SIN has been campaigning for over two years for a "Victim's Compensation Fund", to quote from our "Aims & Objectives":

" A review of the huge medical litigation bill currently running [now] at £4 bill. per year is urgently needed. A new approach to iatrogenic damage is imperative. SIN suggests a victim's compensation fund is set up. part paid by the tax-payer and part by the Medical Insurance Companies. If damage has occurred, the patient is informed and am assessment of damage made. In parallel an investigation is carried out to determine the cause of the mistake and to establish accountability." July 1999

 10. "Lastly a change in approach to Medical Negligence' this last point is perhaps the most important. The tax-payer is funding a huge legal bill for Health Authorities and Trusts to defend (often indefensible) medical negligence claims, when money could and  should be spent on patient care. Huge legal bills are draining the NHS of essential reserves.

"The whole adversarial legal battle of medical negligence to be abandoned. We accept that doctors with the best will  in the world will make mistakes. Some of these can be serious. It is bad for a profession to be obliged to cover up the suffering which is inadvertently caused. I I propose that a fund is set up, part of it to come from the tax-payer, the other part to come from the Medical Defence  Unions. It may be necessary for patients to take out a small compulsory annual insurance cover

" When a mistake occurs the patient must be immediately informed. An apology must be made and the patient reassured of the best medical care. This will maintain confidence in the medical profession. The patient will then transfer to another doctor who will be a able to be frank, indeed be able to comply with the GMC Guidelines. He/she  must not be obliged to cover for a colleague.  The doctor in question to be counselled, in a supportive environment. Many times it is pure human error, sometimes something more serious may be wrong - more training or reduction in work load or, occasionally, a doctor should be disciplined. The damage done to the patient can easily be assessed by loss insurers. Only then will it be time to bring in the lawyers.

" One couple who had had a child damaged by negligence at birth took 14 years and a £140,000 mortgage before the child was granted compensation. No way for a civilised country to behave. If the GP who had misdiagnosed me, and I believe she was a good GP, could have said to me: " I've got this one wrong, Mrs Bean, I am so sorry. I suggest you transfer to another GP and I assure you we shall do everything possible for you. There has been some damage, but that will be assessed and then it will be time for you to bring in a legal adviser and your own loss adjuster". How much better that would have been .. She could have gone on a course  (which I believe she did) I could have relaxed without  all the psychological strain and physical stress of the last few years ,which have ruined my life. What did I do wrong? Nothing! I was just an innocent victim  of a human error.

" The expert witness at the end of the television programme (about the above child) said:

"We are not as good as we should like to be. We are not as good as you think we are. We make mistakes, sometimes damage occurs. If there is damage then let compensation be paid!"

Surely this is the light at the end of the tunnel? The present situation is very unhealthy both for patients and doctors and for all those who participate in what is a national scandal of cover-up".       June 1999

 
WHAT A GREAT FIRST  BIRTHDAY PRESENT FOR SIN'S WEB SITE!!!:
ON 10TH JULY 2001 THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH NEWS DESK WEB SITE ANNOUNCED :
NEW CLINICAL COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR NHS

"The slow and bureaucratic system of clinical negligence compensation in the NHS is set for a major overhaul.

The Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, will lead a new committee to look at ways of making the system faster and fairer ......The committee will consult on the proposals with interested parties so that a White Paper, setting out the Government's reform programme, can be published early next year,

The following ideas will be explored:

1. No fault compensation - which may save time and costs in achieving settlements. This system would encourage a more open system by not blaming staff.
2. Structured settlements - instead of a lump sum, patients would receive periodic payments based on their future needs, including nursing care or other treatment (Surely this is already supplied to those patients who are in need of assistance?)
3. Fixed tariff schemes for specific injuries.
4. Mediation - greater use of mediation for resolving disputes

"Fundamental reform of clinical negligence is long overdue. The current system does not work either for the NHS patients or for NHS staff...very often it ends up paying more out in legal fees than in damages for patients. It undermines our reforms to make the NHS more open when things go wrong. Where staff fear being dragged through the courts, mistakes are hidden and cover-ups occur *(sic) .We have to find a fairer and faster way of compensating people  and our reforms will help end the ** blame and compensation cultures which threaten to undermine the efforts of NHS staff to improve care for patients.".

* This acknowledges that cover-ups are happening in the NHS!  Cover-ups are wicked and cruel! When a cover-up occurs a sticky web of  deceit and lies  is woven out of necessity.  If  the cover-up is  to be maintained:miseading statements are issued to confuse the patient and the falsification of medical records and test results  can occur. What happens to the patient who is a  victim of a cover-up ? They become enmeshed in this sticky web and are unable to find the truth about their medical condition and, in the most serious cases, are deprived of genuine medical care, because to give the medical care would be to disclose the  damage which had occurred, which would  possibly expose colleagues to charges of negligence or worse, and  would  also give the patient information which could be useful in pursuing a successful court case. At the risk of being repetitious: no patient wants to go to court and in fact few can afford it, and even fewer win, because of the "rigged" judiciary system. [see Lord Woolf's lecture]. PATIENTS & THEIR RELATIVES DEMAND  TRUTH  & JUSTICE AND DAMAGED PATIENTS DEMAND CARE

**SIN utterly refutes this notion of a "blame and compensation culture". It is, we believe an insult to the suffering of  many thousands who die and are permanently damaged by medical mistakes every year in the UK. There has been precious little blame ( accountability) and only a very small amount of compensation  received by damaged patients.What are relatives and patients expected to do? Medics certainly do not rush around telling everyone what has happened! This reform should help to bring in an honest and open culture, which is long overdue.

SIN welcomes this new initiative

Click here to read the letter which SIN submitted to the Chief Medical Office, Prof. Liam Donaldson re: Victim's compensation fund

1. A patient a right to check and to have a copy of the consultation notes immediately after the consultation, thus making it difficult for doctors to change records and most importantly avoid inaccurate information from being propagated. This would certainly have prevented my misdiagnosis. It is the altering of  records which is one of the most traumatic experiences that a damaged patient has to suffer. [Added to SIN's "Aims & Objectives in July 1999}

2. Junior doctors are over worked and under trained. It is suggested that Consultants take on more  structured teaching and contact time with junior doctors.[Added to SIN's Aims & Objectives July 1999]

3. To reduce the number of potential mistakes a review of the syllabuses in Medical Schools to ensure that time is not spent on learning out of date procedures and information.

4. A qualitative look at diagnostic skills of our doctors. Perhaps a regular re-appraisal every few years when an obligatory course at a medical school where doctors are given patients and videoed during consultations. Part of the re-validation programme.

5. Standard computer diagnostic programmes might be useful in all surgeries. At least it would give very patient in he UK the same base. Nothing to stop the doctor from using his/her own additional intuition and expertise. A computer programme would not have missed my diagnosis.

6.Although this will not go down well with the legal and the medical professions; medical experts are mostly redundant. Medicine is not an art, it is a 95% science. The hospital where the mistake  took place is well able to make an accurate assessment as  to the damage and its cause.[ Added to SIN's "Aims & Objectoives July 1999]

7. Doctors and managers must treat patients as human beings and not as numbers.

8.  The GMC code of ethics to be enforced.

9. Whistle blowers to be given protection. Doctors are still fearful of career prospects.

Return to Text

******

 

FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF:

Prof. Liam Donaldson,        ref: cmo/vcfund
Chief Medical Officer,
Department of Health, Richmond House,
79, Whitehall,
London. SW1A 2NS        8th August, 2001.

Dear Prof. Donaldson,
Re: Compensation Fund for Victims of Medical Errors Under Consideration

S.I.N., Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect, is a patient support organisation that has been set up for the patient who has been subjected to a medical error and has suffered serious damage. We noted with great interest the recent reports in the media that the Department of Health is considering setting up a Compensation Fund for the victims of medical errors.(News Desk, Department of Health, 10th July,2001)

For the last two and a half years S.I.N. has been fighting for the setting up of a Victims’ Compensation Fund similar to the one described. To quote from our “Aims & Objectives”: 

"A review of the huge medical litigation bill currently running at £2.8bill. per year(now est.£4bill). A new approach to iatrogenic damage is imperative. SIN suggests a victim's compensation fund is set up. Part paid by the tax-payer and part by the Medical Insurance Companies. If damage has occurred, the patient is informed and an assessment of damage made. In parallel an investigation is carried out to determine the cause of the mistake and to establish accountability. July 1999."

This would relieve the patient from embarking on a long, costly and difficult legal battle when the only certain winners are the lawyers. 

The setting up of such a scheme would have the great advantage of reducing the huge and escalating NHS legal bill and, perhaps, just as importantly, it would allow doctors to admit that a mistake has been made, and to tell patients the truth. At the moment it is often difficult for a doctor to do this because of legal considerations, and patients of medical errors often find themselves in a battle to discover the truth about their medical condition which, in certain cases, can hamper their medical care.

We understand that as Chief Medical Officer you are setting up a new committee to look at ways of making the system work better and faster for both patients and health professionals and to explore the implications of setting up such a Victims’ Compensation Fund. This is in preparation for the publication of a White Paper on this issue, early next year. Sin has welcomed the many initiatives set up by the Labour Government over the last twelve months in order to improve the standards in the NHS and to give further protection to the patient. Sin and its members have also noted that the present ethos of the Department of Health is to encourage greater participation of patients in the health care process, thereby empowering the patient.

It is with this in mind that we, the undersigned, Co-Directors of SIN, put our names forward to be considered for inclusion in the new committee which is to be formed to discuss the proposed Victims’ Compensation Fund. After all, it would seem most appropriate, if not absolutely essential, to hear directly from the patients who have been subjected to medical errors and their representatives. You may remember that we took the opportunity to speak with you at several BMA/BMJ Conferences.

We look forward to a positive response.
 Yours sincerely,
Co-Directors & Founder Members SIN : GM Bean & M. MacRae

We received the customary acknowledgement within two days, but by 1st. October we had received no reply!
 

Return to Text