Applications for jobs as Government Regulators

In view of recent events, vacancies may occur as regulators in various Government Departments. Applicants may be required to possess the following attributes:

for regulators working for the Care Quality Commission - complete lack of interest in the welfare of patients/residents in geriatric wards and in care homes for the elderly and for young adults with learning difficulties

for regulators working for the MHRA - phlegmatic/lethargic/catatonic response to matters demanding urgent attention with regard to protecting members of the public from adverse effects caused by pharmaceutical drugs or by substandard or faulty medical devices and equipment, e.g. silicone implants for breast enlargement (see Breast Implant Scandal)

for regulators of standards of the competence and probity of medical/dental/similar staff (i.e. General Medical Council, General Dental Council and similar bodies) - complete uselessness for the task itself and proven allegiance to errant health professionals over patients

Preference may be given to applicants with tunnel vision and/or appropriate 'conflicts of interest'.

Can you trust your doctor?

Maybe, like me, you missed this investigative programme on Channel 4 last week. If so, you may like to view it here, as I have done tonight. "GPs are among the most trusted and respected of all professions. They are our first port of call for most NHS treatment with 800,000 people visiting surgeries every day. But Dispatches reveals that failing doctors routinely slip through the system."

The programme shows very clearly that many GPs lack basic diagnostic competence, even with potentially very serious conditions like bowel cancer, breast cancer and angina. Although they are very highly paid and are accorded high status in our country, there are examples of doctors not following diagnostic guidelines in cases in which prompt diagnosis can mean the difference between life and premature death. Britain has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in Europe.

Even when two health professionals, a practice nurse and a doctor, turned whistleblowers about a GP who had fallen well behind with important patient results - blood tests and the like - the PCT (Primary Care Trust) concerned did not properly inform the patients concerned. The PCT's concern was clearly not patient safety.

Nor was the GMC's concern patient safety. (The GMC is the General Medical Council.) But then when is patient safety ever the GMC's concern? Regular readers of this blog will know that the GMC is a worse-than-useless 'regulator' and that in my opinion we would be better served by abolishing it than by attempting to reform such a travesty of a regulator. I think Trading Standards or Consumer Protection would be more appropriate, since these bodies have some concern for public safety, while the GMC is only concerned about the safety of doctors. If you click on the label GMC beneath this post, you will hopefully find on your screen a clutch of blogposts I have written over the years disparaging the GMC.

However serious the incidents of professional negligence, however many patients suffer and die before their time because of lousy doctors, nothing ever improves. I sometimes think of this as the proud motto of the NHS: We will never willingly improve. - Why don't you try to get something done about our flawed healthcare system and what is, effectively, the unaccountability of doctors? - After all, you, or someone you love, could be the next victim...

How can the GMC possibly be allowed to continue as a regulator?

How can the GMC possibly be allowed to continue as a regulator? - I have many times inveighed against the uselessness of the GMC and I have many times called for it to be scrapped. It has no regard at all, other than rhetorical, for the safety of patients, and it routinely protects lousy doctors from anything but the most lenient of punishments for very grave malpractice. But this report by the Sunday Telegraph of its investigation into the case of a grossly negligent, incredibly ignorant, fraudster of a doctor really MUST be followed by the speedy demise of the General Medical Council. This is a national scandal of mind-blowing proportions. I urge you to read the whole article; a mere summary seems inadequate.

I must say my sympathies lie with Dr Sarah Myhill

This medical doctor has been barred for a year from practising medicine. - See Wales News report. - I must say I found it laughable to see the useless General Medical Council described as a 'medical watchdog!' - Medical lapdog or medical lickspittle would be nearer the mark in my opinion. - As readers of this blog will know, the GMC tends to punish serious medical malpractice with a light tap on the back of the hand and a slightly disapproving smile. Here we have a much graver sanction doled out to a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary medical doctor who tries to help patients by improving their nutritional status, a wholly admirable endeavour. - I wish this doctor lived in my neck of the woods!

What do you think? - See Dr Sarah Myhill and Dr Sarah Myhill's GMC Hearing.

GMC fails yet again to protect the public from sub-standard GP

The Telegraph reports that GP Navin Shankar, who had dismissed Nicola Sams' 6 years of irregular bleeding and abdominal pain, which turned out to be the symptoms of terminal cancer, as 'nothing to worry about', has not been removed from the Medical Register. This is despite the GMC's earlier leniency toward this this lamentably sub-standard doctor when he failed to recognise the seriousness of the illness of a nine-day old baby.

Here's a suggestion for the Coalition Government: save a load of money by abolishing the GMC, the partisan Watchdog/Lapdog that routinely protects the interests of its doctor members, rather than the interests and health of patients, which is ostensibly its raison d'être.

Shameful decision not to strike Dr Jane Barton from the Medical Register

BBC News reports that the GMC's fitness to practise panel found Jane Barton guilty of serious professional misconduct for prescribing "potentially hazardous" levels of drugs to elderly patients who later died. - The word 'potentially' sits oddly there, doesn't it? - These patients died. The drug levels she prescribed were surely actually hazardous, rather than potentially. - Her victims died. There is surely no greater hazard than death.

This woman should have been ignominiously struck off years ago.

Suppression and Manipulation of Pharmaceutical Drug Research

One of the blessings of the internet is that one comes across blogposts like this one Health Care Renewal post about the suppression and manipulation of pharmaceutical drug research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower.

I urge you to read this well-supported indictment of venal doctors, a corrupt drug industry and the lack of anything approaching an adequate regulatory authority. – The GMC, of course, is notoriously lenient in its treatment of erring doctors and should be abolished as a waste of time and money and a source of further distress to patients who have already been harmed by members of the medical profession.

Dr Jane Barton should have been struck long ago. And in my opinion she should be in prison for, in effect, killing twelve of her patients.

Correction: The first sentence in my title should say 'Dr Jane Barton should have been struck off long ago.'

The Telegraph reports that Dr Jane Barton faces being struck off after prescribing overdoses of powerful painkillers to 12 elderly patients who died in her care. When you read the report you will be astonished to discover that the GMC panel "concluded that the facts found proved (both admitted and otherwise) would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct."" and that "allegations that Dr Barton failed to assess patients appropriately before prescribing opiates were not proved.""

You will wonder, along with me, whether the members of the panel are half-wits, though you will doubtless come to conclude, as I have long held, that the GMC offers no protection to the public at all, since it routinely treats erring doctors with the utmost leniency, however grave their error and however grave the consequences.

The GMC should be scrapped. It is a waste of money and by its continued leniency towards negligent and incompetent doctors effectively it endangers the health of the public.

Further Example of the Shortcomings of the General Medical Council

The General Medical Council (GMC) refused to warn other countries about the incompetent surgeon who had botched the liposuction procedure he carried out on Colin Hendry's wife, Denise, the Telegraph reports. The surgeon, Dr Aniansson, is still working as a doctor, in Sweden, where there have also been complaints about him, apparently.

This is a further example of the dangerous partisanship of the GMC: it routinely favours protecting the reputations of negligent doctors and shows precious little concern for the safety of patients. I have written about this before.

The GMC should be abolished.

Suspicious deaths of ten elderly patients in Gosport War Memorial Hospital in 1998 are at last going to be examined by the Coroner.

Gosport hospital deaths: Who's to blame?
Read the Independent on Sunday's investigative article.

Extract:

"An unprecedented inquest will this week begin to examine the suspicious deaths of 10 elderly patients who died unexpectedly after being given high doses of powerful painkillers and sedative drugs at a hospital in Hampshire.

"The hearing, granted last year by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, despite the fact that seven of the people concerned have already been cremated, highlights nearly 100 other cases at Gosport War Memorial Hospital which may be related.

Relatives of at least 92 patients involved in the case have fought for the past 10 years to have the matter investigated thoroughly. They believe the deaths have never been properly explained and want those involved to be held to account. They want to know whether their relatives died as a result of accidents, incompetence or what some fear might be something more sinister. They believe that there was a culture of treating patients with palliative care – as though they were dying – rather than rehabilitating them.

They point out that this week's jury hearing at Portsmouth Combined Court comes seven years after a damning report by the NHS watchdog which identified systemic failings in medication prescribing.

The Government has so far rejected relatives' calls for a public inquiry into the deaths, despite stinging criticisms about the way they were handled by the police and the General Medical Council (GMC). Three police investigations have failed to shed light on why the patients died. The GMC, in particular, has been lambasted by the relatives for its failure to act promptly and decisively."

The GMC is notorious for protecting negligent doctors and doing little if anything for their innocent patient victims and their families. It should be abolished and the money that is wasted on it should be put to good use. The NHS, disgracefully, is also notorious for protecting negligent doctors and doing little if anything for their innocent patient victims and their families...)o: - It too should be scrapped. - Sadly that is unlikely to happen since the NHS is the biggest employer in the country and if any government had the courage and decency to scrap it, it would be, in effect, voting itself out of office.

I do hope the long-suffering relatives of the dead patients get an honest and satisfactory outcome from the inquest/s and that they get it without further long delays.

Disgraceful GMC ruling that doctor who left two women unable to have children after unnecessary operations "for research" be allowed to continue work.

Doctor who carried out unnecessary hysterectomies allowed to continue working
article in the Telegraph

Extract:

"Dr Martin Quinn, a consultant gynaecologist, was found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC) which ruled he should not have carried out hysterectomies on both women.

He was suspended from working for six months but will be allowed to practise after that time.

One of the women involved said that she was "bewildered" that a consultant who had "terrified" her into believing that radical surgery was her only option would still be allowed to work in the NHS.

The GMC found that Dr Quinn had failed to act in the best interests of both women.

The panel found him guilty of misconduct and that his fitness to practise was impaired.

Dr George Lodge, chairman of the panel, told Dr Quinn that his actions represented "misconduct so serious as to call into question whether you should continue as a registered doctor, either with restrictions on registration or at all."

He added that the panel was concerned that he had allowed his research interests to "intrude unacceptably" into his care of patients.

But the panel suspended Dr Quinn for six months, saying they were satisfied there was no evidence of a general lack of competence and no previous evidence of misconduct."

So the panel "were satisfied there was no evidence of a general lack of competence"! - But competence was not the point at issue here! - At issue was this surgeon's probity - his honesty - his ethical standards - his morality. The question is not, "Did he do these operations competently?" - but "Should he have done these operations at all?" - I myself have not the slightest doubt that this doctor should be deregistered because of what he has done to those women by deliberately deceiving them into unnecessary hysterectomies they did not want, did not need, and which caused them all the risks and pain and distress of major surgery. - I'd be strongly inclined to deregister the GMC panel that came to this indefensible decision too...

Actually I further consider that in doing this major surgery on the women, by dint of giving them false information, that this is a crime - grievous bodily harm, perhaps? - and should be judged in a Court of Law. - What do you think?

What a useless shower is the GMC! - All the expensive shower has ever done is protect negligent doctors. They do not protect the innocent public/patients/victims, although the pretence is that protecting the public is why they exist and it is public money that pays for the GMC. - The GMC has never been of any use to patients. It should have been scrapped decades ago, and even more urgently now. - A waste of money, a waste of time (pretending to damaged patients that their concerns will be properly dealt with when it will all really just be a waste of time), a mockery of justice!

Convicted surgeon can return to work. - In my considered and informed opinion, the GMC is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped.

Convicted surgeon can return to work

Extracts from the Telegraph:

"A doctor who went to practise in India after leaving a father to die of an infection has been told he can return to Britain to work.

Amit Misra, 37, was suspended for a year after failing to act when Sean Phillips, 31, fell ill after a routine knee operation at Southampton General Hospital in 2000.

He was convicted of manslaughter at Winchester Crown Court in April 2003 and given an 18 month suspended prison sentence.

Despite failing to prove himself in a series of medical assessment tests, the General Medical Council has ruled the trainee surgeon should be allowed to work here again."

"Mr Phillips, from Southampton, was expected to leave the hospital the day after his operation, but caught a bacterial infection and developed toxic shock syndrome. He died after doctors failed to spot the infection or properly examine the blood test results.

Mr Phillips' father, Myles, of Faversham, Kent, said: "The doctors have assessed his performance and have found it lacking. There is no way he should be back on the register.""

You can rarely, if ever, accuse the General Medical Council of putting patient safety first...)o:

Professor David Southall could face the end of his career after a further reprimand from the General Medical Council

Controversial paediatrician reprimanded again

Extract from The Guardian:

"Leading paediatrician Professor David Southall could face the end of his career after the General Medical Council found yesterday that he inappropriately accused a distressed mother of drugging and then murdering her 10-year-old son.

The GMC tribunal will sit again today to decide whether Southall's behaviour constitutes serious professional misconduct and if so, what the penalty should be.

Southall has faced a series of inquiries by the GMC into allegations brought by parents of children taken into care on the basis of his evidence of abuse.

He was banned from child protection work for three years after he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in 2004 for accusing jailed solicitor Sally Clark's husband of murdering their children on the basis of remarks he made on a television programme. Clark was later freed on appeal and has since died.

Yesterday's hearing concerned a woman referred to only as Mrs M, whose older son had been found hanged in 1996. Southall was asked to prepare an independent report for Shropshire county council in 1998, after concerns about the safety of the younger son, then eight years old, led to him being taken into care.

The GMC panel found that Southall went beyond his remit in accusing M of killing the older boy.

Giving evidence by video link from Adelaide, where she now lives, M said Southall had repeatedly asked her how the older boy died and she demonstrated using a pencil and a shoelace. She told the panel that Southall looked at her and said "very clever" in a sarcastic voice.

The boy was found hanging from a curtain rail. Southall said to her, she continued, sobbing: "I put it to you that you killed your son by injecting him, hanging him up, leaving him there and then ringing an ambulance.""

I hope that the GMC decides on the severest penalty for this foolish, dangerous man, who has caused grieving parents and families such great, needless, unjustified further suffering.

Some junior doctors are being forced to stay in unsuitable jobs

Junior doctors forced to stay in unsuitable jobs - Telegraph

Extract:

"Junior doctors are being forced to remain in jobs that they did not want and have been threatened with disciplinary action if they move.

The debacle of the Government's new recruitment system for junior doctors continues to worsen for the thousands caught up in it.

Doctors who accepted a training job earlier in the year, believing it was the best they could hope for, were told they risked being referred to the General Medical Council [GMC] if they accepted a better offer.

Letters sent out by the medical deaneries offering junior doctors their training post include a paragraph saying a complaint will be made to the GMC if the doctor accepts the job and then changes their mind."

It seems mean to have the threat that "a complaint will be made to the GMC if the doctor accepts the job and then changes their mind."

Russell Reid found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Sex change doctor guilty of misconduct - Guardian

Extract:

"The UK's best-known expert on transsexualism was today found guilty of serious professional misconduct for rushing five patients into sex-changing treatments, but avoided being struck off.

The General Medical Council ruled that Russell Reid, who retired last year, could only return to work under strict conditions imposed for the next 12 months that mean he can only work under strict supervision.

He must provide the GMC with a record of his treatments of any patients with gender identity disorders such as transsexualism every three months.

The disciplinary panel ruled that Dr Reid must no longer prescribe patients with sex-changing hormones at the first appointment, nor without a firm diagnosis that they are transsexual or a proper psychiatric assessment.

The panel determined that the consultant psychiatrist was too quick to provide patients with hormones and to refer them for genital surgery.

"The panel considers that the seriousness of your misconduct lies in your lack of caution in initiating hormonal and surgical gender reassignment treatment in these patients without more careful and through investigation and assessment," said John Shaw, the panel chairman.

"The panel therefore determined that your misconduct was serious, and that you are guilty of serious professional misconduct.""

Not much of a punishment, is it? The GMC can always be relied upon to exercise unwarranted leniency in dealing with negligent doctors...)o:


Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!
See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk
(The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)

Sleaze in the Medical Profession

In the British newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, last Sunday 9th July 2006, I read an report in the online edition, and it was headed: "Sleaze in the Medical Profession" and it began:

Doctors who take drug firm 'freebies' face being struck off
By Michael Day
(Filed: 09/07/2006)

Doctors who accept gifts or hospitality from drugs companies could be struck off.
Under revised rules, due to be published later this year, the General Medical Council (GMC) will warn doctors who take "freebies" from pharmaceutical companies that they may be putting their registration at risk. The GMC will also encourage doctors to blow the whistle on colleagues who are taking bribes from drug companies.


The report ends:

Dr Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "I'm afraid there is an awful lot of sleaze going on in the medical profession.
"If doctors are at risk of being disciplined, or even struck off, they are more likely to think twice about accepting money or gifts."


That there is widespread sleaze in the medical profession was not news to me, the writer of this blog. - I have been aware of it for many years...)o: - Many other damaged patients are all too aware that doctors care far more about money than about the well-being of their patients...)o: