous pleas for help to health professionals and law enforcement agents to whom he reported that he was raped. When questioned by coroner about allegations of rape a police officer replied:
He said he had not been, he agreed to them as he felt pressured to do the things. 
Well, police got it wrong, it seems. In male dominated culture men do not see themselves as rape victims in general. There is a language of communication that police appear to struggle with. A good expert in psychiatry or psychology in the field of male rape/sexual abuse would have helped the court, but did the court or police ask for it? Did they want it at all?

 Similarly, there are allegations from family of the victim that his treating psychiatrist (not Dr Peter Jefferys) described Mr Ben Cowburn as a drama queen. Ouch! Psychiatrist has denied describing the victim as melodramatic. There are psychiatrists who are unwilling to accept that there is abuse and rape of men (as children and as adults). Afterall, it could happen to them and that is an unpleasant thought they run away from. Sometimes, in broad daylight a man is bundled into a van by a couple of men and raped. The next thing they do throw him out and the victim tries to kill himself by walking in front of a bus. This is a true story. Interestingly, one of Mr Ben Cowburn's suicide attempts was to walk into traffic.

The coroner, Dr Emma Carlyon, agreed to hear evidence from Dr Peter Jefferys (photo on the right above), a retired Old Age Psychiatrist, who is not an expert in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or male rape. Mr Ben Cowburn was only 18 when he died and had diagnosis of Post-traumatic stress disorder. The Coroner's office was informed of Dr Peter Jefferys inappropriateness as an expert witness in this case and even in any case considering his known lack of integrity from other cases.
Dr Jefferys was quoted as saying to the Coroner:

“The ability of a young man to deal with life experiences they regret and the mistakes you make in life can be severely compromised if at the same time you suffer from a major depressive illness or struggle with adolescent issues. “It can push you from saying, gosh, I should not have done that, into being tormented by it and unable to share it for months, years or decades.”

Read more: http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Failures-care-suicide-teenager-Ben-Cowburn-18/story-20839331-detail/story.html#ixzz2x0jTUaSk

Since when has sexual assault(s)/sexual abuse been a regrettable life experience? And how can Dr Jefferys at the same time accept diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in this man?

Dr Peter Jefferys worked as a Medical Director at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow, Middlesex, when Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist and pioneer in the treatment of adults who suffered abuse as children reported to him that Harrow Social Services employed a Catholic nun, wearing her religious uniform (in psychiatry uniforms are not worn as it forms a barrier to trust, leading to poor compliance with treatment, more violence and self-harm by patients) as their social worker to work with mentally ill some of whom could have suffered abuse at the hands of clergy. Instead of dealing appropriately with the matter Dr Jefferys dismissed Dr Bright, and subjected her to post-employment victimization (sending false complaints to GMC) in order to cover up for suicides under his watch. After he dismissed Dr Bright he did not replace her immediately and some of Dr Bright's patients died by suicide. From no deaths record under care of Dr Bright now there were deaths under his watch and he made a cunning plan to start working for the regulator, the GMC.

In the years before nun was employed, the suicides in Harrow, on average, were 15.2 per year, during the four years Harrow had nun as a social worker 17.5 on average and after she left it went down to 15.2 suicides per year.

Survivors Network of those Abuse by Priests (SNAP) have 10,000 members and are based in USA. They gave evidence to UN in Geneva at the hearing into Holy See's compliance with Children's Charter recently. SNAP wrote to Dr Helen Bright to say that they agree religious uniforms should not be worn in mental health. It is detrimental to mental health of sex abuse victims, not something that Dr Peter Jefferys would ever be bothered about. Instead, he engaged in conspiracy with others including Professor David Jolley, another Old Age psychiatrist to do Dr Bright in. Dr Bright conducted research on Prof. David Jolley's patch in Wolverhampton into how off-putting or approachable do patients find a person dressed in religious uniform or casual dress (actors photographed for questionnaires). Professor David Jolley joined Dr Jefferys in complaining that Dr Bright conducted her research without his permission. GMC found Dr Bright guilty of serious professional misconduct for conducting ethical research, but contrary to old boys network approval. This research by Dr Bright has been regarded as impressive by international scientific community and was the first research in the world into religious uniforms in mental health setting. Professor Jolley's integrity matches that of Dr Jefferys.

Hospitals are liable when patients commit suicides under their watch. Dr Jefferys, of course, knows that. He was also head of audit and reported on suicides in the psychiatric unit at Northwick Park Hospital. It appears he was chosen for the job in Cornwall Coroner's case on Mr Ben Cowburn on the basis of his corruptibility.

In order to barricade himself against any possible threat to his registration as a doctor from the medical regulator, The General Medical Council, he became their Fitness to Practice Panelist. This was a brilliant strategy. But that was not enough to stop his fears and never will be. He also became involved in disciplinary matters at the Social Care Council (who regulate the nun, social worker) and other regulators (including Bar Council); at one count being involved in the regulation of eighteen professions!

Despite all these precautionary measures he has reputation as a man of no integrity and as a hired gun as stated by solicitor Yvonne Hossack (another of his victims) to the General Medical Council. After she complained about him to GMC he retaliated against her by complaining about her to Solicitors Regulation Authority who had as Chief Executive ex GMC man. His allegations against his instructing solicitor were false. He claimed she disclosed confidential information to GMC against the rules of her profession in her complaint against him. The confidential information was the psychiatric reports he wrote which Ms Hossack sent in as evidence against him. Of course, GMC needs the names of the patients so that complaints could be investigated, something he always knew. But GMC was already corrupted by him and they refused to investigate him. Those who want to read those psychiatric reports written by Dr Peter Jefferys can do so as these are available in redacted format following a request to Law Society under Freedom of Information Act 2000 by Dr Helen Bright. Ms Hossack was right: Dr Peter Jefferys has no integrity. He wrote one thing for her in his reports but when pressed by Bristol Council solicitors to answer some questions he changed his opinion dramatically. Curiously, while complaining about the breach of confidentiality he wrote a psychiatric court report about several patients (eight) giving their names in one report. Normally one would expect patients to read the reports in order for facts to be corrected if necessary. So, is each patient meant to read confidential information about seven others? Or are they not important enough to have individual reports written on each? Or does Dr Jefferys think he must not be ever corrected? Or slighted in any way?

Dr Peter Jefferys made false allegations of rape against a professor of mathematics who was devoted to his partner, a sufferer of multiple sclerosis. When she was admitted to a nursing home, a visiting GP prescribed her a drug known to have given her skin blisters as a side effect in the past. Her partner, professor of mathematics complained about it to the prescribing doctor and manager of the nursing home and in no time, in retaliation, allegations were made that he raped his partner by nursing home staff. In his expert witness report on this woman to the court Dr Jefferys recommended the couple were only to meet under observations despite woman's denials that she ever made any allegations of rape. In additions there were false allegations that he was aggressive. Interestingly, Dr Jefferys report omits completely the question of rape being addressed by him to the woman whom he was examining for the court and in which he recommended observation of the couple who were to meet in the communal area only. Professor has been an obstacle to the council seizing her property to pay for nursing home fees as he lived in the apartment and they could not just throw him out but were doing everything they could to make him get fed up and leave. The property was left to him in her will too. Dr Jefferys was simply a hired gun for the case as he appears to be in the case of Mr Ben Cowburn.

The local authority where this professor lives could have spent a lot of money on litigation against him (over £500,000), an innocent man to cover up for their criminal staff. At one point Local Authority employed carers to aid professor's partner at home. One stole her credit card. Local Authority blamed professor and took his power of attorney from him via Court of Protection. A shop detective caught the thief as she was trying to use the credit card. Police were called. But a storm of false allegations against prof. followed and now litigation is by prof. to get damages paid to him for what he suffered for many years after the Court of Protection found no allegations of rape or theft against him were ever true.
  GMC received a complaint about Dr Jefferys by this professor, but Dr Peter Jefferys is their man to whom they probably owe a lot as he sat at over 100 GMC disciplinary proceedings. GMC does not go after their henchman nor are they keen on public interest in this case.                                                           

Dr Helen Bright worked at Longreach Hospital in Redrouth too where false allegations were made against her by the Trust staff in 2004. At that time she was a locum Consultant Psychaitrist in Old Age Psychiatry. Staff did not want old people on their ward, just adults up to age 65. Mr Ben Cowburn would be unwelcome as a young person in such an atmosphere of ageism. In Dr Bright's case nursing staff even went as far as discharging her most ill elderly patient who could not even walk or feed herself . This was done without consulting Dr Bright. No wonder there were false allegations against her as means of self-protection when patient's husband, a retired policeman, complained to trust managers about his wife's improper discharge and not against Dr Bright whom he thanked for her care of his wife. While Dr Bright managed to defend herself against these false allegations before the General Medical Council the unleashing of mobbing was spread to other NHS trusts via NCAS, the NHS jungle drum. by the Medical Director of mental health trust in Cornwall (He run away to another NHS trust since the events). NCAS collect information from anyone, any NHS trust, any gossip and even invent false allegations themselves against doctors who are truthfully and rightly critical of NHS practice.  They gave advice that Dr Bright who had done no harm to anyone should be reported to the GMC by all NHS trusts who contacted them when they heard in 2004 that GMC found Dr Helen Bright guilty of serious professional misconduct in 2003 following Dr Peter Jefferys writing to GMC and after that becoming their Fitness to Practice Panellist. The GMC do not see any conflict of interests when it is on their agenda to get rid of ethnic minority doctors of which Dr Bright is certainly one. The fitness to practice hearing in 2003 at GMC resulted in verbal reprimand and huge reputation damage to Dr Bright. She still could work, there were no conditions on her practice. In 2004 the final, massive, furious mobbing attack started in Cornwall, spread via NCAS faulty advice to two other NHS trusts and resulted yet again in GMC's Fitness to Practise hearings with Dr Jefferys acquaintances from GMC judging Dr Bright as well as an undeclared preacher, Dr Gwen Adshead. Doctors' licence used to be regulated by bishops in England but now clergy can and do work at GMC. They are useful to the nasty lot as they do see any justified anger as sin, not that they use such language. They do know better than that. Instead the language used is that of pseudo psychology: anger management problems, poor conflict resolution, poor team working etc. Dr Helen Bright ended as a locum with 16 conditions on her practice and could never find work again as the result of faulty GMC proceedings. Eventually she was erased from the medical register by the review  panel which again had a religious worker on it. The same formula was used by GMC consistently: get the religious force in to teach Dr Helen Bright a lesson she will never forget. Women should know their place and so should children: to serve mens desires. Dr Helen Bright was erased from medical register and Dr Jefferys has a sense of obligation to Cornwall mental health trust: what he did not manage to complete they did. While it is true that at one point Dr Bright did appeal to the High Court against conditions imposed on her practice by GMC the judge's finding that Dr Bright is a good, hard working and conscientious doctor is wortless as the judge left all the conditions there on her registration. A worthless appeal. Constructive erasures work, everyone knows that. Psychiatry is a shortage specialty and  more people died unnecessarily as the result of how Dr Bright was treated by Dr Jefferys. Dr Bright could have saved many lives were it not for the abuse of power. GMC rules allow them to abuse their power any time they like because one can never appeal against panel decisions when inappropriate appointments of panelists take place. Dr Gwen Adshead when she judged Dr Bright was no longer their panelist as her term expired before. Nobody cares about such little things. The Privy Council agreed to such rules.

The Coroner's Court inquest concluded on 26-3-2014 with jury giving open verdict with failures in care. Coroner made no recommendations to the NHS Trust because she was satisfied with the changes they made since the event of the tragic death. A new £5 million unit is planned for child and adolescent care on Longreach Hospital site. The charity trust set up by Mr Ben Cowburn's parents are working with NHS.

Yammy Eaton Mess and 10 Downing Street, London

Baroness Warsi has been critical of 10 Downing Street having too many many men from Eaton without giving any evidence of their incompetence.
Is she loosing her faith that universal God loves all equally? We thought she travelled on multi-inter-faith ticket more of a Labour's Tony Blair type policy that somehow manages to stir things up.

 Conservative Party members would be able to recognise the whipping up of envy as well as the lack of gratitude.
How to make Eaton Mess:

Why Holy See could not see what was coming from UN Committee on the Rights of the Child despite their poor record?

UN report CLICK HERE

The UN report from The Committee on The Rights of The Child is very critical of The Holy See (Vatican) record and the current situation with cannon law described as not compatible with human rights.  The actions of The Holy See do not comply with the needs for independent police investigation of the offenders and so on and on.

 

UN to question Vatican on 16-1-2014 in Geneva on the Rights of the Child

 
From SNAP (Survivors network of those abused by priests):

This Thursday, for the first time ever, the Vatican will be questioned about its record on child sexual violence by an international body. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva is holding the meeting in two sessions on Jan 16, each three hours long. SNAP and our attorneys from CCR will be there. Later in the evening (Geneva time) CCR and SNAP are hosting a report back via Livestream directly after the review to report about it to survivors, advocates and supporters. Two separate events and you can view them both on the internet.

Watch the UN review via livestream here!

The review will take place on Thursday, January 16, 2014 from 10am-1pm CET, (4am-7am EST) where the Vatican will be reviewed on their compliance with the Convention on Rights of the Child and then from 3pm-6pm CET (9am-12 noon EST) the Vatican will be reviewed on their compliance with the Optional Protocols on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

**This will be broadcast in the English language. This is broadcast by the UN.

Then two hours later at 8 pm CET (2 pm EST) we will have the “reportback” by CCR and SNAP.  Tune in here .

You can  follow the conversation on Twitter and ask questions before or during the livestream by tweeting to the hashtag #HolySeeConfess or by emailing questions to askCCR@ccrjustice.org.

SNAP and CCR submitted reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child detailing how the Holy See has violated the core principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

If you have questions please email or call the SNAP office at: 312 455 1499 or Chicagoffice@snapnetwork.org .

Don’t miss the chance to participate in this historic event!

All the best,

Barbara Blaine 

Barbara Blaine
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Sham Peer Review or True Concerns? Compare and Contrast

Recently on 10-12-2013 Parliamentary Health Select Committee's member Ms Charlotte Leslie MP (photo above) asked medical regulator, the General Medical Council:

Q10 Charlotte Leslie: To follow the points Sir David was making, do you recognise or acknowledge that sham peer review takes place?
Professor Sir Peter Rubin: What do you mean by “sham peer review”?

Medical regulator, now more than 150 years old,  has persecuted medical whistleblowers and other doctors on demand from some medical directors working in National Health Service (NHS) in the manner of sham peer review. While some doctors can tell the difference between sham peer review and genuine concerns, it would appear the regulator cannot tell the difference. Dr Lawrence Huntoon has described psychology of sham peer review HERE.

So, what is the difference between genuine complaints and those asking for sham peer review (backstabbing)? What are the characteristics of these two very different complaints? Table below attempts to compare and contrast Sham Peer Review with genuine concerns about  a doctor:

Feature	Sham Peer Review request	Genuine concerns about doctor
Investigation of the complaint(s)	Done poorly or not at all	Investigation done more carefully
Time pressure	Putting pressure on doctor to answer the complaint very quickly, without access to records and within a couple of days e.g. on weekend for complaint made on Friday. When this is complied with, refers to regulator anyway. Does not seek clarifications from doctor if not happy with a reply. Poor conflict management skills. Pulls doctor out of the clinic while seeing patients for an urgent meeting to answer a non-urgent complaint because “busy” at other times.	Given reasonable period to respond
Hoarding of minor complaints	Complaints not disclosed to doctor on time but reserved to hit him/her with several complaints at once. Habitual stacking of complaints and issues not dealt with. Pathological avoidance of situations which may give rise to a difference of opinions. Pathological fear of conflict.	Complaint(s) disclosed promptly to doctor to answer
Abuse of poor policy or process	On reading regulator’s faulty policy e.g. policy which has features of indirect discrimination against a group of doctors (like those who are contract workers or in private practise) decides to use this to get rapid access to the regulator	Not used
Language of serious concerns	Complaints written in a way to maximize the interest of the regulator in the absence of harm to patients: “I have serious concerns about Dr……”	Evidence of harm to patient or potential harm to public presented after thorough investigation and when other options are not feasible
Emotional abuse/humiliations	Statements as to the mental health of the doctor in the absence of any medical evidence or reference to the internationally accepted criteria. No referral to Occupational Health or any reference to doctor’s medical practitioner.	Refer doctor if ill to Occupational Health promptly without referral to regulator and ensures right questions are asked and answered. Patients protected by use of locum doctor to cover absence due to illness
Gain	Preservation of own reputation takes precedence over lives of others. Sham peer review serves as a cover up of own wrongdoing	No gain from making a referral to the regulator .
Honesty	Prepared to lie on oath. Tries to cut a deal so to avoid giving evidence on oath if written statement is accepted	No need to make false allegations has evidence to back the complaint
Staff turnover	Higher than average staff turnover and a more frequent user of regulator’s services	Normal staff turnover
Culture of bullying	Over the period of years bullies tend to surround themselves with bullies. Authoritarian approach, dislike of dissent	Complaint politely submitted outside the culture of bullying
Manipulation and status seeking	Infiltrate medical establishment as additional means of self-protection. This may involve the regulators themselves i.e. starts to work for them.	Has no need for self-protection from within the regulator
Outcomes for patients after dismissal of doctor	Deterioration in the outcomes for the patients when excellent doctor is dismissed and not replaced	There can be an improvement in the outcomes for the patients when incompetent doctor is removed even temporarily
Chronology of referral to the regulator	Referral follows after whistleblowing, or threat to the egos, or fear that disclosure may occur more widely outside the organization, or due to business rivalry or dispute, or after a court case taken by the doctor complained about	Referral follows from events related to poor patient care
Concerns about conduct of the doctor	More likely to be concerned about the conduct of the doctor, claims disruption. Provokes disruptive behaviour by doctor in a variety of ways such as frustration caused by passive aggressive behaviour of hospital administrator or others	Concern about patients’ welfare
Allegations	False and numerous, gossip, hearsay. Witness Statements that get withdrawn because witnesses unwilling to give the evidence once the process is in full swing and about to be heard in public	True complaints backed by Witness Statements
Person who makes false allegations	Sham peer review complainer is protected by medical regulator. Determinations by medical regulator do not give the names of, for example, medical directors who made false allegations to regulator and initiated the process of sham peer review. The names of the witnesses who gave evidence for doctor are published.	No backtracking  on Witness Statements or secret allegations or little chats with investigators at the regulator that accused doctor never hears about
Wish to do harm	Despite all the bad intentions that started the complaint process, at the disciplinary hearings before the regulator the accusers feign surprise that things got that far for the accused doctor. “I did not mean it”. Denial in contrast to the actions taken and the knowledge what the outcomes of those actions could be.	Patients are real concern
Protectionism	Protects either himself/herself and/or other colleagues he/she thinks cannot live without-feels compelled to work with them	Protects patients
Medical records	Withholds medical records and even when asked by the regulator sends only bits of the medical records at the time. Disclosure of one single medical file can take years. Regulator despite their powers to order immediate and complete disclosure is complicit with delay.	Sent promptly to regulator and doctor
Fraud	The accusers may be involved in fraud, sometimes widespread. Prepared to send even completely different patient’s records from the case complained about to the regulator.	No evidence of financial or other gain to be made by discrediting the doctor
Mobbing	Engages a crowd of people to act as complainants in order to hide behind them. Creates impression of widespread concerns to engage the regulator.	No need to have numerous witnesses to misconduct
Concealment of evidence	Documents missing, denies existence even when one document states another one is attached to it and staple marks are present.	No need to conceal the evidence
A User of others	Prone to prejudice and could use those considered inferior to write the complaints so as to avoid personal responsibility. Hides behind others. Divide and rule.	Not present
Phoning around to get more troops	Telephones previous employers to get them to complain as well.	Not present
Pseudo consultations	Engages in pseudo consultations to get the “green” light to make the complaint to the regulator. For example, telephones National Clinical Assessment Authority for advice but actually trying to find if there are other complaints there already against the doctor. Calls other employers who also engage in pseudo consultation with Clinical Assessment Authority	No hostile dependency on other public bodies to get the support to report to the regulator.
Personality type	Snakes in suits	Unremarkable, no delight in harming others