Showing posts with label Deaths and GMC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deaths and GMC. Show all posts

Monday, December 27, 2010

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL AND SWEARING ON THE BIBLE


Following years of religious privileges at the General Medical Council, UK, and the persecutions of the innocent doctors by the religious left, now the General Medical Council has put a Bible on its website in the section on helping the witnesses.
Now click here to watch Mr George Carlin on the subject of Stop Swearing on the Bible
The rise of the religious fundamentalism has been noted in the last ten years in the world and so has the deterioration in human rights.
At the General Medical Council doctors run the risk of being declared mad simply for being critical of some religious practice or local NHS small lords while doing this in the interest of the patients. Women are more at risk than men of being declared mad but this is to be expected from a sexist organization which would employ people who applaud their own narcissistic image.
Most religions are patriarchal and asserting religious supremacy as the General Medical Council has done now has a number of political motives, one of which is to sabotage the reforms that the new government wants to make to this notoriously poorly performing body in the eyes of those who have experienced that dark side of controlling the freedom of thought by the state organs.
Discrimination against freethinkers/atheists is rife in medical profession and having the Bible and other religious texts for witnesses opens witnesses just to that discrimination. A bit like declaring one is a homosexual to homophobes. So the whole thing is really not just silly but actually nasty.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Professor Dora Kohen, GMC, uniforms


Professor Dora Kohen was appointed to work at the General Medical Council, UK as Health Screener (screening complaints against medical doctors in order to refer doctors for psychiatric examinations). She also worked for Parole Board (2007-2008) paid for by Department of Justice.
Interestingly, at the time when religion was forced by Blair Administration on many public institutions, she wrote an article: "Nurses' uniforms" in Psychiatric Bulletin Vol 26 No4 April 2002 page 156. Essentially, she claims that nurses balloted to go back to wearing their nursing uniforms in all the psychiatric intensive care unit, acute male and female wards, and rehabilitation wards. and that this was followed by "a great reduction in aggression, violence and the number of untoward incidents on the ward".
Professor Kohen's article is only the length of an average abstract, does not have any critical appraisal of other literature about the wearing of uniforms in psychiatric setting, or of her own research, contrary to all the principles of good science. There are no references given, no scales or tests mentioned, no statistical analysis and no explanation why no bias was excluded. Presumably, it is the same nurses who voted for uniforms that subsequently would not be filling untoward incident forms. It was left to them to report any incidents.
It is very easy for me to note that one of the editors of Psychiatric Bulletin was at the time Dr Mike Shooter (a religious man), who was also a President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists to whom I wrote about my concerns about the wearing of religious uniforms when working with mentally ill. He was completely incapable of addressing the issue. He did not seem to care about science or evidence by allowing such an article to be published.
The facts are that in UK mental health care professionals have not worn uniforms when working with mentally ill for over thirty years. The papers on wearing of religious uniforms are not readily available on line, or in the average good medical library. These have to ordered and paid for (hundreds of pounds). It appears, Professor Kohen did not dip into her own pocket as I did to find out why uniforms are not worn. I did not regret spending hundreds of pounds in search of truth. I can give references to what I write about simply, because I am willing to do so.
Having found out that the wearing of uniforms in psychiatric setting leads to a barrier in communications, increased violence, more self-harm, more absconding and worse treatment adherence I did research on religious uniforms and what mentally ill people think about it by administering a questionnaire (and not uniforms). Most people found religious uniforms off-putting.
Professor Dora Kohen could have administered questionnaires with photographs of the actors dressed as nurses and controlled for sex as well as uniforms. There should have been two different questionnaires: A and B. In A questionnaire she could have had a female nurse dressed in uniform, male in casual clothes with a Linkert scale below and in B questionnaire other way round. Linkert scale could have on one end Most attractive and at the other end Most-Off putting. Patients would than put a vertical line across the horizontal Linkert scale line to indicate how they feel about it. This would remove nursing, and administrative bias in deciding to go ahead with uniforms.
My research on religious uniforms in psychiatric setting (the first in the world) was followed by furore and mobbing leading to sham peer review before the General Medical Council.
Interestingly, GMC Health Screener thought I had mental health problems ( I never had mental illness in my whole life). When I obtained documents from GMC about the investigation of my case under Data Protection Act 1998, it was 10 years later. Medical Screener's name was blackened. Why such secrecy is required? I sign my patients notes and so do other doctors. Covering up the wrong doing is old and stinky and it is not lawful.
The stigma of mental illness was attached to me so that what I say can be disregarded and this is the case up to present day. GMC should ask for its money back from all of those experts who gave it poor service.
Religion is politics dressed in drag, as somebody said and the low standard of Professor Kohen's paper is noticeable as well as that of the editor who approved it.
Professor Kohen, in her paper, refers to patients as service users but staff as "in patient staff". Clearly, Professor Kohen cannot stomach being consistent and saying in service users staff.
There is no mention of the fact that nurses can be badly paid, houses can be expensive to buy to live in and not spending money on professional clothes which cost a bit, can result in a desire to wear a uniform because it is a cheap alternative. I do not think the same nurses would be spending hundreds of pounds to get publications on the wearing of nursing uniforms.
I guess, under Labour Government we are supposed to think that nurses, workers did the right thing and doctors the wrong, as I also note they did not opt to wear white coats. They do not need to, and could not be forced to.
Once again, The Royal College of Psychiatrists acted in its own interests: preserving the power of the religious psychiatrists and not putting patients first.
Now, that thousands of Catholic priests are known to have abused children, The Royal College will continue protesting that they really, always do their best in the interest of patients.
The famous experiment of Little Albert, see below shows how fears can be formed: through bad experience. Surely, abused men would fear clergy who were under obligation to cover up abuse as well.
However, the evidence is there, when the choice is presented to The Royal College of Psychiatrists to choose between science and abuse of power, it's choice was abuse of power.
If nurses needed to be identified by patients or relatives they could have had their big badges clearly displayed. There is no need for uniforms for identification purposes. Why they would not go to a nursing office on the ward if they needed a nurse? Why is not there a member of staff on duty to assist relatives during visiting time? Etc, etc.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Letter to Remedial Supervisor






As my first session with GMC remedial supervisor went rather well I wrote to him:

Hello Simon, not my friend,
I'll come to talk to you again,
Because of vision rather creepy
Of famous GMC grafitti,
A vision that says it all
On their wall
In a world of silence



One of the conditions of my GMC registration is prohibition of work out of hours and being on call. The reason for it is to stop me from working completely as continuity of care is essential in private practise and this is exactly what GMC was told I planned to do. I was unemployed at the time of the hearing and had no desire to return to NHS where prejudices against locum doctors are common place.

GMC has shown no interest what the consequences of this sanction of not working out of hours could be for patients or public.

Recently two women died in my garden out of hours at approximately 00:15. They were walking on pavement when a car hit them. One was thrown with such force that she flew across my neighbour's garden and through the wooden fence into my garden and soon died. The second woman died on the foot path to my door. The blood stains are still visible three weeks later. I was asleep when the accident happened. If I was awake, legally, I would be under obligation not to help these women and just watch them die.

GMC made no findings of fact that I ever harmed anyone but insisted I undergo performance assessment, physical and mental health examinations. All of those requests were completely unreasonable. I never had mental illness in my life nor were there any physical problems that would require examination. My professional performance was above average.
I wonder what kind of doctor GMC panelists would like to have if they were hit by car and the nearest competent doctor is the one who has sanctions on her practice. Would GMC FTP prefer a doctor who is prepared to follow any rules made by them or would they prefer a doctor who would break them?Many of you may think that GMC would prefer me not to comply with the sanctions against my practice if their life was in danger out of hours, but the issue today is would I want to break the rules in their case.