Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Hidden amidst all the sorrow generated by the Shipman affair was a
small note in the BMJ that 2 consultants in Plymouth had the guts to take
their Trust to an Industrial Tribunal. They pursued a case of racial
discrimination in the award of Discretionary Points, and arrived at an out
-of-court settlement.
In 1998/99 I gained the same result with South Devon Healthcare
Trust. That event was not reported at all in the BMJ, though any one with
an interest in fairplay could not have failed to grasp the enormous
implications of such a case. Plymouth was the beginning of the fallout.
Apart from an embarrassed unwillingness to discuss such cases openly,
there are other enormously worrying aspects to such cases.
My prosecution was self-paid. The Trust defended itself with public
money. Yet no taxpayer would agree to such expenditure; I certainly
objected to my small tax contribution to the Trusts defence!
My case was settled out of court after a 3 week no-holds-barred
action that saw the Trust corporately castigated, and myself publicly
maligned. Incredibly, the settlement forbade further public discussion of
the case and it's terms of settlement. Is such resolution in keeping with
"open government"? Is it fair that after tax-payers money is spent, the
NHS should argue for an 'iron curtain'? Of course not, and yet it happened
in Torbay and it happened in Plymouth. It'll happen again.
In both instances, the fact that an out-of-court settlement was
reached made a number of people believe - not necessarily wrongly - that a
sum of money had been paid. Is it fair that any such sums should be
shrouded in secrecy when it is tax payers money?
In both instances, the fact that settlement forced issues to be kept
under wraps meant that the 'learning factor' was dead and buried. No
further productive discussion of the cases and their implications could
be undertaken by the DoH, the Commission for Racial Equality or the BMA
(who did not back any of the plaintiffs). What a waste!
The issues related to discrimination are now old hat. Yet, when cases
are 'lost' in all but name, is it unreasonable in this day and age to
expect resignations to be tendered, even if they are not accepted? I know
for a fact that not one member of the Awards Committee in Torbay saw fit
to tender his/her resignation even after settling out-of-court, despite
all the financial ramifications such a term has in modern jurisprudence.
Can doctors and managers still claim naively that they are on a learning
curve, whilst acting in a manner that sees public money targeted for
distinction going to old-boy networks? Try misappropriating funds
elsewhere and you do time, my boy.
How many such cases have there been countrywide? We will never know,
because they are not all reported in the BMJ or Hospital Doctor, and there
is certainly no central collation. Another failing.
All such cases will be disclosed to the Sec. Of State for Health, but
only if he specifically request the information. But how does he know to
ask when he is unaware? Truly an Alice in Wonderland scenario.
This fiasco needs attention:
· All IT cases where NHS employees sue on grounds of any form of
discrimination must be made public in their outcomes.
· All NHS employers who pay-out must be forced to go public.
· All NHS employers who are made aware of shortcomings in their award
procedures must be forced to declare them openly, courting not humiliation
but education.
· All managers should have their own personal liability insurance so that
public money is not wasted on defending claims of discrimination.
· The BMA and the DoH must take urgent steps to review of all such cases
of racial discrimination with a view to monitoring, educating, correcting
and, if necessary, sacking clinicians and managers guilty of mutual back-
scratching.
· The DoH must make it policy that "open government' applies even in the
NHS and ban "under wraps" outcomes.
If these factors are implemented, they will give rise to one major
problem: How will any one be attracted to sit on awards committees? I
don’t believe this will be a major difficulty. The difficulty is making
the award system objective and on the issue of objectivity in financial
allocation, there is no dearth of literature.
The main difficulty it seems to me is getting the NHS to wake up. I
call upon - nay - I challenge the BMA to take up these issues with the
Secretary of State.
A Black and White wake-up call
Hidden amidst all the sorrow generated by the Shipman affair was a
small note in the BMJ that 2 consultants in Plymouth had the guts to take
their Trust to an Industrial Tribunal. They pursued a case of racial
discrimination in the award of Discretionary Points, and arrived at an out
-of-court settlement.
In 1998/99 I gained the same result with South Devon Healthcare
Trust. That event was not reported at all in the BMJ, though any one with
an interest in fairplay could not have failed to grasp the enormous
implications of such a case. Plymouth was the beginning of the fallout.
Apart from an embarrassed unwillingness to discuss such cases openly,
there are other enormously worrying aspects to such cases.
My prosecution was self-paid. The Trust defended itself with public
money. Yet no taxpayer would agree to such expenditure; I certainly
objected to my small tax contribution to the Trusts defence!
My case was settled out of court after a 3 week no-holds-barred
action that saw the Trust corporately castigated, and myself publicly
maligned. Incredibly, the settlement forbade further public discussion of
the case and it's terms of settlement. Is such resolution in keeping with
"open government"? Is it fair that after tax-payers money is spent, the
NHS should argue for an 'iron curtain'? Of course not, and yet it happened
in Torbay and it happened in Plymouth. It'll happen again.
In both instances, the fact that an out-of-court settlement was
reached made a number of people believe - not necessarily wrongly - that a
sum of money had been paid. Is it fair that any such sums should be
shrouded in secrecy when it is tax payers money?
In both instances, the fact that settlement forced issues to be kept
under wraps meant that the 'learning factor' was dead and buried. No
further productive discussion of the cases and their implications could
be undertaken by the DoH, the Commission for Racial Equality or the BMA
(who did not back any of the plaintiffs). What a waste!
The issues related to discrimination are now old hat. Yet, when cases
are 'lost' in all but name, is it unreasonable in this day and age to
expect resignations to be tendered, even if they are not accepted? I know
for a fact that not one member of the Awards Committee in Torbay saw fit
to tender his/her resignation even after settling out-of-court, despite
all the financial ramifications such a term has in modern jurisprudence.
Can doctors and managers still claim naively that they are on a learning
curve, whilst acting in a manner that sees public money targeted for
distinction going to old-boy networks? Try misappropriating funds
elsewhere and you do time, my boy.
How many such cases have there been countrywide? We will never know,
because they are not all reported in the BMJ or Hospital Doctor, and there
is certainly no central collation. Another failing.
All such cases will be disclosed to the Sec. Of State for Health, but
only if he specifically request the information. But how does he know to
ask when he is unaware? Truly an Alice in Wonderland scenario.
This fiasco needs attention:
· All IT cases where NHS employees sue on grounds of any form of
discrimination must be made public in their outcomes.
· All NHS employers who pay-out must be forced to go public.
· All NHS employers who are made aware of shortcomings in their award
procedures must be forced to declare them openly, courting not humiliation
but education.
· All managers should have their own personal liability insurance so that
public money is not wasted on defending claims of discrimination.
· The BMA and the DoH must take urgent steps to review of all such cases
of racial discrimination with a view to monitoring, educating, correcting
and, if necessary, sacking clinicians and managers guilty of mutual back-
scratching.
· The DoH must make it policy that "open government' applies even in the
NHS and ban "under wraps" outcomes.
If these factors are implemented, they will give rise to one major
problem: How will any one be attracted to sit on awards committees? I
don’t believe this will be a major difficulty. The difficulty is making
the award system objective and on the issue of objectivity in financial
allocation, there is no dearth of literature.
The main difficulty it seems to me is getting the NHS to wake up. I
call upon - nay - I challenge the BMA to take up these issues with the
Secretary of State.
Dilip DaCruz FRCS
Visiting Consultant in A&E
Muscat, Oman
Competing interests: No competing interests