|
|
|
|
This letter sent to me in 2002 shows the GMC have no transparency and no integrity what soever! They like the NHS, Health Ombudsman and even CHRE as my research shows me, will work against you rather than expose the truth. What is the point of these organisations, I have been to them all and got no where. It now lies with the CPS once again... another government brick wall. We all wait in anticipation for the 3rd time.
It is 8 years on since I received this letter but during that time as I continued to fight for justice for the alleged murder of my dearest mother I have been determined to expose the GMC for what they are... Gross Medical Cover-ups.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=138cf43f4b18f9f390a82c7bb0fad7adb56bd39f7ae9db1d16f8cf40558950b4
A message for all those who need to complain to the GMC about a doctor, get legal advice first.
|
|
|
Do we want the Parties to listen, that is the key question?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parliamentaryteam <Parliamentaryteam@rcn.org.uk>
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: The Parties are listening, but are they?
Dear Ms Reeves,
Thank you for your email and comments, which I have read with interest.
Your email demonstrates why we are continuing to press the government on whistleblowers and why their needs to be a change in the culture of the NHS to allow people to feel free to speak up.
I am afraid we cannot support your campaign, however can I thank you for your kind comments and support
Best wishes
Laurence Meehan
RCN Parliamentary team
Sent: 10 February 2010 14:07
To: Parliamentaryteam
Subject: The Parties are listening, but are they?
Dear Peter;
Thank you for your email.
I am very supportive of this cause more over, because my mother Elsie Devine was a victim at the hands of Dr Jane Barton and Sister Jill Hamblin at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital(GWMH)
You would have been aware of the Inquest into 10 of the deaths at GWMH although I suspect hundreds more and of course the recent GMC hearing. We are still waiting further deliberations on the CPS and Norman Lamb fights on our behalf for a Public Inquiry.
I feel sure you will also be aware of the 1991 documents in connection with the Gosport War Memorial Hospital (GWMH) that I have had sight of, most of the documents are associated with the Royal Collage of Nursing(RCN)
In brief two nurses tried to blow the whistle on Dr Jane Barton and although the RCN assisted those nurses through that process, the question is did they do enough for their cause and of course all the elderly that died post 1991?
I think those two nurses should have been commended for what they did but sadly they were silenced. As you are aware "Blow the Whistle" did not come into place until 1993 and in light of what was going on at the GWMH and the continued concerns the nurses had, I have to wonder why?
I have written endless of letters as have others to bring the nurses responsible to a hearing, but the NMC are silent.
I have also petitioned parliament which you and the RCN may like to help us, "change in the law"?
|
|
|
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/11/liverpool-care-pathway-uk-deadly-danger-of-treating-patients-as-category-members-instead-of-individuals/
Sunday, October 11, 2009, 9:08 PM
Wesley J. Smith
 Many hospitals and nursing homes in the UK have adopted something called the Liverpool Care Pathway, in which dying patients are sedated–whether or not they need it to control unrelievable pain, apparently–and then denied food and water until death.
Currently about 16.5 percent of deaths in the UK occur while sedated–which is far more than the hospice experts I have talked with have told me is necessary to actually alleviate suffering. Indeed, they tell me sedation is rarely necessary in hospice practice If that is true, and I intend to do some more research on this, the Pathway misuses the legitimate treatment of palliative sedation, and mutates it in some cases into a method of causing death, known as terminal sedation. This means that sedation is sometimes administered, not because the individual patient actually needs the procedure, but because he or she has been reduced to a category member, and that’s how members of the category are treated.
That’s a prescription for disaster. And now, a woman was almost dehydrated to death after being put mistakenly on the Pathway. From the story:
AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened. Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.
Why are we surprised? The Pathway is a blunt intstrument, and the uniqueness of each case is lost in the drugs sedating effects. Even though its authors believed they had created a nuanced protocol, that is never how these things are actually applied in clinical practice. Eventually, such “pathways” threaten to transform medicine into a paint-by-the numbers technocracy.
And look at what it took to save Hazel from dehydration:
Fenton was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia. Although Ball acknowledged that her mother was very ill she was astonished when a junior doctor told her she was going to be placed on the plan to “make her more comfortable” in her last days. Ball insisted that her mother was not dying but her objections were ignored. A nurse even approached her to say: “What do you want done with your mother’s body?” On January 19, Fenton’s 80th birthday, Ball says her mother was feeling better and chatting to her family, but it took another four days to persuade doctors to give her artificial feeding.
This is a consequence of surrendering care approaches to cost/benefit/best care bureaucratic panels. It becomes an excuse to merely write people off, particularly in a utilitarian environment where “quality of life” may determine the way the patient’s life is perceived by caregivers.
How many Hazel Fosters have died by dehydration who might have lived, or who could have spent their last days–pain controlled but awake and aware–surrounded by family? There is no way to know.
|
|
|
Harold “Fred” Shipman vs Jane Ann Barton
When the truth is finally exposed to the public, will Harold be just another serial murderer and Jane regarded as the most prolific the world has ever known?
Harold’s patients were mainly elderly women living alone and vulnerable. Jane had no preferences, men or women under her tender loving care at Redclyffe Annex, Northcott House and the Gosport War Memorial Hospital over a period of eleven years.
Both Harold and Jane’s patients adored their doctor and when Harold’s contemporaries began dying in unusually high numbers, patients remained loyal to the murderous MD for as long as he spared them, his victims loved their doctor — to death. Jane’s I allege likewise, and from her local practice writing testimonials to save her being struck off the register. But when you cannot change your NHS surgery what can you do, even if your doctor has been charged with Serious Professional Misconduct cumulating in patient’s deaths and; now working under eleven sanctions.
Harold & Jane had many similarities but not in the environment in which they both worked. Harold worked alone in the privacy of his own surgery and in patient’s homes. Jane worked in NHS wards with a full team of Consultants and Nurses. One can understand why it took so long to discovery the evil of Harold, even though the local vicar spoke to the constabulary of his suspicions concerning so many sudden deaths and; the local undertaker voiced concerns about the increase in burials from one doctor. Of course no action was taken at the time.
Jane on the other hand worked in full view of her team but cared for by the NHS. So when nurses voiced their concerns in 1991 the NHS took no action and when families complained about the suspicious deaths of their loved ones, the Police, Ombudsman, NHS NMC, RCN, GMC and CPS all said there was no case to answer and all was correct. Gosport had no honest clergy, undertakers or coroners to voice concerns of the high number of deaths under Dr Barton’s care, the individual’s bank balance was of more importance. They too loved Jane but not to death, only to her death rate.
When a nurse writes to say that over ten years she never experienced a single patient’s death at night but after Jane’s introduction of syringe drivers and diamorphine it became a regular occurrence, would that not sound alarm bells? Also when the ambulance drivers began joking about Jane’s death rate and the “Death Ward,” would that not have caused suspicion? Surprisingly not, so what has Jane got over the bodies who support her? Doctors are struck off for minor misdemeanors like filling out a form incorrectly but Jane has managed over a decade playing J&H. No not Jane & Harold
Now nearly 20 years on where are we? Nowhere. All that is left is an Oxford Graduate doctor with decades of experience behind her working under 11 sanctions. The GMC has shown no concern about the deaths she is accountable for or the patients under her private practice having no alternative but to attend her surgery, knowing that she has been found guilty of the deaths of patients and; is no longer trustworthy with the use of certain drugs.
Would you feel at ease to see her at your bedside one night if you were elderly, alone and vulnerable? I think not.
No film director could plan a grislier scene.
|
|
|
|
Please sign the petition
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/
Elsie’s husband died in 1979, her children were married and she was still young with a long life in front of her. After much deliberation, Elsie chose to move-in and live with her only daughter, where she stayed for the rest of her life. During this time she helped raise her daughter’s children as if they were her own and became an endearing grandmother to the whole family.
October 9th 1999 Elsie was admitted to the Queen Alexander’s Hospital in Hampshire with a urinary tract infection, it was the first time Elsie had ever been in hospital, it was traumatic for her not being in her own home. On 19th October 1999 she was discharged. It also coincided with her Daughter’s husband who had recently been diagnosed with Leukemia and on the 18th October he was to undergo a bone marrow transplant in London. The timing could not have been worse as we all wanted someone to watch out for Elsie while the family were all at Hammersmith Hospital. After reviewing all the options, it was decided that she would spend 6 weeks at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital until her daughter and husband returned to Hampshire and Elsie would then return home.
The GWMH was near her son Harry and friends so every one was delighted that Elsie would get lots of visitors, which she did. Elsie’s daughter visited her once a week from London and although Elsie was very homesick they thought she was in the best place and was getting the best care. Elsie wrote to her daughter there and also sent 2 get well cards, she was longing to come home and hoping and praying David would recover from the transplant, which he did.
“Sadly Elsie never knew”.
This has been more than a 10year battle for justice and the truth must be exposed by the “Department of Health”, behind the practices of Dr Jane Barton at the “Gosport War Memorial Hospital “(GWMH) since 1988-2000.
After continued complaints, Sir Liam Donaldson sought a report by the “Commission of Health Improvement” into the GWMH, the report in July 2002 was seriously damming. After much pressure by the families who persisted for answers into their loved ones deaths, Sir Liam Donaldson asked Professor Richard Baker in October 2002 to conduct an audit on the number of deaths there. His report has yet to be released into the public domain.
“We all wonder why”?
The thought and presence of Professor Baker’s visit to the hospital set alarm bells ringing for 2 nurses who had already “blown the whistle” in 1990/91 and with the 1991 minutes in hand they came forward again. This triggered off the 3rd Police Investigation. It was a relief for the families, at last they were being listened to, even though some were in a state of shock that their fears were starting to become reality.
They believed that at last justice would be done. They believed Dr Jane Barton would eventually be in a criminal court and a Judge and jury would decide her fate. They believed there would be transparently and after a 4year police investigation.
How wrong they were!
The families want Justice and accountability for their loved ones who met their deaths prematurely, some without justification or logic.
When we are going to die one would expect doctors and professionals alike to inform the patient or families that they are on the terminal pathway (LCP) and opiates have been administered. One would think it is their right to know including their families. This was a right that Dr Jane Barton and Sister Jill Hamblin took at will because
“They could”
Too many times the “ Portsmouth HealthCare Trust”(PHT) apologised to families and stated, “They have learnt from their complaints”.
“They never have”.
Too many times they apologised for miscommunication and say, “They have learnt from that”.
“They never have.”
We all learnt from the PHT that conversations
“Never happen”.
18th November 1999 at about o900 hours at the request of Dr Jane Barton my Mother had a visit from an external doctor in old age psychiatry, Dr Taylor. Why did Jane Barton call Dr Taylor as my mother was lucid and not in any pain?
The doctor wrote;
HAPPY, NO COMPLAINTS, WAITING FOR HER DAUGHTER, NOT ^OBVIOUSLY PARANOID, SAYS TABLETS MAKE HER MOUTH SORE.
This document only came to light in 2009 at the Coroner’s Inquest. It was not in the medical file given to her daughter by the Portsmouth Healthcare Trust.
18th November 1999 at 0915 hours Dr Jane Barton authorised Sister Jill Hamblin to administer a 25mcg Fentanyl Patch. This was only licensed for patients dying with cancer and in chronic intractable pain, Elsie had no pain nor did she have cancer. For those of you who are not familiar with this drug, it is a patch that is adhered to the skin and; on Elsie it was placed on her back. It takes between 17 -23 hours to reach maximum affect and is equivalent to 135mg of morphine. No Previous opiates, paracetamol were ever given to Elsie for break through pain.
18th November 1999 at 1430 hours Elsie had a visit from Sandra a very close family friend, Sandra dried her hair and Elsie signed her pension book. They had tea together, chatted and laughed over old times. At 1830 hours, Elsie’s son Harry visited her and they sat in the lounge area, chatted, he left a 2000hours he kissed his mum goodnight and told her that he would see her tomorrow. No one spoke to Elsie again.
19th November 1999 at 0630 hours Elsie woke and dressed herself suddenly feeling the full affects of the overdose. Sister Jill Hamblin called on Dr Jane Barton and she authorised Sister Jill Hamblin to administer 50mg chlorpromazine. 55 minutes later Dr Jane Barton authorised Sister Jill Hamblin to administered 40mg diamorphine and 40 mg Midazolam via a syringe driver that was placed in Elsie’s back.
We read in the Independent Review Report July 2002 that 2 nurses walked Elsie for several hours with the syringe driver in her back, by 1230 hours she was relaxed enough and was transferred to a bed. Her son was asked to come to the hospital at 1300 hours only find his mother was comatose and on the terminal pathway.
Elsie Died on November 21st 1999. Not because of natural causes, not because of old age. But because she was given without justification or logic and without her or any of her family’s knowledge, a cocktail of painkillers causing respiratory depression and death.
“Only you all can make change”
Mr. Norman Lamb MP has called for an early day motion into the extraordinary and unexplained circumstances at the GWMH. Please ask your MP’s to sign it, if they agree that the families should be told the truth behind the practices of Dr Jane Barton?
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40279&SESSION=903
Please sign the petition for all our sakes in the future only you can make change.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/
|
|
|
|
The brave fighters from Gosport went to meet the Crown Prosecution Service. This is what the CPS says about their service "Fair, fearless, effective". We shall see whether they live up to our Great Expectations.
The families were armed with files of concrete evidence concerning the killing ways of Dr Jane Barton. The BBC report can be read here. The best speech can be reviewed here. It is worth watching the BBC interview of the families - because it shows they mean business.
I certainly hope the campaigners can change the way the establishment's medics have conducted themselves in blocking the prosecution of Dr Jane Barton by using a flimsy palliative care defense. More coverage can be found in their local newspapers. It is clear that the CPS have a hot potato in their hands. The Gosport Campaigners want answers and they are not leaving without those answers.
Ann Reeves, Bridget's mother, said:
'We're back here again trying to persuade the CPS that there's a case to pursue
'But we shouldn't have to search for evidence for them.
'We just want them to deal with this case as they should. We want closure on this.'
Bridget Reeves is kicking the establishment and her words are likely to open the doors to the Criminal Courts where Jane Barton should be tried.
This is the circular we received :- A petition has been set up.For the reasons below I have started a petition called “Elsie’s Law” and ask for your support and signature.http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/
In 1999 my Mother was administered a cocktail of opiates which caused her premature death. She was not in pain, she was not dying but she was old and she was vulnerable. My family have fought so that she may see some justice for the fact that her Right to Life was taken from her by Dr Jane Barton. Drugs, such as diamorphine used in the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) have been under much speculation.
Although an audit of Care of the Dying, by the Marie Curie and the Royal College of Physicians found that nearly 4000 terminal patients found the framework to be of high quality, there is no doubt that some patients remain at risk. There is room in current practice for elderly, vulnerable patients to be started on the LCP without their or their family’s consent; it is not good enough to assume that in all hospitals, hospices and care homes that conversations will take place and that patients and families will be kept informed.
The audit reveals that two thirds of the 3,893 patients whose deaths were assessed needed no continuous infusion of medication, and all but 4% only needed low doses of opiates.
However, in the case of Dr Barton (Gosport War Memorial) patients were started on high doses of opiates and sedatives via infusion, sent into comas and to their deaths. We shouldn’t have to fight for justice after death; the law should be there to protect us when we are alive.
Please send this message on.
In my own view, physicians are so obsessed about the comfortable death of patients, few remember that there should be some protection for those who are wrongly diagnosed as "dying".
Clive Seale's research provides interesting evidence of the culture of palliative care.
"A report by Clive Seale, professor of sociology at Brunel University, said 1,930 deaths were as a result of a doctor ending a patient's life without the patient's consent, a practice known as "non-voluntary euthanasia" or "mercy killing".
Dr Rita Pal
Sphere: Related Content
|
|
|
Jane
Posted by beefidget on Monday, February 01, 2010 at
2:36:54 PM |
|
http://nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/jane-barton-bulstrode-chre-swings-into.html
 Dick-sonius Maximus
The GMC Spinmeister
Internal rumours from the General Medical Council had hinted that the GMC were apparently looking for ways for Professor Bulstrode's sister to avoid a sanction. In preparation for that, the CHRE were contacted and of course a referral was made by me immediately after the judgment on Barton was out. The problem with the General Medical Council is that they are so predictable these days and now that their ex journalist CEO is at the helm, their spinning techniques are becoming more foolish as the days proceed on. It may be the reason why Jane Barton's case was low profile in the media. The good thing about ex journalists is that they know what pleases people so even if they have to spin, they do it well. This is the reason for Niall's stance on the Barton judgment. He denies responsibility for something that is essentially his fault now. Well, none of us are going to be convinced that Niall is a good guy because good guys need to prove themselves and would never be hired by the General Medical Council. We know he was hired to fix the General Medical Council's "image". Well, there are some very unhappy members of the public who are of the view that the GMC is not fit to regulate. So much for working in the "public's interest". Lets see what Paul Philip, the ex GMC Temp at to say sometime ago :-
“But where our standards have not been met, we must - and will - act to protect patients and the public interest.”
It wouldn't do for them to have a defined killer as the sister of their ex committee member Professor Christopher Bulstrode. I have quoted some comparator cases but there are inordinately high numbers of them on the GMC website. Most of them are foreign doctors. While the General Medical Council readily admit sanctioning foreign doctors more severely, they are also targetting foreign doctors here. While implying that foreign doctors are " less competent" in some way, the person who killed the most patients is a Caucasian British Trained doctor and a Oxford University Graduate. So there is the biggest irony this side of the planet. The General Medical Council and Niall Dickson should acutely understand that the biggest serial killers in medical history were caucasian and British trained. While the GMC gleefully criticizes foreign doctors, perhaps they should get their own house in order before searching afar. Afterall, it is rather worrying that the deaths in Gosport were caused by the "hazardous prescribing" of Dr Jane Barton but the GMC has not suggested extra tests or assessments for these doctors. On the 20th January 2010, Pulse announced that the General Medical Council would crack down on "Foreign GPs". Nial crowed
"Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC said: ‘We have a great opportunity now to create a system in which every stage of education and training is fit for purpose, successfully prepares the doctor for the next one, where standards are constantly rising and which treats all doctors fairly, wherever they come from and whatever stage they are at in their careers.’
Is that right Niall? So can you explain why my colleagues remain struck off while Jane Barton, British trained doctor remains on the GMC Register? Have they been treated " fairly"? Have any of us who have tried to uphold the public interest been treated fairly?
The other one of course is the David Southall case. David rides against the political tide of the Labour Party and has specified repeatedly that child protection is failing. Of course, all the studies show that child protection is failing. The Southall case is case law. Of course, David had a clean record for many years but that didn't appear to make much difference to the General Medical Council. They struck him off.
It follows that the indicative sanctions document dictates that the necessary sanction for Dr Jane Barton is to be struck off or at the minimum, suspended. The decision to provide conditions does not fit with any GMC jurisprudence. The GMC make the rules up on their own. Niall Dick-son who is currently watching Rome burn is tactically interesting as he dissociates himself from the panel that are employed by him. As Chief Executive of a failing body, he cannot of course dissociate himself as he is vicariously liable for their conduct. So, essentially the buck stops with him. He may not have understood this aspect of the law but he will in time.
To understand the General Medical Council, one needs to read the transcripts of Day 50 and 51.
These can be downloaded here :-
Day 50 - Download here.
Day 51 - Download here
There are some interesting aspects of observations there.
So who were the Panelists. This was the team who decided to allow Barton to continue practicing medicine. The idea here is this " never mind that you killed patients with your reckless prescribing habits, we accept you back into the medical profession". Well, thats nice to know isn't it.
Chairman: Mr Andrew Reid, LLB JP
Panel Members: Ms Joy Julien
Mrs Pamela Mansell
Mr William Payne
Dr Roger Smith
Legal Assessor: Mr Duncan Smith
So who are these people?
Andrew Reid
Director, Pecksniff's Ltd. Member: Prescription Medicine Code of Practice Authority Appeal Board. Justice of the Peace. Member, Magistrates' Association Executive Committee, West Sussex Branch. Formerly: Criminal Defence Barrister; British Council Country Director, Taiwan; CEO Powco, Vietnam
Joy Julien
Lay Member: Office for Judicial Complaints. Non-Executive Member: Chartered Society of Physiotherapists; London Legal Support Trust. Lay Assessor: National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). Lay Assessor: National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS). Formerly: Member of the Parole Board; Business mentor, Prince's Trust; Trustee of Legal Action Group; Trustee Central London Law Centre; Director of the African Caribbean Finance Forum; Director of the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau.
Pamella Mansell
Senior Partner PMA Consultancy specialising in improving performance in public services, adviser to government bodies on safeguarding standards and regulation for both vulnerable people and children, independent panellist for the Judicial Appointments Commission, Committee for GSCC, GMC Fitness to Practise Panellist, Governor for Treloars College. Previous employment : C/E of Charity: Director of Children and Family Services - LB. Member: CIPD : Past President - Inner Wheel organisation.
William Payne
Former Miner; N.A.C.O.D.S. Branch Secretary & Area Trustee; Justice of the Peace; School Governor. Currently: Lay Member Employment Tribunals (Sheffield); Self-employed Businessman; Member of Labour Party.
Roger Smith
Retired full time but still part time Consultant Cardiologist N Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust, Ex Vice President RCPEd, Lay (Public Interest) Member Practioner Certification Committee, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
Duncan Smith
No entry on GMC website.
So that's what the General Medical Council says about them.
It is interesting to note that the book Oxford Texbook of Orthopaedics and Trauma has a chapter or two written by one Roger Smith.
Osteoporosis 1324(9)
Roger Smith
Osteomalacia 1333(8)
Roger Smith
Paget's disease 1341(3)
Roger Smith
Parathyroids and the skeleton 1344(6)
Roger Smith
Cancer and the skeleton 1350(3)
Roger Smith
The osteopetroses 1353(4)
Roger Smith
Bone disease and enzyme defects 1357(5)
Roger Smith
Ectopic mineralization 1362(7)
Roger Smith
Of course, it may not be the same Roger Smith [ GMC Panellist] as the above denotes a metabolic specialty and the panelist is a cardiologist . Further intelligence may be required on this. The more important aspect of the panelists is the fact that a member of the Labour Party [ who have a vested interest in a negative finding of this case ]. This can be described as a conflict of interest. All this is of course interesting and we should ask the GMC whether any of them knew Professor Bulstrode while he was serving as a committee member. If anyone has any additional information, please email me in confidence ritasaraswatipal@gmail.com
Dr Liz Miller gives us some excellent intelligence regarding the failure of assessing Jane Barton's record :-
1) how many death certificates she has signed in the last ten years, and see how that compares to other doctors working in General Practice in her area?
2) what is her "prescription profile" for her patients in her General Practice?
In the one area where this information has bee examined - namely at Gosport Hospital, she has been found lacking.
There needs to be a review of practice as a whole in the community
Incidentally, a little research in the Guernsey, where she and her brother were brought up, suggests that like Shipman, her mother may also have died from cancer.
Barton, nee Bulstrode, comes from a medical family whose father was a consultant radiologist in Guernsey. Bulstrode house is a palliative care oncology unit and has helped develop the ‘Guernsey Cancer Strategy’. Interesting link:http://tinyurl.com/yj526c4
Why Guernsey police are mentioned as the source of this document, I have no idea!
Reaction from the Gosport Campaigners has been one of anger and disbelief, one told us :-
"I started the stampede walkout of the most insulting spill with no respect for the victims of her male practice, whose who lost their lives in the most inhumane manner, the GMC's only interest was for the years of good behavior after the crimes had been committed. Also the 184 letters that had been written about her from her patients that were produced during the last day of the hearing giving the families no opportunity to get thousands of letters against her. Andrew Reid and the Panel should be ashamed of them selves. My feelings are running very high at the moment"
For those who wish to assist in ensuring Dr Jane Barton is struck off, you can email Briony Mills at the CHRE with your submissions. Anyone to my knowledge can do this. Her email address is Briony.Mills@chre.org.uk. The address is below.
Please also sign this petition
CHRE CHALLENGE COMMENCES.
---- Original Message -----
From: Briony Mills
To: dr.ritapal
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Dr Jane Barton
Dear Dr Pal
I can confirm that we will be considering the decision of the GMC‘s Fitness to Practise Panel of 29th January 2010 in the case of Dr Jane Barton under our standard procedures under Section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. Any appeal by CHRE to the High Court in this case would have to be lodged by 1 April 2010.
If you have any information you would like us to take into consideration when reviewing this decision, please forward this to me as soon as possible.
We will let you know the outcome of our consideration.
Yours sincerely
Briony Mills
Senior Scrutiny Officer
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence
11 Strand
London WC2N 5HR
www.chre.org.uk
Switchboard: 020 7389 8030
Direct Line: 020 7389 8028
Fax: 020 7389 8040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rita Pal [mailto:dr.ritapal
Sent: 29 January 2010 11:14
To: Emma Kelly-Dempster
Subject: Re: Dr Jane Barton
Importance: High
Dear Ms Kelly-Dempster,
RE: Dr Jane Barton
I believe the final result from the GMC regarding the above case does not follow the current case law on indicative sanctions. I believe the CHRE should urgently review this decision with a view to striking her off the Register. I have sent a number of cases to you before :-
1. GMC v Vaidya
2. GMC v Varma
3. GMC v Prabhu Satya
4. GMC v Bhadra
The above doctors did not compromise patient safety. Please confirm that you will be reviewing this decision urgently
Regards
Dr Rita Pal
|
|
|
|
http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/
 "It won't be long now"
I have had the privilege of reading the outcome of the GMC’s case against Dr Jane Barton who was found guilty of Multiple cases of Serious Professional Misconduct, a charge that in general strikes a doctor off the Medical Register.
What is Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) in the eyes of the NHS?
If a medical man/woman in the pursuit of his/her profession has done something with regard to it which will be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonorable by his/her professional brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to the General Medical Council, if that be shown, to say that he/she has been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.’
For many years, ending in 1993, the GMC provided to all doctors on the medical register a guide to its functions, procedures and disciplinary jurisdiction. This guide was known as the ‘Blue Book’. It described the more common types of misconduct, which had in the past been regarded as grounds for disciplinary proceedings. In the main, they related to what might be termed ‘wilful’ or deliberate misconduct (e.g. termination of pregnancy in contravention of the law, drug abuse, canvassing for patients) or breach of medical ethics (e.g. abuse of professional confidence). Disregard of professional responsibilities to a patient (e.g. by failing to visit or to provide treatment for a patient when necessary) was also mentioned.
The Blue Book made clear that the question whether any particular course of conduct amounted to SPM, was one which fell to be determined by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) after considering the evidence in an individual case. It emphasised that the categories of misconduct described within it could not be regarded as exhaustive. It stated (I quote from the final edition, published in December 1993):
Any abuse by doctors of any of the privileges and the opportunities afforded to them, or any grave dereliction of professional duty or serious breach of medical ethics, may give rise to a charge of serious professional misconduct
The 1985 edition of the Blue Book had included for the first time a statement of the standard of medical care that the public was entitled to expect. It stated:
• Conscientious assessment of the history, symptoms and signs of a patient’s condition; In the case of Mrs Devine who was opiate naïve, 15mins after Dr Taylor visiting and writing in the medical notes that she found Mrs Devine Happy, with no complaints and waiting for her daughter to arrive, the Alverstoke Witch administered Mrs Devine with a Fentanyl Patch containing the equivalent of 135mg of morphine.
• Sufficiently thorough professional attention, examination and, where necessary, diagnostic investigation;
I reiterate that Mrs Devine was examined by Dr Taylor just 15mins prior to Dr Barton putting Mrs Devine on the terminal pathway.
• Competent and considerate professional management; It was proven that Dr Barton was totally incompetent in her management.
• Appropriate and prompt action upon evidence suggesting the existence of a condition requiring urgent medical intervention; Mrs Devine required no medical attention as she sat happily waiting for the arrival of her daughter and certainly not a 25mgc Fentanyl Patch equivalent to 135mg morphine and her subsequent death 58hrs later.
• Readiness, where the circumstances so warrant, to consult appropriate professional colleagues; Dr Barton failed to consult with any of her colleagues and even though her defense tried to highlight the lack of consultant supervision / guidance, she blatantly stated that if she was able to go back in time would do everything exactly the same. Therefore she would have refused guidance from her Consultants and as she stated, would not adjust any drug prescription.
Good Medical Practice’
In the mid-1990s, there was concern that the Blue Book was too negative, concerned as it was with ‘bad doctors’. There was a desire to develop instead a more positive statement defining good practice
‘If serious problems arise which call your registration into question, these are the standards against which you will be judged.’ These were judged but crucial evidence was withheld. Dr Taylor’s evidence has never been taken into consideration, nor was she called as a witness. Also the death rate of patients under her care from 1996 to 1999 and the death rate for the 4 years following her resignation have never been made public.
The 1997 Screeners’ Handbook
The 1997 Screeners’ Handbook produced by the GMC advised screeners that in reaching a view on whether a complaint was so serious as to raise an issue of SPM, the screener (whether medical or lay) should assess the information provided in the complaint against the following criteria:
The gravity of the doctor’s act or omission; Dr Barton’s acts were proven to be of Serious Professional Misconduct concluding in the death of the 12 patients in question.
• Whether there is more than one event or alleged victim. The GMC panel was discussing 12 patients of the 92 patients who relatives asked the police to investigate. The government will not allow the public to know how many patients died at the hands of Dr Barton during her reign at the Redclyffe Annex, Northcott House and the Gosport War Memorial Hospital. A period spanning 11yrs 1988 to 1999.
• The extent of the risk to patients or the public. During the Coroner’s Inquest the Jury found Dr Barton guilty of causing the premature death of 3 patients. The full extent of the risks to patients will not be known until she enters a criminal court where people cannot lie.
• Whether the doctor appears to have acted deliberately, recklessly, accidentally, or in bad faith. Stating that she would not change anything if she had to do it all again, even though she knew experts had condemned her actions, is proof that she acted deliberately, recklessly and in bad faith. Not accidentally.
• Whether the doctor may have neglected or disregarded his or her professional responsibilities. Dr Barton totally neglected and disregarded her responsibilities continually putting patients at risk and premature death.
• Whether there have been any previous complaints to the GMC about the doctor which, taken with the current complaint, suggest a course of conduct which could amount to spm. In 1991 nurses blew the whistle on Dr Barton’s use of syringe drivers and diamorphine. They were silenced. Professor Baker did an audit on the deaths at the GWMH that he believed died in suspicious circumstances and everyone is still waiting to read that audit. In 2002 Mrs Reeves wrote to the GMC with her concerns regarding Dr Barton and her mother Mrs Devine’s care. The GMC wrote back to Mrs Reeves and stated there was no case to answer and promptly wrote to Dr Barton that they would be taking no action.
The New Fitness to Practise Procedures & Poor Treatment and Substandard Clinical Practice.In the 1983 edition, that statement was amplified. The relevant passage then stated.
So why did the panel choose not to remove her from the medical register? They chose instead to disregard that they were there to discuss the deaths of 12 patients from 1996 to 1999. Instead they made their decision on the period 2000 to 2010 when Dr Barton was working under restrictions at her local practice; the very period the GMC handed to her by not bringing any charges in 2000 when the case of Gladys Richards was brought to their attention. The Fitness to Practice Panel are in place to examine the practices of a doctor who has proven to be a danger to his/her patients and; in this case it only relates to the patients she dealt with while working at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital. The Panel was not there to take into consideration any testimonials written with respect to her work outside of this period 1996 to 1999 and the fault lies with the GMC for allowing them to be submitted.
So why did the GMC permit Dr Barton’s defense to produce the good character testimonials from her local practice patients and colleagues. Even though the panel was there to discuss the deaths of 12 patients from 1996 to 1999 and if Dr Barton had been a danger to her patients. Not will be.
The panel did not discuss the 92 letters of concern sent to the police by relatives of the dead nor were any of the families asked to comment. It must be remembered that Dr Harold Shipmen received over a thousand testimonials of good behavior but thank God he was not given a 10year reprieve to be a good boy and get away with the murder of over 200 patients.
All I ask is for the GMC to prove that they are there for the public and not the doctors. In doing so take into consideration the number of patients who died in the Gosport War Memorial Hospital during the period Dr Barton was free to administer excessive drugs and; compare this with the period following her resignation from the hospital.
July 2002 CHI reported their findings of the usage of Diamorphine during the period 1997 to 2002 in Daedalus and Dryad wards.
Daedalus Ward Diamorphine
• 1998/99 14,000mg.
• 2000/01 2,000mg.
Dryad Ward Diamorphine
• 1998/99 22,000mg.
• 2000/01 1,500mg.
This report was never discussed at the GMC hearing even though it gave light to the vast difference of usage during Dr Barton’s reign.
Dr Barton’s statement of being overworked and not having sufficient consultancy coverage should not have been considered and there are two reasons for this.
• From the time she introduced syringe drivers and diamorphine at Redclyffe Annex and Northcott House when nurses complained to their superiors of unjustified increased deaths and; the period at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital prior 1996, she was not under pressure. Yet her methods remained the same.
• Even knowing the expert’s findings, she blatantly stated she would not have adjusted a single prescription if she had to do it all again.
Dr Barton’s wellbeing was discussed when she failed to accept her wrongdoings but I allege psychopaths are glib and superficially charming, and many psychopaths are excellent mimics of normal human emotion. There are no medications or other techniques that can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others.
To quote one case in question.
• Mrs Devine woke on the 18th November 1999, dressed herself and was seen by Dr Taylor at 0900. Dr Taylor wrote in the medical notes that she found Mrs Devine “Happy, no complaints, waiting for her daughter not paranoid and tablets made her mouth sore”.
• At 0915 Dr Barton prescribed for the administration a Fentanyl Patch equivalent to 135mg of morphine.
• Mrs Devine’s daughter-in-law arrived lunchtime and enjoying their time together, asked if she could take her mother-in-law to the restaurant but this was refused. Mrs Devine signed her pension book her daughter-in-law she dried Mrs Devine’s hair.
• The following morning Mrs Devine woke with the Fentanyl running at peak level and being opiate naïve was in a complete state of hallucination.
• Instead of Dr Barton taking this into consideration, she had Mrs Devine injected with 50mg of Chlorpromazine with the aid of 4 nurses.
• 55mins later she administered 40mg of diamorphine and 40mg of midazolam via a syringe driver and then walked Mrs Devine with the syringe driver in situ.
• Lunchtime she decided to remove the Fentanyl Patch even though she was well aware that the patch should have been removed 12hrs prior to administering further opiates.
• Then and only then did she tell family members Mrs Devine had only 36hrs to live
• By 1PM Mrs Devine was comatose.
Putting patients on the terminal pathway when they are not in pain, not agitated and therefore not dying is against the law, it does not carry the dual effect which some doctors hide behind in their practicing of involuntary euthanasia; it is in my opinion MURDER and should be dealt with in a criminal court.
Would it have been right to give Dr Harold Shipman a 10yr window to behave and forget the 200+ patients he murdered?
From Alverstoke Witch to Alverstoke Angel?
The hundreds of unnecessary deaths must never be forgotten at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital.
I rest my case.
Richard Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
