Police find no evidence of forgery by accused paediatricians
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7372.1054/b (Published 09 November 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1054
All rapid responses
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.
To say the least Clare Dyer gives a very slanted report on the long
awaited inquiry into allegations of consent forgery amongst paediatricians
at the North Staffordshire Hospital.
She said: "The trial showed no significant differences in death or
brain damage between babies treated with CNEP and those given standard
ventilation, but the babies whose parents accused the doctors of forgery
were brain damaged or died."
Does she imply that piqued by the death or brain damage of their
infant children that six sets of parents decided to wreak revenge on the
research team with allegations of fraud? It certainly reads that way.
Did the police prove that in each and every one of these six consent
forms that the signatures were those of a parent and that the signatures
of one of 'many' doctors were appended contemporaneously. She didn't say.
The long awaited decision by the Staffordshire police not to
prosecute was taken after "a long and careful process of high level legal
consultation and advice with a senior specialist QC". Not it seems by a
long and careful process of forensic investigation.
Clare Dyer's account casts doubt on the diligence of the police in
their search for the truth. Or was it more a case of a long and careful
search by the lawyers for a way out of a mess for their medical clients?
Just because evidence isn't found doesn't mean it isn't there.
Competing interests:
I have a filial relationship to a member of the Griffiths inquiry
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor
I hope that the GMC will now cease investigations in the case of the
paeditricians at the North Staffordshire hospital. Both an internal
hospital enquiry and a police enquiry have found no evidence of wrong
doing. The GMC would be reinforcing its independance rather than reducing
it if they decided that the case had been adequately investigated and
there was no case to answer. To decide otherwise would have the appearence
of arrogance and would also be "triple jeapordy" for those involved.
Unless there is unconsidered evidence beyond the relatives distress the
GMC should make a robust statement that the case requires no further
investigation and be prepared to defend their strong case to cease
investigation. Common sense and the evidence should drive the GMC, not the
idea that every greivance should have its day before the GMC.
Adrian Green MRCOG
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Parents find no evidence of accuracy in this article
Our understanding of the position of Staffordshire Police is somewhat different to that of Claire Dyer.
In a letter to ourselves the general conclusion of the Queens Counsel's is simply that none of the number of allegations we made could be considered to be criminal.
To the specific allegation of forgery (I quote)
"Counsels opinion is to the effect that even if it were to be established evidentially that a signature on a consent form might in lay terms have been forged (in the sense that it was not the work of their own hand, as some families have stated) this would be to use counsels own words 'a useless exercise' so far as the criminal courts are concerned.
The reason for this conclusion is that whilst such a practice (assuming it could be evidenced) might in some circumstances be considered unacceptable or morally reprehensible, it would not constitute the offence of forgery under the criminal law."
Counsel further concluded that
"the effective substance of yours and other parents complaints does in fact relate to allegations of clinical negligence not of criminal activity."
Counsel has also left the door open for a future Police investigation should they feel it necessary after the GMC has properly considered the case.
We know of the book showing which doctors supposedly took consent from parents but have not had sight of it. Therefore, until it has been validated and properly cross-examined it is inadmissible as evidence.
Furthermore, we have not claimed that due to the high number of doctors involved in taking consent (33 in total plus one nurse) one couldn't identify which doctors had signed. Our claim is, after discussions with the Police, that if a signature on a form was proven to be forged it would be impossible to identify the person who had actually produced that signature which would be necessary for a criminal conviction.
The Trusts £750 000 internal investigation was frankly a joke. They looked at some of the consent forms, saw a signature where it stated parent and concluded there was no forgery.
The signatures were not compared to parents specimen signatures, there was no cross referencing with medical records, there was no verification that the name on the form was indeed one of the parents or was spelt correctly and parents were not interviewed.
At least one parent holds a form which does not bear the name of either herself or the child’s father and several hold forms where their name has been spelt incorrectly
If this can be considered a full and thorough investigation then it is no surprise the NHS has experienced so many high profile scandals over recent years.
Competing interests:
One of the sets of parents who made the allegations to Staffordshire Police
Competing interests: No competing interests