Saturday, 30 January 2010

"Investigate and Disband the GMC" Says Gosport Campaigner

Read the Sky Report here.

This afternoon Dr Helen Bright wrote to the CHRE on behalf of

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

Monday, 25 January 2010

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.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

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.

Thursday, 21 January 2010

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 .

Monday, 18 January 2010

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.