Abuse of Power blog: Letters to UHL and GMC

Ok, so this is from my own blog, but I just wanted to post a few letters I sent to University Hospitals Leicester and the GMC way back in 2008

I can laugh about them now, but at the time I was well cheesed off with them I can tell you   

Dear Ms Wright

I am wondering when you will be removing all reference to Gerry McCann on your hospital online noticeboard. It is now apparent from the Portuguese police files that the blood and death scent from Madeleine was found in their holiday apartment aswell as on Kate's clothes and bible, behind the sofa and in the corner next to the parents wardrobe - and even on an item of Maddie's clothing and in the spare wheel well of the car they rented out 25 days after Maddie 'went missing'. The Portuguese police say there was no abduction and it would seem that the Fund they started within a week or so of Maddie going missing is fraudulent.

During this time, Gerry McCann was made an arguido which meant he was the prime suspect in his own daughter's disappearance and yet he was allowed to continue to work for the NHS and still does. This in itself is obscene.

Maddie has been made a mockery of by her parents, which is endorsed by University Hospitals Leicester, and I think it is fitting in her memory to remove all the farcical references to releasing balloons of hope because it is extremely upsetting for those who have followed this scam from the beginning to know that people are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes with continued reference to Maddie still being missing when there is evidence she died in their apartment.

The link on your website goes directly to the McCanns website where you are greeted with a Paypal button where people are invited to donate and you will know that the McCanns have used some of this publicly donated money to pay their mortgage.

There is also a link to a direct telephone number to Metodo 3, and you will probably know that one PI on the McCann case is now in jail, convicted of smugglng a large quantity of Cocaine and another in custody charged with Extortion and Attempted Murder.

It is not right that a public service should be linking directly to a fraudulent fund that has been set up by 2 of your doctors - Gerry McCann and Doug Skehan. I have also written to Leicestershire Constabulary as they also link directly to a fraudulent fund, which is unlawful.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Jill Havern

Links:
Letter sent to melanie.wright@uhl-tr.nhs.uk






My second letter of complaint:

Dear Mr Wightman

Thank you for your unsatisfactory reply which you have noted but dismissed in its entirety.

I admire your loyalty towards being committed to supporting your staff. However, whilst there remains any form of doubt about the McCanns, do you not think it is a duty to protect the public from potential Fraud?

Whilst you may disagree with the points I make, I make them from the Final Report of the Portuguese Police who have investigated this case and have concluded that Maddie died in the apartment, which makes the McCanns fund fraudulent. It is, therefore, of public concern that your website links directly to the McCanns website where people, who are not aware of the Portuguese Police Final Report, are invited to donate to a Fund which cannot possibly locate Madeleine given that she is dead. We all know that the McCanns have used this public money to pay their mortgage. Is this what you are supporting? You are supporting a fraudulent Fund that pays their mortgage? If you intend to keep misleading the public with your support of the McCanns by using a public hospital online noticeboard, should you not at least put a disclaimer on your site telling people that their donations might be used for mortgage payments?

Given the nature of the evidence found in the McCanns apartment and hire car, might I ask in what way you are committed to finding Madeleine given that the sniffer dogs detected not only blood, but death?

Regardless of how many people at the Leicester hospitals know the McCanns personally, it is not acceptable to deliberately mislead members of the public just because the McCanns say they are innocent. The police do not say they are innocent. I would rather believe the police, who have spent over a year investigating them, than the McCanns who deliberately neglected their children, and put them in obvious danger, for the sake of a tapas meal. That, in itself, should require you to take all mention of their fraudulent fund off your hospital online noticeboard. It is ethically and morally proper to do so.

I will now go even further to ask if you think it is important to support your patients and protect them from any kind of risk, particularly where negligence is involved?

Dr Gerry McCann, and even Dr David Payne who also works at LRI, are guilty of child neglect at the very least - the entire group of doctors left their children unattended every night of their holiday. The McCanns sedated their children so they could go out drinking. This is abuse aswell as negligence. Negligence so serious that Madeleine is believed to be dead, based on the evidence of two British sniffer dogs. You will know that the sniffer dogs detected the scent of death in the McCanns apartment and in the car they hired 25 days later.

Should patients be subjected to treatment from doctors who admit negligence? Indeed, should patients be allowed to be in contact with a doctor who is believed to be involved in the death of his daughter and concealment of her body? Should a patient also be subjected to treatment by Dr David Payne who is suspected of paedophilia, as given in a witness statement to the Portuguese police?

What Rights have your patients got when you decide that they can be treated by doctors such as these, simply because you know the family? Yes, the case has been shelved pending further evidence - but the McCanns have NOT been cleared of any involvement. Mr Amaral stated quite clearly: "It is not a declaration of innocence" that the case has been shelved pending further enquiries. He made this statement shortly after he was removed from the investigation by Gordon Brown, due to pressure from the McCanns. Why would an innocent parent ask for the removal of the chief investigator who was close to finding their daughter?

Shouldn't Drs McCann and Payne be suspended, until the case is officially resolved, for the safety of your patients? You may argue that you feel your patients are safe with Dr McCann, but his daughter wasn't was she?

Indeed, it was felt that Dr Harold Shipman's patients were safe with him and look what happened there. Then there are other doctors whose patients were not safe - Dr Colin Norris, Nurse Beverley Allitt, etc.

Why is the NHS blatantly allowing such a risk towards their patients? Kate McCann said she was in contact with 6 dead bodies shortly before she went on holiday. That's quite an alarming number of dead bodies, for a GP, given that she only worked one-and-a-half days per week.

Why are these doctors allowed to continue to work within the NHS just because you know the family and choose to disagree with the points I make that are taken from an official police report? It's hardly a very good reason to subject your patients to potential risk and fraud.

I would be grateful for your views because, as a member of the public, I feel I have a right to know what is happening within a public service that I contribute towards with my tax, and your response that you will continue to mislead the public because you know the family is not a good enough answer.

I appreciate that this is an awkward situation for you, but there is no 'arguido' status at the moment and therefore no restriction on freedom of speech about the investigation - but I feel the consequences regarding the risk to your patients and the general public, and the abuse of power surrounding this sinister case, must be addressed.

Jill Havern

More to follow. Possibly 

I used to love my blog back in the day  

Now you see why CMOMM was created....
More to follow. Possibly.

Well done, those letters are excellent. I came late to this forum, so I'm pleased to have some knowledge of what went on earlier. I think the letters are as fitting today as they were when your wrote them. Your husband's treatment was deplorable.

Dear Sir

I wish to refer to you the matter of two registered doctors who have had serious allegations made against them in sworn statements to the Leicestershire Constabulary. The doctors in question are Dr Gerry McCann of Glenfield Hospital and Dr David Payne of Leicester Royal Infirmary.

Regarding Dr Gerry Mccann:

You will be aware that the Portuguese Police used two British sniffer dogs to search for his daughter, Madeleine McCann and they detected blood and the scent of death in the McCanns holiday apartment - namely, under some floor tiles, on the wall and behind the sofa, in an area by the McCanns wardrobe, on Kate and Madeleine's clothes, on Kate's bible, and in the boot of the car they hired 23 days later. Given that the Portuguese Police believe Madeleine died in the McCanns apartment must mean that the Fund they created to search for Madeleine is fraudulent. You will be aware that this public money was given in good faith by pensioners and school children to aid the search for Madeleine before it became public knowledge that Madeleine is believed to be dead. You will also know that the McCanns have used this public money to pay their mortgage. Please can you explain why UHL continues to have a direct link to the McCanns website where members of the public are invited to donate to a fraudulent fund?

You will also be aware that Dr Gerry McCann was made 'arguido' (official suspect) in the disappearance of his own daughter due to the evidence of the two British sniffer dogs and the DNA that was collected at the crime scene which confirmed that no abduction had taken place and that it had been staged. Please can you tell me why Dr Gerry McCann is allowed to continue to work within the NHS given that he is a suspect in the death of his daughter, the concealment of her body, the staging of an abduction, the framing of an innocent man, Robert Murat, and the creation of a fraudulent fund. You will know that, despite these very serious allegatios, the case has been shelved pending further evidence, but this does not mean the McCanns have been cleared of any involvement as the case can be re-opened at any time.

Regarding Dr Gerry McCann and Dr David Payne:

You will also be aware that a social worker named Yvonne Warren Martin and 2 doctors gave sworn witness statements to the Leicestershire Police which stated that they witnessed 'lewd and inappropriate' gestures between Gerry McCann and David Payne regarding David Payne's daughter and Madeleine McCann, on two separate occasions.

Please can you confirm that you checked this with Leicestershire Constabularly and can reassure members of the public that the NHS is not permitting two potential paedophiles to continue to work at UHL. You will know that under the Portuguese Judicial system that a lifting of secrecy allowed details of the investigation to be released to the general public. I believe that serious allegations such as these against practising doctors should be investigated by both the NHS and the General Medical Council, which is why I am writing to you. As far as I am aware, the Leicestershire Police have not made public the results of their investigation following the witness statements. I am sure that both the NHS and the General Medical Council would wish to satisfy themselves that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and that the two parties would ensure that the correct action was taken as a result.

There is a significant public interest in this case, not least because Dr McCann and Dr Payne are employees of the NHS. It is therefore important that the public can be assured that both the NHS and the GMC have fulfilled their obligations to uphold the high standards that the public expect of them. In this respect I believe that the two institutions should confirm that this matter has been dealt with appropriately.

I have previously directed my complaint to Mark Wightman, the Director of Communications at UHL, but he failed to give a satisfactory reply saying only that he will continue to support the McCanns. I feel this is wrong given the nature of the serious allegations which involves the death of a child, suspicion of paedophilic gestures witnessed by two doctors, and fraud.

In closure, I would quote the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. "I represent the Government, for which I work, the medical profession, which I try to listen to, and the public. My moral principle is that if ever there is a conflict it is the public who wins."

I would be very grateful to receive your prompt response to this complaint.

Jill Havern





More to follow. Possibly.

Any hospital worth its salt would have dropped all of these doctors. I don't like to think about what, as well as whom, they are protecting.

It just goes to show the level of protection this pair have - the police, the media, the government, the NHS, the GMC...they're all in it together as Ms Brookes once said.

I really must update this soon cos there's a lot missing.

Nothing seems to have changed...

An old article from February 2000.

General Medical Council and the scandal link to masons in NHS


By Colin Brown
Sunday, 27 February 2000

Source: The Independent  (link no longer works)


Seven years later, when Madeleine died, nothing had changed.

@CaKeLoveR wrote..

Any hospital worth its salt would have dropped all of these doctors. I don't like to think about what, as well as whom, they are protecting.


^^^ exactly, all watching one another's back's

Over and above all other considerations, protect your NHS - so say the prime minister incumbent.


leading NHS cardiac unit is on the brink of “collapse” after a contested review that blamed surgeons for the deaths of more than 60 patients, according to a letter seen by The Times.

St George’s Hospital in London, once an international hub for cardiac surgery and research, is operating at a third of its former capacity because of staff departures and restrictions on surgical practice, a group of cardiac anaesthetists said.

The letter accuses St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust of fostering a risk-averse culture that means doctors can no longer provide their patients with the best care available. A review published in March 2020 found that clinical malpractice had led to the deaths of 67 seriously ill patients.

However, at 26 inquests heard so far involving the cases flagged in the review, the senior coroner has discredited the findings that the deaths were avoidable. Dr Fiona Wilcox concluded that the patients were treated appropriately and that no blame for their deaths was to be attached to the surgeons.

She apologised to their families for the distress caused and in one hearing criticised the “limited” review process that gave a “cursory” three to four hours of assessment for each “complex case”.

Despite this, the trust has offered potentially millions of pounds in compensation to confused families, whose loved ones’ deaths are the subject of ongoing debate.

The Independent Mortality Review of Cardiac Surgery was commissioned by NHS England and led by Michael Lewis, a cardiac surgeon in Sussex.

At the recent inquest into the death of an elderly patient, Wilcox said she made a “finding of fact” that the review carried out by Lewis’s team “was limited by lack of information and evidence”.

She added: “An examination of records of three to four hours compared to the extensive time that this court has spent examining this case both in and out of court is relatively cursory for a complex case.”

Calling the process “less than perfect”, she criticised the review team “throughout this case and the others”, for not interviewing any of the clinicians involved in the patient’s care.

She concluded that the death review published in the report did not “reflect the care” the patient had received, adding: “When I look at this case in the round I find that failures identified in the review have, once more, not been found. After the consideration of extensive evidence by this court, I find that the review is limited by several factors. First of all, simply not having correct information.”

She added: “The review, in error, identified factors which might have changed the outcome and then [went] on to conclude [that] factors which may have affected the outcome definitely contributed to the death. That is a fundamental logical inconsistency in this review ... I am concerned about that.”

Lewis defended his team’s review process but admitted they were limited by the information received. “Essentially our job was to try to build a narrative from the records that were available to identify what had happened to the patients during this journey through their care and in the hospital,” he told the inquest. “The process has been recommended by the Royal College of Physicians as a process for examining exactly what we’re describing.” He later added: “We just wanted to help the clinical teams.”

In the wake of the mortality alerts, two expert heart surgeons at St George’s were temporarily suspended and had restrictions placed on their practice. The trust paid out almost £1 million in legal fees during the dispute with the surgeons. There is now only one consultant on the cardiac surgery unit cleared to operate on higher-risk patients, according to the letter seen by The Times.

At least seven highly skilled cardiac consultants have left for other hospitals or to join the private sector since the report was published. Staff called an emergency meeting with senior management in May. On September 10 Jacqueline Totterdell, the trust’s chief executive, received a warning from consultants that there had been “no visible change or progress” to “improve the situation for cardiac surgery on the shop floor”.

The letter, signed by 13 cardiac anaesthetists, continues: “The damaged reputation, the ongoing uncertainty and lack of effective strategy have led to a substantial retention and recruitment crisis ... the service will collapse unless there is real improvement.”

They warn that “without immediate action” there will be “further deterioration of the cardiac surgery services”, which will “become a risk for patients”.

The Times spoke to several consultants anonymously about the unit, which has gone from treating 90 cases a month to 30. As cardiac departments across the country return to pre-pandemic levels of activity, St George’s remains on the brink of collapse, they said.

“I have cases where I believe patients have suffered because of the consequences of the report. This risk-averse behaviour means the patient ends up having an easier procedure, where the surgeon is less responsible,” said one consultant. Another described a situation where an extremely ill patient was left on the ward for two weeks needing surgery because of a lack of capacity.

One surgeon whose cases were part of the Lewis review said: “I’ve been tarnished, but I refuse to be pushed out.”

A spokesman for St George’s said: “Restrictions on planned cardiac surgery have been lifted and cardiac surgery at St George’s is safe with outcomes on par with other centres nationally.” The trust said its actions to improve the quality, leadership and culture in the cardiac surgery unit were recognised by the Care Quality Commission in 2019.

A spokesperson for the NHS in London said: “Following the report, enhanced oversight of the cardiac surgery unit continues with a package of support measures in place to ensure improvements are made, and the Care Quality Commission has found that improvements have been made by the hospital’s senior leadership team.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cardiac-unit-nears-collapse-in-row-over-malpractice-zj58f8z2k
--------------------------

It's all in line with the prehistoric Hypocritical Hippocratic Oath.

'Thou shalt not grass on thine fellow physician.'

Doctors with major convictions still treating patients



THOUSANDS of patients are being treated by doctors convicted of serious crimes or punished for appallingly non-professional conduct.

The Sunday Express examined hundreds of files and uncovered scores of medics who are allowed to practise in spite of committing shocking offences.

Under the law all cautions and convictions given to doctors have to be examined by their governing body, the General Medical Council.

However, in many cases the GMC allows the disgraced medics to continue practising, while issuing a warning or temporary suspension.

A small number of court cases hits the headlines. Others, including cases of assault, drink driving, drug abuse and domestic violence, remain unpublicised and can only be found in the archives of the GMC website.

The Sunday Express examined details of misconduct hearings over the last year and our inquiries uncovered:

Two doctors allowed to work after manslaughter convictions.

An anaesthetist who watched a movie, read a newspaper and fell asleep during surgery.

A medic responsible for a hit-and-run car crash who was suspended for just nine months.

A doctor who punched a woman in the face who was suspended for three months.

A physician who failed to report his concerns about morphine doses administered by the serial killer Dr Harold Shipman.

Our investigation comes two years after the Shipman inquiry called for a radical overhaul of the GMC, which was accused of “looking after its own” and doing too little to protect patients.

Dame Janet Smith, who led the Shipman inquiry, recommended that the GMC no longer has sole responsibility for assessing doctors’ fitness to practise. The GMC says it has made wholesale changes, but our research indicates the reforms have not gone far enough.

In a previous interview Dame Janet said: “I am by no means convinced that new GMC procedures will protect patients.”

Magda Taylor, of patients’ group The Informed Parent, said: “Why would I want to go and see a doctor if he was a drug addict, done for manslaughter or had beaten someone up?"

Source: Daily Express