Saturday, 5 February 2011

Dr Jane Barton asks for erasure

Professor Christopher Bulstrode on the left

Dr Jane Barton on the right

Dr Jane Barton, a doctor who was subject of very controversial GMC proceedings has now asked for her name to be removed from GMC register of doctors.
Her brother, Professor Bulstrode, who was a member of the GMC council at the time of the disciplinary proceedings against his sister, did not declare his conflict of interests and is now himself the subject of complaints before GMC because of that.
Dr Barton has conditions placed on her GMC registration and she would, in my experience, find it impossible to find any, for example, locum work where more stringent criteria are applied by health authorities and GMC itself when it comes to their investigations of complaints against doctors as per GMC policy. Locum doctors receive more conditions on their GMC registration at GMC FTP proceedings even if they had exemplary record with respect to patient care than Dr Jane Barton has. GMC Fitness to Practice Panelists are conformist and intolerant of foreigners, British doctors of 1st generation immigrants and are also less tolerant of women doctors including English doctors, in general terms.
Independent inquiry, may give the true answers one day for the relatives angry that they never got justice.
Unlike career locum doctors who have no pension from NHS, Dr Barton will be comfortably retired and probably does not need to pay GMC fees for no benefit to her. If she stayed on the medical register she would leave herself open to new allegations and new proceedings. GMC does not investigate doctors no longer registered with them unless they for example, annoy them through some published criticism.
GMC must be fed up with constant pressure surrounding her case when they have so many new complaints to deal with.
There is an English saying: "stitch in time saves nine", but GMC have allowed amazing stitch ups from medical profession to take place against foreigner doctors and GMC must know what is coming their way in the future: demands for justice and complaints against mobbers. A big hit from European Court of Human Rights, perhaps, too.
GMC have abused their power given to them under Medical Act 1983 to create rules which breach Human Rights Act. They have given themselves power to make up Fitness to Practice Panels in such a way that failures/defects in the appointment of the panelists do not invalidate the outcome of the hearing. GMC and the High Court accept decisions from panelists no longer appointed as Fitness to Practice panelists.


Doctors4Justice said...

I thought the program was excellent because it covered a lot of issues and it links past with the current situation.

The interview with Mr Niall Dickinson was very revealing and that is all that is required. It is not as if we could expect GMC official to fall on his knees and beg forgiveness. As you noted, Mr Dickinson says that for example, non declaration of interest by Professor Bulstrode is a moot point. This means of no practical relevance as further legal proceedings would make no difference. Obviously this is not the case. Should GMC refuse to investigate complaints about Professor Bulstrode there could be a judicial review of that decision, or another type of legal action, or disciplinary action against the Chief Executive of GMC as the matter has not been finalized in law. I should know that as I am one of the people who complained to FTP about Professor Bulstrode's non-declaration of interest. Nobody told me this complaint has been rejected. So legal measures have not been exhausted.

Here are some definitions:
Definitions of Moot point on the Web:

* In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.

* An issue that is subject to, or open for discussion or debate; originally, one to be definitively determined by an assembly of the people; An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. ...

Of course, the matter is not a moot point that no declaration of conflict of interest did not take place. Those who breach Ethics, Code of Conduct have to answer and clearly it is not Mr Niall Dickinson attitude that he would make Professor Bulstrode answer anything. The same applies to GMC staff who are out of control.

I am waiting to hear form Crown Prosecution Service to see what they have to say.

Dr Helen Bright

Anonymous said...

Here is the Press Statement from Crown Prosecution Office:CPS STATEMENT - GOSPORT WAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DEATHS

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided after a re-review of the evidence that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone over the deaths of 10 patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, Hampshire.

The re-review followed inquest verdicts into the 10 deaths and the findings of a Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council which considered disciplinary matters against Dr Jane Barton.

CPS Special Crime Division lawyer Paul Close said: “Transcripts of the evidence given at the inquests and the GMC proceedings have been considered to see whether, in light of that evidence, the earlier conclusions of the CPS remain the same.

“Having given careful consideration to the new material on each patient, it remains my view that the evidence is insufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for an offence of gross negligence manslaughter against Dr Barton in respect of each of the 10 deaths I have reviewed.

“I have written to the families to explain my decision and to offer them a meeting if they wish.”