Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors


nolegion
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1752 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Turbo wow mate you were erm in or up late lol....yes sad to say still in the thick of it trying to get ME fixed but being failed by the so called health system but one good bit of news is that the current GP has verified that the lump in my neck is NO and never was fatty tissue as waved away by that first GP and it has got worse and travelled to varying areas and is worrying me a lot more now than when we first spoke.

I have a good solid sounding solicitor waiting in the wings to see what the outcome is of the biopsies so i'll keep you posted.

Have a great xmas mate and nolegion new year and the same to you others who have given me hope and help

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's another example of what is happening in the USA. This is a doctor's point of view about being covertly recorded. The original web page has some readers' comments.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/whitecoat/blog/2012/12/19/big-brother-is-watching-secret-recordings-of-mds/

 

Last month, the National Post's Tom Blackwell reported that a growing number of hospitals say patients and their families are secretly recording doctors and nurses. Some say it's a symptom of the breakdown of trust being patients and their physicians. Welcome to a Cowardly New World.

 

The biggest examples that reported in the National Post included a video camera installed in a clock radio to secretly record doctors and nurses as they treated a patient. The footage was used as evidence regarding substandard care at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. At Toronto's University Health Network, a video camera was reportedly concealed inside a teddy bear. A camera concealed in a wrist watch was used to record evidence against a Calgary psychiatrist. Smart phones are also being used overtly and also surreptitiously.

 

I have experienced this first hand in the ER. On one occasion during a night shift, as I was about to stitch up a patient's cut, his buddies asked if they could record me doing it. I thought it was kind of cute and innocent. The recording took place in a closed room away from other patients so there was no risk anyone else could be filmed surreptitiously.

 

To be clear, that example was overt. I had another patient encounter that was quite different. I remember seeing an elderly patient who came to the ER with a medical problem. Both the patient and a relative were present in the room the first time I saw him. I came into the room a second time to give the patient and the relative some test results. As I walked into the room, I noticed that a cell phone was on a chair in the room; it was seated in the middle of the seat cushion, sort of like an invited guest. I paid no further attention to it.

 

The relative said the patient's daughter (a physician) and was en route the hospital to speak with me. I started to tell the patient and the relative my working diagnosis and my management plan. Suddenly, the cell phone talked! A voice emanated from the smart phone's speaker disagreeing with me! The daughter had been surreptitiously listening in all along.

 

My reaction? Surprised and embarrassed but I took it in stride. I answered the daughter's questions regarding my diagnosis and allayed her concerns. Secretly, I was glad I'm not the kind of person who speaks without thinking, and that I hadn't been rude or condescending to the patient and his wife.

 

But make no mistake: the surprise element bothered me. The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that the threesome were speaking to one another when I walked into the room. Perhaps they thought of fessing up at that moment but didn't. Then, with each passing moment, it became more and more awkward for them to let me in on the secret.

 

The less charitable explanation is that the daughter and perhaps her family believe doctors are not to be trusted and that they needed a secret weapon. If patients believe that, it means they have lost trust completely. And yet, trust is fundamental to the doctor patient relationship. More than that, if you don't speak up about you feel, then how do you expect your doctor or the hospital to respond in a positive way? How do you expect them to fix things you feel need fixing?

 

Don't get me wrong. I believe there's a huge role for recording what goes on inside the hospital. I have no problem being observed. I was an early proponent of allowing family members in the room during lifesaving treatment. On White Coat Black Art, Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, a surgeon at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto said he is developing a device based on the black box or flight data recorder found in aircraft cockpits that helps crash investigators figure out the root causes of airplane disasters - for the operating room.. Since his days as a resident in surgery, Grantcharov has been recording himself during performing operations. He did a study recently in which he videotaped colleagues doing surgery -- to determine how many mistakes the average surgeon makes and how to reduce them. Open recording might also help patients remember better the doctor's advice.

 

There may even be a place for secret recording - for instance - where there are serious allegations of sexual misconduct against a health professional but no proof. A forensic psychiatrist named Aubrey Levin is accused of sexual misconduct; a video recorded surreptitiously via a video camera placed inside a wrist watch recording what prosecutors say is pretty damaging evidence.

 

Patient advocacy groups like the Patients' Association of Canada think videotaping is a legitimate tool to keep hospitals on their toes.

 

Overt, yes. Covert, not so much, in my opinion. As we speak, hospitals across Canada are developing policies that prohibit videotaping without the consent of health care workers and patients. As reported in the National Post, Alberta Health Services may also ask people to hand over or delete unauthorized images if discovered. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority is likewise developing a policy.

 

You can understand why. Whoever does the recording might unintentionally shoot footage of another patient who happens to be admitted to the same room. Imagine recording your loved one walking down a hallway on a patient ward and accidentally recording images of ten or fifteen other patients and family members along the way. That would be a gross violation of patient privacy. If hospitals don't actively discourage that sort of thing, then they'll be held accountable if such recordings are released to the public.

 

If secret recordings become the norm, I suspect the practice of defensive medicine - ordering lots of unnecessary tests and x-rays to avoid lawsuits - would go up. Those aren't the only legal issues to keep in mind. Defensive medicine drives up the cost of health care. And even if recording is permitted, there are other issues to resolve. Is the recording part of the patient's record, as I think it should be? if so, how should it be stored and for how long?

 

Couple our voyeuristic interest in other people's business plus the potential fame that can come quickly from a piece of video that goes viral, I see surreptitious recording as an inevitable development. That makes me sad and not a little concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing the dermatologist at 10.30 tuesday and then maybe once he or she gives me the go ahead then i'll have the biopsies done ......how long in time that will be I dont know but I'll be taking my dictaphone tomorrow due to I want face to face answers as to THIER attempt to block me in December.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now those were a couple of interesting posts to kick off the new year here.

 

The transatlantic doctor My Turn reports says he is happy with overt recording. But less so with covert…

 

And that is a dilemma, from the patient's point of view,which has been central to this thread from day one.

 

Burlyb. The very best of luck to you with your appointment tomorrow. I do hope you finally get some proper, candid advice.

 

But your dictaphone…overt or covert? Unless and until patients can be confident that medics won't further obstruct access to medical care, I am still driven to recommend 'covert'. You have had enough grief already.

 

In either event, please do come back here afterwards and say how it went.

 

Meanwhile, I followed My Turn's link to the comments appended to the article. Winterbourne View & Ivy Robinson's case come very much to mind, with this one, last month:-

 

"Dr. Goldman really loses credibility in my mind with this story. It's way too self-serving. Have a look at the other side of the coin, about what secret videos have revealed. If we can put hidden cameras in car rental agencies and hotel rooms while staff are cleaning, why is it wrong to do that in hospitals and nursing homes?

 

The U.S. protects its citizens much more than Canada does. Adecade ago the U.S. started putting hidden video cameras in patients' rooms to protect them from all kinds of horrific harm by health care providers. Since then there have been many care facilities exposed and staff convicted o fcrimes. See this story:

 

http://www.seniorsatrisk.org/2012/11/videos-show-nursing-staff-assaulting-defenceless-patients/ "

Link to post
Share on other sites

the dermatologist was amaized as to WHY I was there to see him due to he said there was nothing wrong with my skin and after reading a load of note in the dosier then he just said he'd have to refer me back as SEEN and that there was nothing for him to look at due to it was not a skin issue.....marvelous waste of more of my time but for one factor.......he told me i have some depressed vertibrea in my neck 'something I didnt know'that has lain unseen to to GP who I have been to see more than once in the past few months.

I feel a need to seek advice now from my solicitor due to the pains in my neck and the lumps are NOT fatty tissue they are painfull and almost solid and the solicitor has already tolm me that the GP they have aligned with their office will be notified once we have the lowdown about the biopsies I am seeking and it was almost confirmed today that there will be none unless MY doctor puts me forward for them....guess what my first call will be tomorrow at around 8 am 'due to my surgery will NOT allow new apointments to made except via the phone and at 8 am.....disgracefull disgusting and what a pile of [edit] the NHS is today

Edited by honeybee13
Word removed. Please refrain from trying to circumvent the swear filter.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will mate as soon as I can get enough money together to get something thats clear I keep looking online to see what small systems there are and have seen a small pen type one in maplin electircal.

The dermo consultant had no answers for me today and to be honest i think it's delaying tactics now and thats not me being paranoid.

Cheers for your continued support and from nolegion too cheers :thumb:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A GMC case appearing online today concerns Mr & Mrs F's young daughter who a GP failed to spot had Type 1 diabetes.

 

Of particular interest for the purposes of this thread is the fact that after the child had been admitted to hospital, where she was correctly diagnosed, Mr F had a meeting with the GP and the surgery's practice manager, and at that meeting the GP did not contradict Mr F 's description of his daughter's symptoms as first presented, with parental assistance, to the GP:-

 

"The [Fitness to Practise] Panel also noted the transcript of the meeting which took place between you, Mr F and the practicemanager around 8 December 2010. The Panel found it particularly striking that throughout this meeting, on no occasion did you tell Mr F that he had never told you about the symptoms that he was now claiming to have told you about."

 

So how did the GMC come to have a transcript of that meeting? Because the enterprising Mr F covertly recorded it, of course.

 

Well done, Mr F. A good example to follow, and I hope your daughter's condition is now under control.

 

(However, disgracefully in my view, although the GMC found misconduct established, it declined to take any action against the GP's registration.

 

http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/Ghoorbin.pdf)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed, well done Mr F. Only somebody who has previously had his fingers burned by officialdom/medics would be wise enough to record the meeting.

 

Little surprised by the GMC's response. How do we reform/get rid of this organisation? We need a body to protect and defend patients, not one that allows careless or dangerously incompetent doctors to practise on the vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's difficult to find words appropriate to sum up the GMC. Ritualised bias and inadequacy compounding such of the severe problems it bothers to consider, perhaps.

 

As some may know, after much hoo-ha, the grand notion of making its 'prosecution role' (GMC) look different from its 'judging role' (the MPTS= 'medical practitioners tribunal service'), was finally made operational half way through last year. After six months, it is easy to see the difference in approach in terms of e.g. despatch, patient-centred thoroughness, openness, and robust and logical decision making: none.

 

If anyone has the stomach for it, you can follow the, roughly monthly, update to the reported case list, here:-

 

http://www.mpts-uk.org/decisions/data/1530.asp

 

Truly, it makes extraordinary reading sometimes.

 

Meanwhile, 'in other news' last week, another concerned and attentive family has been checking up on their elderly relative's care using covert recording:-

 

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Abuse-inquiry-Granary-care-home-Wraxall-people/story-18066354-detail/story.html#axzz2KVMPhx7n

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sometimes one comes across statements made to the public by medics the ignorance and arrogance of which simply take one's breath away. Here's a recent one reported from a Canadian doctor, a Dr Shulman:-

 

'He doesn't buy logic that without video or audio evidence in a malpractice suit, the patient loses. Shulman says if a patient loses it's because they"didn't have a leg to stand on".'

 

Tellt hat to Ivy Robinson. Or Jamie Merret. Or the residents at Winterbourne View.

Utterly disgraceful.

 

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10472229#comments

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes one comes across statements made to the public by medics the ignorance and arrogance of which simply take one's breath away. Here's a recent one reported from a Canadian doctor, a Dr Shulman:-

 

He doesn't buy logic that without video or audio evidence in a malpractice suit, the patient loses. Shulman says if a patient loses it's because they"didn't have a leg to stand on".'

 

Why am I not surprised that the person who gave the quotation is a doctor!

 

The linked article says the hospital is now drawing up a policy to prevent patients making a recording without the doctor's express consent. However if a patient did go ahead and make a recording covertly then presumably the recording could still be admitted into a court of law because it was not in breach of a law?

 

On the other hand, such a recording would be in breach of the hospital's policy but presumably that is another matter to be taken up between the hospital and patient. If the hospital subsequently pursued the patient in the courts then I guess, although there would be a breach of contract, the hospital wouldn't get any damages because it suffered no loss.

 

My Turn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with the NHS, but did anyone hear the story about the lady who attempted to film a council meeting. It made me foam at the mouth with anger.

 

A lady in Wales, Jacqui Thompson, who has been writing a blog for quite a while about her local council, decided to attend the meetings and video them on her mobile. She quite obviously did not think it an issue - they are public after all - and I'm guessing therefore did not ask for specific permission.

 

When one of the little Hitler's spotted her, asked her to stop, she didn't, the police were called, she was handcuffed, taken to the police station and thrown in the slammer for a few hours.

 

The council have said that it is illegal to film council meetings...although this doesn't seem to be written down anywhere.

 

Now she's suing the councillor using her own money and he is counter-suing her using taxpayers' money.

 

This is Great Britain in the 21st Century. Makes you proud!

Edited by Sali
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. My Turn, if I may say so.

 

Concerning that hospital's proposed 'policy', obviously one would need to have knowledge I lack about Canadian law, and the regime(s) for the provision of medical care, there, to be sure about the legality of it.

 

However, I presume that if covert recording was actually illegal there (as it is in, only, about one quarter of American states), the article would have referred to this.

 

The effect of any such 'policy', therefore – unless it made it clear that it was the normal 'policy' for clinicians to be required to consent – is likely to be to ensure that patients record without declaring that that is what they are doing.

 

I don't know about the effect of breaching a 'policy' as regards admissibility of such a recording as evidence under Canadian law. Over here, the courts and tribunals have a wide discretion to declare such evidence admissible in most circumstances – as e.g. the struck-off GP Robinson and certain jailed staff from Winterbourne View have discovered.

 

There is no contract between an NHS medical services provider and its patients. We are entitled to medical care by operation of statute, and, I would argue, attempts to refuse such care to patients merely because they wish to preserve an audio-recording of how clinicians treat them behind close doors would themselves be illegal.

 

Right back at posts #14, #15 & #16 of this thread, nearly 3 years ago, there is an (even earlier) article published by a (then) fairly junior lawyer which tried to recommend that NHS bodies produced such policies. I have only seen one such, and it was, in places, clearly illegal.

 

( Sali. I'm glad it's not just me who is following the fortunes of the spirited Jacqui Thompson. Her views on planning matters may not attract much attention outside Carmarthenshire, but she has certainly provoked wider interest on two matters of principle. Next post by me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going on from Sali's last post. Perhaps I could expand on the story for any 'new readers'.

 

1. Attending a local council meeting as a member of public, Ms Thompson started openly recording proceedings – by filming on her mobile phone The council – or at least one or two of its members - got uppity. The police were called and arrested her for causing a "breach of the peace" – that ancient, malleable, catch-all, which means nobody can think of anything else.

 

I don't know whether in the particular circumstances at the time there was any other 'behaviour' of Ms Thompson which might remotely have justified such heavy-handedness. I suspect absolutely not, but the matter never came to court, because she was subsequently released without charge. Which, at least, from the point of view of this thread, I regard as, in itself, a victory for those who wish to record officialdom.

 

2. Ms Thompson then sued the chief executive of the council for libel. Again, I don't know about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements complained about, but of relevance to all bloggers\posters\websites is the fact that the chief executive counterclaimed (i.e. in the same proceedings) that MsThompson had libelled him 'online'.

 

The hearing has finished and a 'reserved' (i.e. delayed) judgment in the matter has yet to be handed down.

 

In the meantime people are questioning, above all and irrespective of the merits of either party's defamation claims, whether it can be right that the Carmarthenshire council should be funding the legal costs of the chief executive's litigation with MsThompson. And it's reasonable to question this, I think, especially since MsThompson is no doubt a council- tax payer herself and thus partly funding the suit against herself.

 

You cannot libel 'government'. The proceedings taken both by and against the chief executive are personal.

 

At a stretch, I could just about swallow the 'defence' part, by parity of reasoning with some commercial situations. For instance: if you are the MD of a small building company and someone gets injured on site, you could find a claimant sues both you and your company for negligence. It is usual for companies to maintain insurance polices which will cover the potential legal costs of both the company and its officers in defending the proceedings, as well as any damages awarded, in such circumstances

 

It's quite a 'stretch' though. I don't think there is necessarily the same 'identity of interest' in the Carmarthen case; and, as I understand it, Ms Thompson only sued the chap, not the council.

 

But funding the costs of the 'counterclaim element'? That is very difficult to justify at all, in my opinion.

 

A counterclaim is effectively just the same as issuing proceedings in the first place, and indeed would survive to be heard even if the original claimant discontinued his or her 'side' of the action.

 

And, in the instant case, if any damages are ever awarded against Ms Thompson they would belong to the chief executive personally, not to the council. Why, then, are public funds being used to pursue the chief executive's private claim against a council-tax payer?

 

And if the chief executive were to lose on the counterclaim, would the council pick up the award of legal costs almost certain to made against him, personally, in such circumstances?

 

Doesn't seem right to me; not at all right.

 

The Times produced a news item and a leading article firmly critical of the council last week, and the latter concluded with:

 

"..whatever the outcome in the High Court, it should be clear that the council has in both instances acted arrogantly and defensively .It has wielded excessive official and financial power against a lone citizen and has thereby become a case study in how not to behave in an era of transparency and accountability."

 

I would duly link both items, but they are behind the paywall The Times maintains.

 

So here's Jacqui Thompson's blog:-

 

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/

 

I wish her well.

Edited by nolegion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Viewers here are probably aware that there is a (substantial) thread about recording 'work capability assessments' in the Benefits forum which has been running since February last year. Most things that occur to me as regards those sorts of 'medical interviews' I post there, nowadays.

 

This one is a bit oblique, though, and perhaps it can lodge here.

 

There is a now very well known benefits case, the judgment in which was given in March 2009, called CIB\3117\2008.

 

The issue finally decided was that a claimant who insisted on wanting an audio-recording of his WCA was NOT imposing any condition on the process which prevented its purpose being achieved and was thus NOT 'failing to submit to a medical examination' (which. in turn. would lead to loss of benefits).

 

I am pleased to find today that as regards insurance-based entitlements, the courts of Arizona have come to an entirely equivalent conclusion:-

 

"An Arizona appellate court recently held, as amatter of law, that a workers’ compensation claimant who expressed an intentionto record an independent medical examination (“IME”), in the absence of anyprior communication about recording, had not committed a “wrongful act”constituting obstruction of the IME under A.R.S. § 23–1026©. Accordingly, aworkers’ compensation insurance carrier could not suspend the injured employee’s benefits for obstructing the IME [Kwietkauski v. IndustrialComm’n, 2012 Ariz. App. LEXIS 184 (Nov. 20, 2012)]."

 

http://www.workcompwriter.com/page/2/

 

Thank you for the support, Arizona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Francis report, February 2013:

 

"Patients need to be granted user friendly, real time and retrospective access to read their records, and a facility to enter comments. They should be enabled to have a copy of records in a form useable by them, if they wish to have one." (From: Recommendation No .244)

 

 

Royal College of General Practitioners, March 2013:

 

"RCGP rules out full online access to GP records for most patients."

 

( From: http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/practice-business/practice-topics/it/rcgp-rules-out-full-online-access-to-gp-records-for-most-patients/20002168.article)

 

 

Great timing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some succinct advice from TrishaTorrey, last month.:-

 

'Do tell your doctor ify ou plan to record the audio of your visit.

 

It's so easy to record your appointment using a small recorder or even your smart phone. But don't try to hide the fact that you are recording it. Nor should you ask permission in a fashion thatgives your doctor the opportunity to say "no." Try something like,"Doctor, I hope you don't mind that I'm going to record our meeting. I want to be sure I remember everything you told me later." '

 

 

http://patients.about.com/od/doctorsandproviders/tp/What-To-Do-During-Your-Doctor-Visit.01.htm

 

I much like the 'breezy', no-option approach, but given how badly clinicians and\or their managers have reacted to such disclosed patient intentions in the past, I realise that many will still prefer to record 'privately'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well then!

 

A case of the 'POT' calling the 'kettle' black in deed.............Can the NHS ever say that covert recording is a breech of doctor/patient trust? I don't see how they could ever have a legal leg to stand on anymore.

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/303849/Perv-Dr-secretly-filmed-patients/

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/10293643.Surgery_speaks_of__sadness__following_assault_case/

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair the NHS did not sanction the doctor's use of a tiny camera in his watch. I was horrified to hear about this story. I doubt that his victims will ever forget or forgive and I don't blame them. Let's hope he serves a full sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they didn't, but they have sanctioned that doctors, nurses and other whistleblowers can't speak out about the crimes that the NHS have been getting away with for far too long now. I'm glad to see that a high court judge ruled that the NHS gagging is unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this was a rogue doctor who was outed by his female lodger.

 

However, I totally agree with you on the gagging clauses. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the DoH and government ministers were unaware of these deals which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, leaving hospitals with less money to spend on their patients. I'm sure the salaries of the managers still increased. I want to know exactly who sanctioned these deals and how many there are and at which hospitals. We don't need to know the names of those that signed them, unless they choose to come forward. Even if these deals were legal at the time, they were immoral.

 

I would also like to see David Nicholson and every other healthcare worker, doctors, nurses et al, who were involved in the mid-staffs genocide to be charged with corporate manslaughter. It seems to me that one way to change the culture in the NHS is to provide stark choices. Either you whistle-blow when you see wrong-doing or you face criminal charges when it is exposed.

 

The Francis report and David Cameron's (he is not a good judge of character) view that he (David Nicholson) is doing a good job and that he mustn't be used as a scapegoat, must be deeply galling to the bereaved families. I wonder if either of them would hold this opinion if it were their relative who had suffered so horribly.

 

Over the last months we have seen so many highly paid managers paraded before us - bankers, police, press, politicians, BBC executives - and each time I have wondered how DID they get their jobs? They are inarticulate, poorly informed and frequently inept. Happy to take the title and the salary, but not keen on the responsibility when things go wrong. Very few - if any - have been punished. They are a canker in our society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...