Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
But What If?
- Mark I Fisher (19 January 2002)
-
Frivolity at the GMC
- Mark Struthers (21 January 2002)
-
Occupational Physicians are also vulnerable to vindictive and malicious complaints
- Charles Jonathan Poole (10 December 2002)
-
Sabotage?
- C Johnson (9 November 2003)
-
Oh that the GMC would act swiftly
- Penny Mellor (11 November 2003)
-
An even playing field ?
- Davina Hollisey-Mclean (29 November 2003)
-
A Vexatious Complaints Procedure - A System in Denial!.
- Charles Pragnell (2 December 2003)
-
Will they listen now?
- Penny Mellor (6 December 2003)
-
Re: Will they listen now? Perhaps the Privy Council.
- Michael D Innis (8 December 2003)
-
First do no harm
- CA Johnson (9 December 2003)
-
Re: Re: Will they listen now? Perhaps the Privy Council.
- sharon m latta (9 December 2003)
-
Re:Re: First do no harm
- Philip.P.C Moore (10 December 2003)
-
Re: Will they listen now? Perhaps the Privy Council.
- CA Johnson (10 December 2003)
-
Re: Re:Re: First do no harm
- sharon m latta (10 December 2003)
-
The damned diagnosis
- Mark Struthers (11 December 2003)
-
Re: Re:Re: First do no harm
- Davina Hollisey-Mclean (11 December 2003)
-
Cruel Brittania - despite 1997 Published concerns by a British Professional Psychologist
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (13 December 2003)
-
Re: First do no harm
- CA Johnson (13 December 2003)
-
Re: Re:Re: First do no harm
- Michael D Innis (13 December 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Mark I Fisher, Not applicable Not Applicable
Send response to journal:
|
I would like to know what do you think should happen if the complaint is not just frivolous and vexatious. I would imagine that there are many complaints that were deemed frivolous initially and then turned out to have a substantial basis of fact. Also on the other end of the spectrum there surely must be cases where the initial evidence is compelling whereupon further investigation the complaint is foujnd to be groundless. Do you not think that all complaints should have the same oportunity to be heard and considered in exactly the same way. This surely is the best way of handling things. You also mention about constant complaints from action groups. Are you saying that all complaints from action groups should be deemed as frivolous just because they have managed to organise themselves properly. The only people that should fear a full and complete investigation into every complaint, must have something to hide and be concerned about. Those that do not have anything to hide or worry about should welcome and embrace any steps that are taken to exonerate their professional conduct. There should be no distinction between any complaint whatsoever. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, General Practitioner Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
Send response to journal:
|
The doctor doth protest too much methinks. If the complaints are frivolous why worry? Since when has frivolity led to suspension I wonder? Rather than being vexatious, multiple complaints may simply mean multiple just grievance. In any case these complaints cannot be vexatious in the legal sense because the GMC has yet to hear them and yet to throw them out. All this fuss makes me think that in the end they may be neither frivolous nor vexatious. What then? Everyone alike will just have to patiently wait for the wise albeit painfully slow deliberations of the GMC. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Jonathan Poole, Consultant Occupational Physician Health Centre, Cross Street, DUDLEY, DY1 1RN
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR – The letters by Marcovitch 1 and Smith 2 about vexatious complaints by patients against paediatricians investigating cases of child abuse resonate with the experience of occupational physicians who are asked to make judgements about fitness to work, early retirement or injury benefits. It is becoming increasingly common for patients who are unhappy with the outcome of such consultations to initiate vindictive or malicious complaints about alleged attitude or behaviour of the doctor with the doctor’s employer or the General Medical Council I have been threatened by a patient with a complaint to the GMC, and I am aware of several colleagues who have been referred to the GMC by disgruntled patients in similar circumstances. Inevitably in a climate of vindictive complaining some occupational physicians have lost confidence in giving their true professional opinions. I have developed criteria for identifying high-risk consultations for complaints. These include patients who are: (i) overtly angry or have previously made complaints, (ii) involved with a grievance or are suing their employer, (iii) police officers. For all such consultations I ask for a chaperone to be present. Other consultations may become high-risk if I identify inconsistencies in their history or examination, abnormal illness behaviour, suggest psychological factors in the aetiology of physical symptoms, or I decline to remove materially relevant facts from my report which indicate that causation is not entirely of the employers’ making, or should I dare to suggest illness deception (malingering). Unfortunately I am not able to identify these consultations in advance and so will not have the protection of a chaperone. Some complaints are understandable in that the patient may have been mislead about the purpose of the consultation, or perceives that the occupation physician is an agent of the employer and not impartial, or the patient is distressed by the potential outcome that may follow from the consultation (e.g. loss of job if not well enough to return to work or reduced financial benefits), or the patient misunderstands terminology in the report (e.g. the distinction between pain and tenderness), or has the mistaken belief that the doctor’s notes are a verbatim account of what was said by the patient. The potential for complaints is a price that occupational physicians are prepared to pay provided that the complaints procedure (employers and GMCs) is robust enough to identify vindictive or malicious complaints whilst simultaneously supporting those doctors who have been falsely maligned. C J M POOLE MD FRCP FFOM
Dudley NHS Trusts,
Health Centre,
Cross Street,
DUDLEY
DY1 1RN
1. Marcovitch H. GMC must recognise and deal with vexatious complaints fast. BMJ 2002; 324: 167-8. 2. Smith RA, Beverley DW, Ball RJ. Pattern of some parents’ complaints against doctors must be recognised. BMJ 2002; 324: 852. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
C Johnson, Parent LA9
Send response to journal:
|
God forbid that falsely accused parents should come together for mutual support. God forbid that they should talk to each other, share their experiences, note that they share the same false accusers, identify the patterns, and empower themselves to seek redress for their families by the only legitimate means available: formal complaints to the GMC. This letter looks remarkably like a deliberate act of sabotage against that legitimate but limited avenue of redress. The courts have recently granted children the right of litigation against the doctors who caused them harm. One day Harvey Marcovitch may have to explain why he appeared so keen to protect such doctors by sabotaging the legitimate complaints. Parents will look forward to hearing his explanation. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate 6 Coven Mill Close Coven WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
The oldest complaint about a false allegation of MSbP and other very serious matters relating to certain medics, dates back to 1987, followed by further allegations from an unrelated complainant in 1991. The complaints, even though the parents don't to this day know each other, are identical and certainly not vexatious as the documentary evidence proves. The GMC unfortunately "lost" those original complaints leading to further delays whilst the evidence supporting the allegations had to be sought out yet again. In both the cases the allegations of MSbP were made to silence vocal parents, deeply concerned about the true motive of the involvement of the doctors in their cases, I don't suppose anyone thought that the "trend" and "pattern of behaviour" that was seen to be identical could actually have been the other way round and that was the reason why the complaints appeared so similar? I wonder who was really at the root of vexatious complaints? The reality is that the GMC have eventually, despite the best efforts of Dr Marcovitch and his college the RCPCH to scupper any attempt to get to the truth, have finally started moving, not before they were booted up the backside by the Serious Crimes Directorate 5 at New Scotland Yard though. Anyone wanting to know the true extent of what lies behind the so called "vexatious" complaints need only to enter the phrase Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy into a google search or to get a more personal overview go online and watch Wales This Week: http://www.htvwales.com/walesthisweek/. For the uneducated reader, the author of "GMC must recognise and deal with vexatious complaints fast", Dr H Marcovitch is and has been for some time a lay member of the panel that sits for the Professional Conduct Committee at the GMC, a conflict of interest that should have been declared from the outset. Competing interests: Campaigner against false allegations and child advocate |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Davina Hollisey-Mclean, Housewife and mother Swansea SA4 3DT
Send response to journal:
|
It would have been so much easier for all concerned if the GMC had acted swiftly in relation to the complaints. I suppose that it could be said that they did just that with the original complaints when they "misplaced" them. I dare say that none of the doctors concerned complained about that. Years went by when the parents who had complained, like us I presume, had to wait and gather more evidence to support what they were claiming, always fighting against the odds. Doctors against alleged child abusers, hardly a fair playing field. When we had gathered the evidence and were able to submit new complaints that were actually being looked at by the GMC, the doctors started screaming that the complaints were frivolous and vexatious, once again creating an uneven playing field. I cannot comment about the other complaints because I don't know their content but I can say for certain that ours was neither frivolous nor vexatious, it is all based on documentary evidence. We certainly did not make complaints against all the authors of the letter relating to frivolous and vexatious complaints, we have never heard of most of them. I would understand if they had complained about the complaints in relation to themselves but how could they band together to talk about the complaints in general? They were not flies on the wall and so not party to the entire goings on in relation to each other, so how could they be so certain that all the complaints were frivolous and vexatious? Were they mislead and therefore misguided? I wonder if they now regret being co- authors of the letter. Are they going to acknowledge at some point that maybe not all the complaints were frivolous and vexatious and at least some if not all in relation to some of their co-authors may have been genuine and warrant investigation at least? Of course we would never expect an apology, we have learnt over many years that, that will never happen.When once it would have sufficed it would no longer. Is an acknowledgement now that they may have been wrong in relation to the complaints made to the GMC too much to hope for also? After all it is a known fact that doctors band together, what a shame that this time it was so misguided. It just goes to show that there is not always safety in numbers! Competing interests: Complainant |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Pragnell, Expert Defence Witness - Child Protection and Child/Family Advocate U.K./Australasia
Send response to journal:
|
It was the Conservative government which introduced the present NHS Complaints system under criticism that the NHS reforms of the early 1990s contained major weaknesses in the mechanisms for ensuring the qualitative and quantitative assurance aspects of the NHS were improved and developed. It was seen as increasing consumer power in order to influence standards of health care and the bureaucratic management of the Health Services. In terms of achieving these aims, the Complaints Procedures have failed miserably and abysmally. Firstly because the system of investigating and deciding on complaints is contrary to the spirit of natural justice, in that it involves doctors and bureaucrats acting as “Judges in their own cause”. Secondly, has been the over-riding powers of the insurance companies who are responsible for footing the bill when medical negligence and misconduct are proven – they will not therefore even permit an apology nor acceptance of error by any Health Services employee or agent. I have acted as adviser and advocate for many children and families in bringing justified complaints regarding the quality and quantity of Health, Education, and Social Services and the entire process is designed to frustrate the complainant and trivialise the complaint. Any complaint by a consumer of these Services is met with obfuscation, prevarication, and procrastination and the whole vexatious complaints process is designed to ensure only the most determined and persistent complainant gets to the point of conclusion, which is an extremely rare event and satisfactory resolution of the complaint is even rarer. The vast majority of complainants who I have assisted in bringing a complaint have not been seeking compensation nor the expulsion of any staff member but would have been satisfied with an acknowledgement that a mistake had been made and to have received a respective apology and an assurance that all possible steps had been taken to ensure that the same mistake was not made again and that someone else did not suffer the same harm as they had done. Such a small recognition seems however to be impossible to achieve and the vast majority of complainants are left with the view that the complaints system is designed and implemented to protect the organisation and its employees rather than to acknowledge errors, and to use complaints as a process for improving standards of services. The system in fact goes into complete denial that errors of any kind have occurred or could occur in the future. To label complaints as `vexatious’ is a major part of this process of denial. But `system denial’ is far from being the worst scenario. In some instances `projection' occurs whereby the complainant is blamed for the medical errors when they have brought a complaint or threatened to sue and this occurs particularly where children are involved and the blame projection results in the parent being labelled as Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, implying that the parent has caused the child’s illness. It is unsurprising therefore that parents onto whom such a label is projected bring a further complaint. Labelling complaints as `vexatious’ and dismissing them as such is therefore simply an attempt to prevent improvements in the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the NHS and medical services in the U.K. Competing interests: Child and Family Advocate in Complaint Procedures |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
The first concerns about the veracity of expert witness testimony involving paediatricians raised outside of the normal complaints procedures happened in 1994, when parents wrongly accused of harming or killing their children in order to "gain attention", asked the then British Paediatric Association (now the RCPCH) to intervene and prevent this from occuring. Promises were made to conduct an investigation into the parent's concerns and never kept. In 1999, the RCPCH, the DOH and the GMC received a wealth of documentary evidence supporting claims by parents that reports written by some paediatricians that were being submitted into court, were at best flawed and at worst a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice, again the glaringly obvious problem was ignored and no action was taken. During all that period of time, parents who had legitimate grievances supported with evidential documentation were derided continually, accused of collaborating, victimizing doctors, protecting child abusers and lying, worse still it actually became part of the profile of MSbP to complain, thus rendering the parents legitimate concerns mute. On the day that the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings, a mother found guilty of killing two of her three dead babies, I ask this question, had just one of the many alleged “vexatious” or “frivolous” complaints been properly examined by ANY of the bodies set up to protect patients and more importantly children, would the cases of Sally Clark, Trupti Patel or Angela Cannings ever made it into court and I am afraid the answer would probably be no. The whole of the medical profession, the GMC and the DOH should hang their heads in shame, because in amongst these scenarios were innocent children, children whose deaths have been tainted with the most obscene of allegations, that their mothers murdered them, surviving children having to tolerate playground taunts about their mothers being baby killers and the loss of that mother on top of the loss of their siblings. The only protection afforded to anyone, wasn’t to the children, wasn’t to the families. But to the so called medical experts and the institutions that have failed to bring them to book. Before the finger of suspicion is pointed when a child mysteriously dies, perhaps the hypothesis of the "blue eyed" boys of child protection should be put into context. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles! Perhaps the next few days will help to change the entrenched attitudes of the medical mafia, I won't hold my breath though. Competing interests: Campaigner against false allegations of child abuse. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, In response to the plea by Dr Marcovitch and others regarding frivolous and vexatious complaints by parents Penny Mellor says, “The whole of the medical profession, the GMC and the DOH should hang their heads in shame, because in amongst these scenarios were innocent children, children whose deaths have been tainted with the most obscene of allegations, that their mothers murdered them …” Her rage is understandable. When a Paediatrician has reached the limit of his/her knowledge on the causation of fractures, bruises and the like he/she asks the parent for an explanation and promptly makes a diagnosis of Non-accidental Injury if a response is not forthcoming. The absurdity of this approach is encouraged by the RCPCH, the GMC, the CPS and DOH. It is no wonder that one of your readers has labelled the Justice System the worst in Europe. I would say he was only partly right – I know of no other country in the world except Australia and the USA which tolerates such an obscenity. The Privy Council should intervene and restore sanity to the Law of the Land – England. Perhaps Australia and the USA will follow – and no more innocent parents incarcerated. Michael Innis Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
CA Johnson, Parent LA9
Send response to journal:
|
I share in the rage expressed above. Penny Mellor rightly draws attention to the plight of children caught up in these false allegations. So often the perpetrators trot their mantra - that they have a child's interests at heart; and so often the child suffers as a result. When parents are falsely accused, children and siblings are abducted by the state. Some have been forcibly adopted. When parents are falsely accused, their children are denied proper medical treatment. Some have died. I struggle to express my contempt for those in the "medical mafia" who have done this. I do not see these as petty crimes. In my opinion theirs are acts which in the suffering they cause rank with those of serial rapists and predatory paedophiles. If other professionals shudder at such a comparison, then at least let them contemplate this: parents come to doctors in good faith. When our children are ill or injured, we place our trust in those well paid to do all in their power to help. If paediatricians accuse us instead, that is the most obscene betrayal of trust. That the medical establishment tries to thwart redress is a disgrace. As individuals and as a culture, where does that leave the pledge to first do no harm? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
sharon m latta, Director hampshire po16 9dh
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, It is true that many people abuse a complaints system, this is true of all any establishment or industry. It is also however true that not all complaints that are made are made in a vindictive fashion and a higher porportion are made with what the complainant belives to be a just reason. We are all open to false allegations and when this happens it causes a huge degree of upset to those that the accusation has been made against. This is true for both doctors and falsely accused parents. Both have the right to be heard. When an accusation is made against a parent a team of health, police and social sevices come together and act as one leaving a shocked parent with only a pointed finger to fight in a world they never knew existed. I know that this is the case as i have lived it for the last two years. If a charge is then put in place then the parent finds themselves fighting the CPS too. If no charge is made then the fight goes behind closed doors in the family court where the parents are very often not heard. Or in a lot of cases if conviction is not gained within the criminal trial then a mirror of it is carried out in the family court. It is no wonder that falsely accused parents complain, no normal person would not complain about this treatment when they are after all fighting for their life and the life of their children. If doctors feel that they are in an uncomfortable postion then imagine how falsely accused parents feel. The GMC has an obligation to justice and the well being of children to look at each and every complaint with open eyes. It would be nice if the medical experts were to adopt this thinking also when investigating an accusation of abuse, maybe then the flawed justice system that is in place now will heal and thus public confidence will return. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Philip.P.C Moore, Paediatrician Hawkes Bay Hospital, New Zealand
Send response to journal:
|
Sir False or mistaken accusations of child abuse are made from time to time. The anger and distress felt by those accused is enormous, as illustrated by the venom of the Rapid Responses above. And fair enough; some have been through hell and back. But I have a question for C.A Johnson, Michael Innis, Penny Mellor and others...does child abuse, including factitious illness, exist? If so, how do they suggest the interests of the children concerned be best protected? Competing interests: Paediatrician who wishes there was no need for Child Protection work. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
CA Johnson, Parent LA9
Send response to journal:
|
When parents are investigated their children are variously terrorized by the state, interned for months or years, lose contact with siblings and friends, cry themselves to sleep every night, are denied medical treatment for genuine illnesses, and forcibly adopted forever. Parents are abused, locked up, and families are destroyed. When doctors are investigated they lament their enforced holidays on full pay. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
sharon m latta, director hampshire po16 9dh
Send response to journal:
|
It is not for those not qualified to say if an illness is a true illness or not. Not being qualified i can not comment. The underlying problem here with these cases is that full investigation is not done and as long as full investigation is not done the system in place can only fail those it should protect. No person would wish a child to be placed in danger of harm, beit through possible abuse by an abuser or by a mistake made by the system that should protect the well being of those who can not protect themselves. When the stakes are so high for so many, every medical test should be done to find the cause of ill health or death not just what will gain a conviction. As long as the system in place is used this life destroying situation will carry on. When medical opinion is treated as medical fact, when the court expert arena turns into an industry, when no investigation is done into family background or history, when all these things happen as they do people will rightly carry on being angry. I know how the system has failed first hand and the small amount of mistakes(if indeed it is a small number)have a life long effect on all those caught up in it. What happens in a alot of cases is that once the finger has been pointed all other causes of death are not looked into. If you do not look you do not find! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP HMP Bedford, UK
Send response to journal:
|
From 'down under' Dr Philip P.C. Moore, a Hawkes Bay paediatrician asks 'them’ and 'the others', whether child abuse and factitious illness might exist. He knows the answer but wonders how "the interests of the children concerned might be might be best protected". Might I suggest that an accurate diagnosis would serve their interest rather well. It's rather simple really. As it happens, Angela Canning's appeal concludes in London today. Last year she was sentenced to a life in prison for smothering her own two babies. She was ‘damned’ but the doctor’s diagnosis may have been mistaken. “False or mistaken accusations are made from time to time”. The GMC should recognise and deal with the vexatious doctors - before the rest of us have served out our lives. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Davina Hollisey-Mclean, Housewife and mother Swansea SA4 3DT
Send response to journal:
|
Sir It is a very tragic reality that child abuse does exist and of course children must be protected, but not just from parents and carers but also from misguided childcare professionals. In 1991 I personally contacted several organisations to raise concerns about the conduct of certain doctors in relation to child abuse allegations The representative from one charity stated, " My dear a doctor would never do anything like that " The representative of another charity told me, " Well if a doctor said you did it then it must be true" For many years the various so called " Child protection " bodies have buried their heads in the sand, ignoring the pleas of parents, children, and many other individuals from all walks of life to look very seriously at the concerns being raised about the wrongful allegations of child abuse. It is time that the agencies involved in child protection put away their rose coloured spectacles, approached each case with something other than tunnel vision and above all removed doctors from the pedestal and the god like status that they have given them. They are so often heard to cry " We are only human " (that’s very true) so why are they not treated has human? In every walk of life, the police service, social services, education, the church, charities, and various organisations dealing with children it has come to light, sometimes after many years, that there were people operating within those bodies with hidden agendas. Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend that the medical profession is open to the same kind of abuse of power/trust. Shipman has to be a classic example of this. Of course children have to be protected but not at the expense of other children! It was said to us at the end of our case that if six families were wrongly accused of abuse and they only get one right it is worth it for the one case you got right and the protection you were able to afford the children in that family. There was no consideration given whatsoever to the affect that the system abuse had on the other five families, that was dismissed as totally irrelevant, something they would get over. Well I would ask you all to think again, because I can assure you that it is not some thing that you can "get over." One last thing I suggest is that when the children involved are old enough to have an opinion, and to know, and be able to tell the truth, that the child protection agencies actually listen to what they are saying instead of approaching it once again with tunnel vision i.e. "They've been influenced by their parents" If the agencies are not going to listen to what the children say, why ask? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Marcovitch seemed to be particularly negative about complaints made by parents and non professionals who supported them. It has been easy to dismiss these complaints as the sound and fury of abusing parents, duped journalists and activists, signifying nothing - but causing great distress to falsely accused professionals. Lost in all of this - the sound and fury from both sides - has been the very serious and grave concerns of professionals who have been seriously damaged by daring to speak out, destroy their own careers and write about the false theories which have led to false accusations of mothers. I am not ashamed to name myself as the leading professional in England who fits such a description - and as no-one asks me for my opinion it seems a good moment to express ir yet again. The reference by Lord Justice Judge in the current Cannings Appeal to `a whole series of false steps leading to conclusions of a statistical kind that were misleading' reflect almost to the very words used, my own published concerns back in 1997. (1) I wrote that I could not find any robust scientific or statistical base to the theory of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy which is also known as Meadow's theory and which lies at the heart of his cot death theory. I said `something seems to be going very wrong`. In this published Letter to the Editor I asked the British Psychological Society to begin an Inquiry. I had seen through Meadow's theory in a 1995 case when I was involved as an Expert Witness. Such was my concern over the distortions of thinking, use of shock tactics and influence resulting in 4 children wrongly being removed from a family, that I wrote to Jack Straw in 1996, the then Shadow Home Secretary. I did so because I was giving advice to Mr Straw as Chair of Promoting Parenting Skills - a group of psychologists who are members of the British Psychological Society - and we joined forces with the Home Office to present a conference in Birmingham. We also presented a lot of written material to the incoming current Government relating to parenting and had a number of meetings. Mr Straw said he was unable to do anything as the case was not in his area, but he did say he would be interested in what New Zealand did about the case when the mother had moved with her husband to Auckland. New Zealand have also been duped by this theory and these `eminent` men. Instead of investigating the theory and the proponents of the theory, Roy Meadow was given a knighthood by this Government which knew from the outset - because I told them and gave them a great deal of information - about the very worrying distortions of thinking leading to false accusations and gross miscarriages of justice. So they were duped by Meadow and others and his theory. Since then vast numbers of children have been wrongly torn from their mothers and, as I also said in that Letter, many innocent mothers have been falsely imprisoned. Far from my concerns being investigated, or even taken seriously, the opposite has happened and the theory and its proponents has gone from strength to strength and has become ingrained into our increasingly cruel social system. The British Psychological Society has pursued false allegations against me rather than investigate the false theory - so they too were duped. I found connections with Roy Meadow behind the attempts to discredit me and get struck off. Without recognising that there have been longstanding concerns by a British professional who was highly regarded by members of this Government prior to the MSBP concerns, as the truth comes out and only the voices of journalists and activists are heard, the public could be left with the opinion that no British professional spoke out about what was going on here and the tragedies inflicted on mothers and innocent children. I hope this sets the record straight. I also hope that all those who have been duped will finally wake up for the sake of all the children abused by the system, the falsely accused mothers and the reputation of this country. 1. Blakemore-Brown LC 1997 "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy" Letters to the Editor. The Psychologist. September. Competing interests: Have made diplomatic representations to the Dept of Health since 1996, concerns in letters to Jack Straw in 1996/1997, many published articles, Rapid Responses, radio, TV and documentary appearances, advice to the Griffiths Inquiry, travelled to New Zealand in the middle tof cancer treatment, to expose Meadow's false theory |
|||
|
|
|||
|
CA Johnson, Parent LA9
Send response to journal:
|
In answer to Philip.P.C Moore's question, child abuse most definitely exists. I know no one who says otherwise. As to factitious illness (MSbP) - I confess confusion. Is he asking whether a paediatrician can switch his expertise to psychiatry and diagnose a personality disorder in an adult? Is he asking whether a paediatrician can deduce motive for abuse? And if so by what means? Telepathy? As to how abuse should be investigated - with honesty and diligence, please. Not without true regard for the child, and the family of which they are a part; not for the fees earned writing reports and appearing for the prosecution; not to cover one's back; not to promote one's own theories and belief systems; not to "prove" one's professional rival wrong; not to avoid having to do more work; not to avoid having to call in a specialist; not to procure children for experiments; not to silence people who have cottoned on to one's experiments; not to cover fraudulent research; not to conspire to frame someone who's complained about you; not to back up one's lying buddy. I doubt I've covered it. It may, in the end, be nothing more complex and nothing more enforceable than a conscience. But perhaps by relentlessly (even venemously) drilling the point home we can keep consciences lively enough to make a difference. If not, medical professionals will have to be made liable to criminal prosecution if they make false allegations - just like the rest of us. Others in the cihld protection industry should of course then follow suit. I hope I'll be forgiven for pointing to an earlier response: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7415/577#36515 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, “I have a question for C.A Johnson, Michael Innis, Penny Mellor and others...does child abuse, including factitious illness, exist? If so, how do they suggest the interests of the children concerned be best protected? “ asks Philip Moore, a Paediatrician. The answer of course is by the intelligent investigation of the case by the Paediatrician. It is the misinterpretation of findings which is the cause of the protests of C.A Johnson, Michael Innis, Penny Mellor and others. I have the record of a man on trial for the murder of a child who had a clear abnormality of Vitamin K. The lesions found and misinterpreted by the doctors alleging Shaken Baby Syndrome were subdural and retinal haemorrhages with retinoschisis and “healing rib fractures in multiple locations”. Bruises were observed on the right eyelid, below the left eye and on the back. It is clear however that the admitting doctor thought a deficiency of Vitamin K or other bleeding disorder could be present because he requested blood tests for that very purpose. Among them was the PIVKA test. It is universally accepted that the best test for determining the absence of adequate amounts of Vitamin K is to demonstrate that the level of an induced protein, PIVKA-II, in the blood is increased. This test was carried out. The result was found to be markedly increased; 22.7 ng/ml against a normal range of 0.0 – 3.5 ng/ml. In view of the fact that the Prothrombin Time and Accelerated Partial Thromboplastin Time were also increased makes the diagnosis of VKDB (Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding) or HDN (Haemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn) certain. I tried to get this published in two leading journals without success. I have approached the Judge and explained the situation – so far without success. The man is still being tried for murder in a country where the death penalty exists. I have several other cases sent to me where ignorance on the part of the medical profession, (lets not mince words here the GMC has put Dr Paterson on trial for trying to enlighten the profession) is the basis of the injustice permeating the system. I recently submitted a case of Atypical Kawasaki Disease to a leading Journal and it was rejected. Through the ignorance of the doctors, unable to recognize Atypical Kawasaki Disease, a man is currently in prison. If Dr Moore requires more examples of misdiagnoses I will happily provide them including one in which an innocent woman attempted suicide. Michael D Innis MBBS; DTM&H; FRCPA; FRCPath. Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||