Thursday, 29 April 2010


Empathy is an essential component in medical and legal practice.
Human beings have different capacity for empathy. One social study after another has shown that prejudice can lead to different treatment for different ethnic groups.
It is now established through scientific evidence from research led by Ms Jenifer Gutsell, PhD student and Assistant Professor Dr Michael Inzlicht that people have brain activity that mirrors the activity from the different race members differently.
In their experiments, subjects were watching men of different races take a drink. Brain has motor cells which mirror this activity (sympathetic) ie the brain cells of the observers become active in motor cortex mirror cells when watching a member of the same race take a drink but not so if the person belongs to a different race. Motor cortex mirror cells were less activated when watching a person from different race take a drink. In other words, the brain mirror cells do not go through the same motion of putting oneself in another person's shoes when observing the member of a different race...
This opens possibility of testing judges and doctors for racial bias in a novel way.
We do know that medical regulators in UK such as the General Medical Council have an overabundance of doctors from ethnic minorities facing disciplinary hearings. Should all the complainants take this test so that we can all see how their brains work? What about investigators? Fitness to Practice Panelists? And does the same applies to sexual bias too? Do female judges prefer male barristers to female? Plenty to research in days to come.
The hormonal levels in men and women differ for a number of different hormones. Oxytocin is one of those. Should all of those who need empathy have serum levels of oxytocin measured? Will this identify institutional psychopaths sooner rather than later?
When people arrive to work will they have to pass through the scanners in order to confirm their fitness for work like going through scanners at the airports?
What about a bunch of men judging a female doctor hounded by a bunch of men? On whose side would they be, naturally?
With improvements in science and new applications in social work and politics will some prisons close down one day like many psychiatric hospitals did?

Monday, 26 April 2010

Mr Gary Walker, swearing, and reality

It is terrible to hear that Mr Gary Walker who worked as Chief Executive for United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust in UK has got into trouble for allegedly using a bit of swearing in some of the meetings.

The truth is that swearing is incredibly common amongs professionals.

For many, many years people have done it without being hounded out of their jobs or dismissed.

In 1999 BMJ published a study where unknown to them, surgeons were observed for use of swear words during operating time.( BMJ Volume 319 18-25 December 1999).

The swear words were classified into three groups, with points assigned to each swear word:

Heaven and Hell Category:

"God", "Bloody Hell", "Bugger" all 1 point

Bodily Products:

"Shi*t", "P*ss" each 2 points

"FOUR" Letter words:

"F***", "C***" , "B***ard" each 3 points

If a string of swear words was used only the highest scoring word was given the points.

Results: 1 point was scored each 51.4 minutes.

On average 16.5 swear words were used by orthopoedic surgeons within 8 hour shift. General surgeons used 10.6, gynaecologists 10, urologists 3.1.

Ear, Nose and Throat surgeons managed five hours without swearing.

Thus, it can be concluded that swearing is common in professional setting. None of those who swore were subject of disciplinary proceedings.

Mr Garry Walker is special, as he saved the trust from 24.5 million debt. He warned about patient safety and considers himself to be the victim as the result of whistleblowing which led to disciplinary hearing.

We wish him good luck in his Employment Tribunal where he is seeking damages. We hope he would not be judged adversely for being normal.
We hope he will not have religiously biased tribunal.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

GMC for ever

Professor DKK worked for General Medical Council as Health Screener in Fitness to Practice Directorate.
She died in July 2009 while still employed by the General Medical Council. Family informed GMC of her death. Six months after her death GMC issued a Registration Certificate to her. She did not pay the annual fee and months later a reminder letter was sent to Professor DKK reminding her of the fees due.
GMC no longer issues Registration Certificates.

Sunday, 18 April 2010


Denial of own feelings is one of the characteristics of victims and abusers/persecutors. Acting responsibly according to feelings is the first step to address individual needs.
When these needs are not met unpleasant feelings surface, but these unpleasant emotions can be changed through addictions which give a temporary high.
Here are some examples of addictions:
hobbies, etc
Here is one definition of addiction: compulsive behaviours or use of substances to alter feelings leading to chronic neurobiological changes, difficulty stopping and difficulty not seeking to increase the addictive substance use or behaviours.
It is easy to see that for example to remove the feelings of anxiety about something can lead to addictive behaviour or substance misuse.
Eventually, things get worse for the addict, needs are still not met, other people are victimized. Victim turns into a victim persecutor and guilt is used for control of others. Poor self esteem can arise from low achievement as the result of not acting responsibly on own feelings and as the result of persecution and abuse at the hands of others.
Here are some examples:
1. Feelings of anger arise when we encounter injustice. The option open to individual is to change expectations and give up, accept the world as it is and watch TV, do household tasks and what boss and everybody else tells him/her. Another option is to use energy of anger to attack injustice and make a world a better place. Big changes in our society do happen because people had used their anger constructively.
2. Sadness can arise as the result of loss or anticipated loss. Before being able to address sadness many have to address feelings of guilt which may not be justified at all. After sadness has been faced, there is need to acknowledge hurt, after that anger and after that fear needs to be addressed. Feelings change from one to another.
People progress through different stages with different degree of ability to cope. Taking responsibility for own feelings and needs, and subsequent actions is easier than taking responsibility for own beliefs.
Political and religious dogma is one example of the belief system onto which people can hang irrespective of what damage it causes them or other people. State institutions reflect those beliefs, hold onto them or fail to address them through individuals who work there and whose responsibility is to address them. Thus, what may start as individual problem in addressing the needs of the patients or doctors to provide for those needs, becomes a "system problem". In situations where laws already exist to prevent victimization, individual still depends on those institutions to protect the rule of the law and not the rule of the mob BY ABUSING THE POWER OF DECISION MAKER.
After many years of stress some people give up exhausted and unable to defend themselves any longer.
Some people leave early and let others fix the problem that gave rise to the initial feelings of e.g. dissatisfaction.
There are people who never give up. They have positive regard for themselves and believe that eventually other people will be able to help them make the world a better place.

Doctors have a very high risk of being victimized as by nature their job is to take responsibility for the feelings of their patients. In situations where they are obstructed or prevented from doing their job, stress arises and risk of addictions is high.

Expressing one's feelings as in whistleblowing in UK results in persecution and almost all whistleblowers are forced to leave their chosen career. This reflects social dysfunctionality beyond that of an individual.

Monday, 12 April 2010




• Mobbing is a term referring to a type of animal behaviour. A newer use refers to a group behavioural phenomenon in workplaces.

Mobbing as a human bullying behaviour

Mobbing in the context of human beings either means bullying of an individual by a group in any context by (Governmental Department, or Professional Regulatory Bodies, Judiciary, Police etc…), or specifically any workplace bullying.

• Though the English word mob denotes a crowd, often in a destructive or hostile mood, German, Polish, Italian and several other European languages have adopted mobbing as a loanword to describe all forms of bullying including that by single persons. The resultant German verb mobben can also be used for physical attacks, calumny against teachers on the Internet and intimidation by superiors, with an emphasis on the victims' continuous fear rather than the perpetrators' will to exclude them. The word may thus be a false friend in translation back into English, where mobbing in its primary sense denotes a disorderly gathering by a crowd and in workplace psychology narrowly refers to "ganging up" by others to harass and intimidate an individual.

• Research into the phenomenon was pioneered in the 1980s by German-born Swedish scientist Heinz Leymann, who borrowed the term from animal behaviour due to it describing perfectly how a group can attack an individual based only on the negative covert communications from the group".

• In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the authors say that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication".

Mobbing in Scots law

• Under the law of Scotland, mobbing, also known as mobbing and rioting, is the formation of a mob engaged in disorderly and criminal behaviour. The crime occurs when a group combines to the alarm of the public "for an illegal purpose, or in order to carry out a legal purpose by illegal means, e.g. violence or intimidation”. This common purpose distinguishes it from a breach of the peace.


For any organisation enjoying a certain empowering status over a group of people and wishes to establish a regime to practice Mobbing over them, it has to secure a circle of similar authorities in support of such a regime [e.g. other Government Departments, Professional Regulatory Bodies, Judicial System through Courts, Police etc…]; because if that regime is restricted to one Hierarchical Department it would not be able to survive to apply that Mobbing Regime because it would be exposed and be defeated if challenged for example by the Judiciary.

Therefore, the most dangerous confrontation a Mobbing Regime would have to face is with the Legal Judiciary System; the 2 main reasons for that are:-

That such regime could be defeated by hefty damages and consequently made public. This would act as a deterrent for others.

A precedent legal case would occur and make such regime a vulnerable practice for the organization where mobbing occurred.

Consequently for such a regime to survive it is essential for it to secure a circle of other Authorities which will continue to support it.

If the Legal System has been successfully alienated from justice, this should be the biggest achievement of that regime enabling it to survive; having secured that side the practice of such regime becomes not only unopposed but would enjoy the support by coercing other authorities to practice the same; and if an authority refuses to be coerced into such policies it risks isolation and marginalisation.


E.g. the Department of Health in United Kingdom, Europe

One of the instrumental policies which has been deep rooted in the Department of Health is the Alert Letter System which has been abused on innocent doctors. This system, of Alert Letters which is still in existence is a live example of the Mobbing Regime that the Department of Health is practising. When an employee has been issued with an alert letter system or threatened by it, it would not only means to him the extermination of his career but the system serves as a deterrent to others in the profession that fails to challenge it.

E.g. General Medical Council

This organisation is influenced by NHS (National Health Service) Trusts Administrators, Postgraduate Deaneries, and Primary NHS Care Trusts Administrators and government. With the power to discipline, restrict or suspend the practitioner and in particular to label its practitioners with Mental Health Issues is a part of the Mobbing Culture and Practice.


In a biased system, claimants face hefty financial penalties when they lose in courts as all the huge legal fees have to be paid.

The CPR [Civil Proceedings Rule] which has been altered since 1999 reflects the Mobbing Culture successfully reaching the Courts; because they are fundamentally flawed. This has been highlighted in 2 Parts:-

In Part 1: The Overriding Objectives

This overriding objective of these CPR applied only to Judges and to Solicitors and does not apply to the victims.

In Part 2:

That it did turn the table on a fundamental security the Public had if costs were awarded against the victims.

Before the 1999 alterations were made to the CPR (Civil Proceeding Rules) all solicitors bills were subject to a Judiciary Taxation [detailed justification of every penny the winning solicitor claimed]. The Bill of Costs of Solicitors requested that Solicitors do disclose all the evidence regarding their costs which details of has been concealed up to the moment the Judgment was given.

Despite this, the Solicitors Rules are that there is no valid bill of costs until that bill is taxed by the Taxation Judge; under the new CPR, the Judge who attended the trial of the case orders the costs without going through any of the motions of Taxation. This puts victims of claims under serious threats to lose excessive monies if they lost in the courts . It is well known that Perjury is rife in negligence claims.

Another issue that may influence the justice are variable factors eg religious affiliations, freemasonry etc. It is known that religion is politics dressed in drag and yet no religious affiliations are declared by those in judicial positions or sitting at tribunals or fitness to practice hearings. Even when extreme religious views are present and barristers ask for the panellist to recuse himself, they do not do so.


It appears that the Police are integrated in that policy of Mobbing . The Mobbing Regime could be used in a criminal act e.g. Committing Perjury in Courts.The fact that Perjury is known to have been committed by the Police for the last 30 years in the British Courts [as stated by the Judge in Cinpress v Melea] proves that the theory is correct.

Because the Police are the first door of call in “Perjury” which is essentially a criminal act it is crucial that the Police should be integrated in that Mobbing Regime.

For civil cases, the Attorney General has refused to intervene in allegations of perjury unless the judiciary reports it.


Any attempt to alert an organisation of wrongdoings by its members results in organisational reprisals. We will be fooling ourselves to believe that any system of Whistleblowing could be fair and adequate to protect the person unless organised Mobbing is recognized for what it is and cultural attitudes are changed.


If Organised Mobbing has succeeded to coerce the Judiciary and the Police, this would abolish any challenges to its practice and it would prevail. Unless both the Judiciary ( rule with confidence imposing hefty fines to Mobbers); the Police and Crown Prosecution Service ( reprimand with jail sentences perjurers) have been successfully detached from the circle of the Practice of Mobbing, all efforts to address justice for whistleblowers would fail and the Mobbing Culture will continue to spread to all corners of the land with serious repercussions to the Tax Payer and a continuous oppression to the British People.

Written by Dr Mohammad Al Ruby for

Thursday, 8 April 2010

Psychologists prescribing medication

There are now three states in US where psychologists are allowed to prescribe psychotropic medication. With huge numbers of soldiers returning from the front and shortage of psychiatrists, psychologists have been given powers to do it. There is a requirement to do a two year Masters degree in pharmacology. Pharmacologists' training, from what I have seen in UK, is longer and quite advanced.

Doctors might feel quite aggrieved to hear this knowing just how hard they had to work to understand the relevant sciences from anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, statistics, etc to actually having years of practical experience of prescribing and interactions of many drugs in the context of mental illness and other diseases.

There are also problems of running psychotherapy and in the same time assuming the responsibility of prescribing, when, for example, some patients may, actually, expect the right pill rather than work through defences and the need to change behavioural patterns. It is expected that more US states will pass the legislation to allow psychologists to prescribe. The cost implications may be that it is much cheaper to train psychologists than doctors. The entrance exam requirements to study psychology are not as high as medicine which has been academically competitive for many years.

I would expect that psychologists would now become target of attacks that psychiatrists suffered for many years.

With many people who do not even know the difference between psychologist and psychiatrist and psychotherapist, it does not surprise me that all of this is possible now.

Insurance companies are either asleep or feeling helpless or do not know what is going to hit them.

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Regulatory Bodies and Equality of Arms

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

Re Regulatory bodies and equality of arms

I wish to raise one very important issue with you.

In the UK there are several regulatory bodies for certain professions e.g. the Nursing and Midwifery council for nurses (, the General Dental Council for dentists ( etc.

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

This ruling has a profound impact on the regulatory bodies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely
Sushant Varma

Friday, 2 April 2010


In dysfunctional social units there is victimization. There are certain victim characteristics I want to write about today, in particular, as the General Election in UK approaches.

Victims learn through repeated failures that there is no hope for a better world and that they are worthless. It is not difficult at all to understand why this thinking arises: past performance is taken to indicate the future performance. Well, if you were an investor, nobody could guarantee to you future performance based on the past profits. Similarly, all business would strive to do better.

Learned behaviour resulting in feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness is not necessarily how things are or could be for the victims.

Hopelessness and worthlessness result in refusal of help, lack of effort and trust in others amongst other serious consequences. Victim who feels worthless is saying: "Why should anyone care about me? I am not able to test others to find out if they are worthy of me as I am worthless myself" This is how voters who are apathetic stay at home and do not vote true to their value system of worthlessness and hopelessness. President Obama was so right to run his campaign with a slogan: "Yes, we can".

There are extremes of worthlessness and hopelessness which can lead to suicide and damage to other people.

To overcome feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness one has to put things in perspective and realize the origin of such thinking. There are choices that one can make as an adult that one could not do as a child, for example. The choices are there for us all the time, as it reflects our inner world as well in how it develops.

Inspirational readings about great historical figures and how they overcame their difficulties is very helpful and not just to those who are aware of their feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness.

Doing new things everyday is strengthening even if it is a minor change such as driving the car using a slightly different route. Gradually, one builds confidence in doing things differently, being open to change and the ability to protect oneself.

Having dreams is important as in dreams we are capable of everything. To liberate one's brain to dream well, one starts while awake allowing imagination to leave imprints in memory. Human brain remembers reality and fantasy and whilst asleep it has a choice what to work with, as it is always doing something. Positive visualisation exercises can get rid of the nightmares and much more.

Thursday, 1 April 2010


Commission for Health Regulatory Excellence has decided that the case of Dr Jane Anne Barton does not need the referral to the High Court to overrule the General Medical Council decision to allow her to practice under only 6 conditions, initially, and which mushroomed magically to more sanctions on her practice over several days and after the hearing, as seen by us on GMC website. I note that there was no declaration of conflict of interests by anyone at CHRE panel deciding if GMC made the correct determination in the case of Dr Jane Anne Barton. I note that, for example only, 39 Essex St. barristers chambers specialize in professional regulatory body cases and approve of more lay people policy at Fitness to Practice hearings (the majority of Fitness to Practice Committee that judged Dr Barton were lay people). It is nice for the government to choose people they know will approve of its policy even when things go horribly wrong. As if class politics has not moved on in our times.
Thus, in my opinion, none of the barristers could expect any rejection from the GMC for future work referrals, government would not suffer the scandal of another doctor eliminating patients and everything stays the same for the poor English working people who are not part of the regulatory establishments.
England can say that a doctor should have been struck off medical register (CHRE did that in case of Dr Jane Anne Barton) and in the same time claim that it was all according to law and even in the public interest not to ask the High Court to uphold their opinion that she should have been struck off!) Oh, please.
Surely, what matters is competence of Fitness to Practice panellists, but their selection is grossly incompetent and negligent. Doctor, GMC FTP panellist can believe in demons causing epilepsy and be the judge of other doctors, a lay member can be impressionable and also into any sort of supernatural beliefs, with sexist, racist attitudes which are allowed for ever. Hundreds of doctors are referred for psychiatric examinations each year by GMC including political dissidents who are subjected to sham peer review and the list of failures goes on. So where are all those regulators when it comes to Human Rights Abuses? Disapproving and approving of themselves in the same time? Looking at the mirror but transfixed by the image to such a degree that they are unable to attend for corrective surgery?
Dr Jane Anne Barton, did not undergo any psychological evaluation to determine her attitude to patients or people in general, as far as I know, but CHRE approved of her. But as GMC has a busload of medical experts to make any reports they would like any time, who cares anyway if she had an independent psychological assessment?
There are thousands of pages of allegations regarding GMC expert witnesses sent to Fitness to Practice, but GMC takes no action if it suits their prejudices and vanity. Surely, the investigators are not going to investigate themselves at the GMC?