 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS OF THE WORLD BY FAX: 0171 7824 512 Return to Letters to the PressDear Sir, Re: Article "SCANDAL OF GUINEA-PIG KIDS; Sunday, 16th January, 2000 By Louise Oswald & Ian Kirby We write as Co-Directors of Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect (S.I.N.), a support and watchdog group for patients and their relatives who have suffered damage (iatrogenic) because of medical mistakes. The two families featured in this excellent article had each lost a precious daughter through a medical error: Joan and Derek Bye lost Helenor 21 years ago; Art and Vicky McConnell lost Lexie more recently. We admire the courage of these parents, who put aside their personal grief to fight for changes to the law on children's drugs assisted by Mr. Andy Lowe MP, to ensure that no other child need die unnecessarily from an incorrect drug dosage. It is a national scandal that 21 years after Helenor Bye's death the Law has yet to be changed, and that half the drugs given to children are still unlicensed for this use. After Helenor's death, Joan and Derek set up an organisation to help parents whose children were ill or who had died because of a medical mistake. They have given support to hundreds of parents and children over the past 21 years since P.R.O.P.E.S ( Parents Recognition of Paediatric Errors) came into being. We suggest that the names of Joan and Derek Bye are included in the next New Year's Honours List as recognition for all the years that they have tirelessly campaigned to improve the standards of child medical care in this country. S.I.N. may be contacted by Tel: 0798 0522 047 or on e-mail: sinfo@cwcom.net Yours truly, Co-Directors S.I.N. Medical mistakes now account for a
third of all deaths in Britain after cancer and heart disease, and our
sympathy goes to the two tragic deaths of Lexie McConnell and Helenor Bye
FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE LETTERS
EDITOR THE INDEPENDENT By Fax: 0171 8374 530
Dear Editor, Re: Article : Doctors say "vague" GMC is failing them: 3/3/00 BY David Brindle We write as Co-Directors of an organisation called "Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect" (SIN) which was set up in November 1998. SIN is a support group for patients who have been damaged by medical mistakes, and is aiming to improve standards in the NHS. For the last eighteen months SIN has been campaigning for a culture of accountability to replace the present "no blame culture" currently advocated by the GMC, which surely now has no relevance following the Shipman case. The GMC has let down not only patients but also its own profession. This sentiment was clearly reflected in the article: " Doctors say "vague" GMC is failing them" which highlighted the dissatisfaction of the BMA’s ruling Council to the inadequate response of the GMC to the Shipman Case. It was interesting to note that a significant proportion of doctors in the Council are now unwilling to endorse "the continued principle of self-regulation" in the face of public criticisms . We are in agreement with this and SIN believes that the time has come to replace the current GMC’s "Good Medical Practice " with statutory principles of conduct to ensure patient safety. This would eliminate any "vagueness "for all concerned. There has been a total collapse of patient confidence in both the NHS Complaints Procedure and the GMC: neither of which offers protection to the damaged patient. SIN may be contacted by e-mail: sinfo@cwcom.net Yours sincerely,
PS If you do decide to publish our letter, which we hope you will, then please give out a contact telephone number if anyone asks to get in touch with SIN. There are many desperate, distressed and isolated patients who need our support. PPS We are also faxing over 3 pages
of our "Aims & Objectives"
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXPRESS - PUBLISHED 4th March 2000
By Fax : 0171 9227 055 Dear Editor, Re: Article : GPs need injection of scrutiny (Dr. Harold Shipman & the GMC) 29/02/00 We read with great interest the opinions of Dr. Bill Pickering, a GP, who is calling for some kind of independent scrutiny of the medical profession. We write as Co-Directors of an organisation called "Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect" (SIN) which was set up in November 1998. SIN is a support group for patients who have suffered from a medical mistake and is aiming to improve standards in the NHS. For the last eighteen months SIN has been campaigning for a culture of accountability and the setting up of an Independent Statutory Authority which will have the power to take sanctions against any health professional or manager who misleads or fails to thoroughly investigate a complaint. Representation from damaged patients to be included. As Dr. Pickering stated " self regulation of doctors is…… equivalent to no regulation". The appeal by the GMC for a "no blame culture" sounds rather hollow in the light of the Shipman affair. Surely, the GMC has let down not only patients but also its own profession? There has been a total collapse of patient confidence in both the NHS Complaints Procedure and the GMC: neither of which offers protection to the damaged patient. SIN may be contacted by e-mail: sinfo@cwcom.net Yours sincerely, Co-Directors & Founder Members GM Bean (Mrs) M. MacRae (Mrs) PS If you do decide to publish our letter, which we hope you will, then please give out a contact telephone number if anyone asks to get in touch with SIN. There are many desperate, distressed and isolated patients who need our support. PPS We are also faxing over 3 pages of our "Aims & Objectives" THIS LETTER WAS PUBLISHED IN THE
DAILY EXPRESS & WE HAD MANY DISTRESSED PATIENTS CONTACTING US.
To The Editor, THIS
LETTER WAS PUBLISHED! There were a number of letters on this topic but SIN was the only one that mentioned the very serious problem of inaccuracies. Without accuracy how can there be Patient Safety? Furthermore, the iatrogenic patient's medical records are almost inevitably full of inaccuracies: false/misleading statements& tests results. Also, there will be omissions of vital information. If an iatrogenic patient has the misfortune to be part of a conspriracy to deny that damaged has occurred , then such inaccurate Medical Records will severely hamper access to urgent remedial care. Such inaccurate medical records could be propagated and transmitted throughout the world!! The denial of care will be absolute.
10th June 2007 To the Clerk of the Constitutional Affairs Committee Dear Mr Roger Philips, emails: sinfo@boltblue.com & mag@sinfo.freeserve.co.uk website: www.sin-medicalmistakes.org Member of the Iatrogenic Europe Unite Alliance www.ieu-alliance.org 10th June 2007 BELOW ARE SAMPLE LETTERS SENT TO SANDRA GIDLEY MP ( LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) AND ANDREW LANSLEY MP ( CONSERVATIVES) EXPRESSING OUR OPPOSITION FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDRESS BILL
MS Sandra Gidley MP Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for Health & sr Andrew Lansley MP Shadow Minster for health Conservatives Houses of Parliament, London 10th July, 2006 Dear Ms Gidley / Mr Lansley Re: The Redress Bill: 34,000 deaths & 40,000 seriously injured patients per annum in the UK Scandinavia & New Zealand have had Redress Schemes for years!! Thank you very much for coming to address the meeting on the 6th July 2006 when aspects of the NHS Redress Bill were discussed. The suffering of the patients in that Committee Room was tangible, and SIN is firmly of the opinion that such suffering demands a rapid, transparent, honest disclosure of any iatrogenic damage sustained without the need for litigation. Having considered more fully the Redress Bill we have come to the following conclusions: 1. The Torts should NOT be retained. It is very unfortunate that in spite of the statement of the Department of Health that : "It would not be appropriate for the Bill to set out that the 'Bolam' and 'Bolitho' tests will be applied to cases under the Redress Scheme" - the litigation lobby and in particular the MDU ( The Medical Defence Union) and the MPS ( Medical Protection Society) seem to have persuaded the MPs to retain the Torts. These Torts have been subjected to widespread criticism here and abroad and Canada, Australia and New Zealand have discarded their use. 2. The capping of £20,000 is much too low - such cases are already being compensated by the discretionary powers of the Chief Executives of the Trusts at the moment - so nothing will have changed. What about all the seriously damaged patients and bereaved relatives? The following appear to be the arguments for the low capping: a) Expensive compensation cases are complex and therefore require the Law. We refute this. Serious damage and death can have very simple causes. Bereaved and seriously ill patients should not be forced to enter into long unnecessary adversarial court battles. Risk Managers have for years been registering and grading incidents that cause serious harm - it is just that the patients/ families are never informed. (b)Everyone must have a right to go to law. The fact is that only the very poor or the very rich have easy access to the law. There were only 5,600 medico-litigation cases in one year compared with tens of thousands of potential cases. Even then only 17% of these cases would be successful according to Lord Woolf who has acknowledged that the courts do not deliver justice. No one is suggesting denying anyone access to the Law, but there should be alternatives. (c) The third reason is that everyone should have a legal representative. Unfortunately, such legal representation has not delivered justice to the vast majority of the many thousands of injured patients and bereaved families over the last 50 years. It is time for something different. SIN suggests Mediation where there is a dispute. 3. An Independent Level of Investigation?: this is the suggested amendment. SIN has given this some considerable thought and has come to the conclusion that such a level when the capping is so low would be an unnecessary expense, especially when such claims are already being settled by the Trusts without any or very little reference to the NHS Litigation Authority. Such a layer using the 'Torts', lawyers and 'expert witnesses' would greatly add to the expense and delay settlement. SIN has been persuaded by Dr Graham Neale that such an investigative layer may: "nullify the aim of the Bill which is to provide patients with open, transparent, non-adversarial proceedings and prompt redress." In conclusion SIN believes that : The capping should be much higher to include all the very serious cases of injury and death; the Torts should be discarded; a National Tariff should be used to set awards with Mediation. In short, there should be open and honest disclosure regardless of legal liability - otherwise the denial and cover-up culture will continue and seriously injured patients will be denied care because they are perceived as potential litigants and to give remedial care would be to acknowledge that damage had occurred. This was confirmed by the Health Select Committee June 1999 - 'Black listing' of complaining patients - "Inquiry into Adverse Medical Incidents & their Outcomes" and also Lord Woolf :"They ( the health professionals) needed to recognise that because patients felt they had been a victim of medical malpractice this did not justify withdrawing treatment. It meant that those who had responsibility for treating the patient had a particular duty to achieve the best results possible for the patient." To quote from a March 2006 Paper"When things go Wrong" from the Harvard Medical Schools : " We are committed to full disclosure because it is the right thing to do". No One is Immune From a Medical Error 10th June 2007 FOLLOWING LETTER WAS SENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE 10th July 2007 Rt. Hon Kevin Barron ( Chair) MP Rother Valley Lab.; David Amess MP Southend West Cons.;Charlotte Atkins MP Staffordshire Moorlands Lab.; Ronnie Campbell MP Blythe Valley Lab.;Jim Dowd MP Lewisham West Lab.; Anne Milton MP Guildford Cons.; Dr. Doug Naysmith MP Bristol NW Lab.; Mike Penning MP Hemel Hempstead Cons.; Dr. Howard Stoate MP Dartford Lab.; Re: NHS Redress Bill ( 34,000 deaths & 40,000 seriously injured patients per annum in the UK) Scandinavia & New Zealand have had Redress Schemes for years!! Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect ( SIN) is an NGO, self-funding, voluntary patient support and pressure group formed in November 1998. It was set up to expose the problems faced by the seriously, physically damaged patients in the UK and to improve Patient Safety by bringing changes to the system. Basically, the NHS has never devised a strategy for being honest and open when serious medical damage occurs. This results in a culture of 'denial & cover-up', for what cannot be disclosed must be covered-up. SIN was the first group to campaign and argue for a Victim's Compensation / Redress Fund from July 1999, and was delighted when the Labour Party decided to bring in the NHS Redress Bill. SIN has produced documents in response to the Department of Health's call for new ideas for dealing with clinical negligence: " Balancing the Scales" and " SIN's Response to the CMO's consultative document ""Making Amends" . These can be found on our website. For the last 50 years the UK has kept detailed records of road accidents - how many killed and injured - yet astonishingly there has been no record of serious medical accidents and the deaths and injuries caused. Medical errors and Patient Safety is now a national, European and global issue. Recent research has shown that one in ten hospital patients in the UK will be subjected to some kind of medical error - 850,000 per year!! (The Chief Medical Officer's ( Prof. Sir Liam Donaldson) own publication - "Organisation with a memory") . Most are non-serious but one in ten are estimated to result in death and serious permanent physical damage to the patient. According to the research figures produced by Prof. Charles Vincent ( UCL)in March 2000 it is an estimated 34,000 deaths in UK hospitals every year and 40,000 patients seriously and permanently damaged per annum. What happens to all these patients? - and notice these figures do not include GP errors! Similar figures are coming in from other countries of the Developed World. SIN suggests a down -grading of the medical litigation route with a sensible Victim's Compensation/Redress Scheme with awards set against a National Tariff with Mediation, an assurance of remedial care and a causal analysis of the medical error including the patient's perspective. In short we are asking for patients' Rights to be in Statute. SIN wants open & honest disclosure regardless of the legal liability of the respective Health Institution. New Zealand is light years ahead of the UK in this matter. Having considered the NHS Redress Bill we have come to the following conclusions: 1. The Torts should NOT be retained. It is very unfortunate that in spite of the statement of the Department of Health that : "It would not be appropriate for the Bill to set out that the 'Bolam' and 'Bolitho' tests will be applied to cases under the Redress Scheme" - the litigation lobby and in particular the MDU and the MPS seem to have persuaded the MPs to retain the Torts. These Torts have been subjected to widespread criticism here and abroad . For example the Australian New South Wales Court stated: "Bolam is not only the wrong test where disclosure of risk is concerned, but it is also the wrong test in relation to decisions concerning treatment and diagnosis"( Lord Woolf 2001) Lord Woolf himself suggested that "reduce the need for the courts to rely on the intrusive Bolam approach ". Consequently, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand ( 30 years ago) have discarded the Bolam Test. 2. The capping of £20,000 is much too low - many such cases are already being compensated by the discretionary powers of the Chief Executives of the Trusts in conjunction with the NHS Litigation Authority at the moment - so nothing will have changed. What about all the seriously damaged patients and bereaved relatives? The following appear to be the arguments for the low capping: a) Expensive compensation cases are complex and therefore require the Law. We refute this. Serious damage and death can have very simple causes. Bereaved and seriously ill patients should not be forced to enter into long unnecessary adversarial court battles. Risk Managers have for years been registering and grading incidents that cause serious harm - it is just that the patients/ families are never informed. (b)Everyone must have a right to go to law. The fact is that only the very poor or the very rich have easy access to the law. There were only 5,600 medico-litigation cases in one year compared with tens of thousands of potential cases. ( There is certainly no 'Compensation Culture'). Even then only 17% of these cases would be successful according to Lord Woolf who has acknowledged that the courts do not deliver justice to the vast majority. No one is suggesting denying anyone access to the Law, but there should be alternatives. (c) The third reason is that everyone should have a legal representative. Unfortunately, such legal representation has not delivered justice to the vast majority of the many thousands of injured patients and bereaved families over the last 50 years. It is time for something different. SIN suggests Mediation where there is a dispute. 3. An Independent Level of Investigation?: this is the suggested Amendment. SIN has given this some thought and has come to the conclusion that such a level when the capping is so low would be an unnecessary expense, especially when such claims are already being settled by the Trusts without any or very little reference to the NHS Litigation Authority. Such a layer using the 'Torts', lawyers and 'expert witnesses' would greatly add to the expense and delay settlement. SIN agrees with Dr Graham Neale, Clinical Safety Research Unit, St Mary's Hospital, London, that such an investigative layer may: "nullify the aim of the Bill which is to provide patients with open, transparent, non-adversarial proceedings and prompt redress." In conclusion SIN believes that : The capping should be much higher with sensible compensation to include all the very serious cases of injury and death; the Torts should be discarded; a National Tariff should be used to set awards with Mediation. In short, there should be open and honest disclosure regardless of legal liability - otherwise the denial and cover-up culture will continue and seriously injured patients will be denied care because they are perceived as potential litigants and to give remedial care would be to acknowledge that damage had occurred. This was confirmed by the Health Select Committee June 1999 - 'Black listing' of complaining patients - "Inquiry into Adverse Medical Incidents & their Outcomes" and also Lord Woolf ( 2001) :"They needed to recognise that because patients felt they had been a victim of medical malpractice this did not justify withdrawing treatment. It meant that those who had responsibility for treating the patient had a particular duty to achieve the best results possible for the patient." To quote from a March 2006 Paper"When things go Wrong" from the Harvard Medical Schools : " We are committed to full disclosure because it is the right thing to do". To quote from one unnamed doctor acting as expert witness said on TV: " We are not as good as we should like to be. We are not as good as you think we are. We make mistakes. If damage occurs, let compensation be paid." No One is Immune From a Medical Error PS Contact has already been made with Sandra Gidley MP, and it was not possible to find the email address of Dr. Richard Taylor.
|
