When nurses were regarded as "angels", nursing was a vocational profession. The qualities required of the candidates included humanity, self-discipline and dedication to the patients' welfare and dignity at all times. These qualities were coupled with  proven high level of intelligence ,( equivalent to several high grade A levels) for those wishing to train for the coveted title of State Registered Nurse ( SRN).

"Now the standards have changed to please the unsuitable applicants who think the world owes them a living. Many do not have a basic knowledge of mathematics and believe that 0.3 is the same as 3.0! God help the patients to whom they administer dangerous drugs. They know all their rights and none of their responsibilities. The attractive salaries, equivalent to that of other professionals like teachers, do attract the wrong people.. Low pay for nurses is a myth! It should be pointed out that their working week is 37.5 hours whereas other professionals work unlimited hours; overtime is  unpaid. Teachers often work 70 hours a week including those "long holidays"! No overtime with pay for teachers who deal with over 30 "customers/ consumers" on their own. A 12 -bed ward has a minimum of 4 nurses plus helpers: three " customers/ consumers" per nurse!!

"I received numerous accounts of unacceptable behaviour by nurses towards patients that gave me many sleepless nights. I became so alarmed that I wrote to the Royal College of Nursing. It sent one of its executives, Mrs Rosemary Wilkinson, to my house to read the evidence I had collected. She stayed all afternoon reading the original letters and making notes. She became  visibly upset, and when I asked her why, she looked up and said: " "This makes me ashamed to be a member of the Nursing Profession!" When she eventually left she said she was reporting back to the full executive demanding some appropriate action be taken on their part. She later sent  me a letter of thanks, but I have never received a copy of her report to the Executive or details of the " appropriate action" the Executive took!

What were the details that upset her? I will list a few. Be warned they may upset you!

1. Nurses chasing after doctors demanding they write: " Do not resuscitate " on elderly patients' notes.
2. A  52 year old man, who had had a stroke ,  was deliberately roughly handled by the nurses. When he complained, they gave him a bath, then lifted him up on the hoist and left him to " drip-dry" for a long time in front of an open window in February!
3. A cancer patient asked for a warm drink one evening, which was refused " because there was no milk". When the patient said she would go and get some from the caterer the nurses lost their temper. The next day the whole ward was denied a cup of tea to get even with this one patient!
4. What type of nurse is it who would stand by and watch her patients dehydrate, starved and neglected because some medic had labelled his/her notes: " Nil by mouth" to ensure that an overdose of diamorphine would then have a faster effect? 
5. A husband found his very sick wife had been lying in excrement and urine for many hours. It had dried on her. When he went to the nurses' station, where they were gossiping, to complain and ask for assistance he was told by a Sister: " not to bull-shit us"!" How professional! One old, professional retired nurse told me that her Principal TUtor had said that, if at any time a nurse felt too proud to give a patient a bed pan, they should no longer call themselves " Nurses".
6. Nurses, both male & female, continually participate in practices that are unhygienic. This ranges from scratching their private parts to sneezing in their sterile gloves and then dressing patients' wounds. We have an epidemic in most NHS Hospitals of the MRSA bacteria which is a killer! The elderly and fragile patients cannot fight it. The spread of this disease is caused , we are told , by the lack of personal hygiene of hospital staff who refuse to wash their hands before attending a patient.  [ 5,000 patients die every year through diseases caught whilst staying in our hospitals - we now have "super -bugs" which are virtually resistant to antibiotics]

SIN has many similar cases of appalling standards of care and unprofessional behaviour of nurses. SIN agrees with Jill Baker that the problem is not funding but staff attitudes, training , discipline and accountability. 
The D.o.H is always claiming that we do not have enough nurses, which is why we believe that the "bad apples" are  never sacked: we  simply cannot afford to lose any nurse, however, bad they may happen to be. This, we believe is a flawed and short-sighted policy. The reason why we lose so many nurses is because the "bad apples" remain. How can a good quality nurse enjoy working with incompetent and malicious nurses who are never disciplined, and who are probably promoted? Good nurses have to collude with the bad ones. If any nurse complains about a colleague, they themselves  become  victimised.
The UKCC, the nursing equivalent of the GMC, is just as dysfunctional. One member sent in a closely argued case against a nurse showing gross professional misconduct with evidence. She received a short letter , one paragraph in length, simply stating that  the complaint had not been upheld. Our shocked member replied with a number of questions regarding the evidence, only to receive an even briefer note that the decision was final and that within one week, all her submitted evidence had been destroyed by the UKCC!
Here are some of our cases:

1. One wife found her husband lying in a pool of blood, urine and faeces. There was blood on the floor and his bed sore was full of excrement. She was handed a plastic bag of her husband's dirty clothes to take home for washing. When she arrived home to empty the bag, she discovered there was a pool of blood at the bottom of the plastic bag!
2. Someone reported that a very elderly, fragile  female patient had arrived back in the ward after having had a bone marrow test and was left on her bed.  Her pyjama top was deliberately pulled open  to expose  her chest. Her bed was beside the window, which the nurse opened, so leaving the patient with an exposed chest  in a draught of  cold air. Needless to say the patient developed a chesty cough! 
3. One family reported that  when one of their relatives had suffered a severe stroke so that the patient could only move her eyes and eyelids and had to remain in  hospital for several months; they became very worried about the attitudes of the nurses and the standard of nursing care.. The nurses  were described as   being incompetent, careless, dirty  and viscious! So concerned were they as to the treatment  being metered out to their prostrate, totally  paralysed  relative when they were not present, that two members of the family gave up their paid employment and together with a third member , they managed to keep a 24 hour vigil beside their relative's  bed.[ What an indictment of our NHS - that we cannot trust our nurses]
4. Another member reports that an abusive Sister had rewritten her notes in an untruthful manner. This is not at all unusual. One nurse we are told was asked by a doctor to rewrite what had happened , she refused and  lost her job and had to find work abroad. Another nurse faced with the same  dilemma  complied with the request, because she lived with her elderly mother and was the sole means of support and did not dare to lose her job.
5. A member was visiting a friend who was a patient in a "flagship" . Thehospital visitor pointed out, in passing,  that  a nurse  was not wearing the obligatory name badge, expecting the nurse to say " Thanks for reminding me!" Instead, the nurse retorted that she had it in her pocket, and refused to put it on. This incident was repeated on two separate occasions on different days. The visitor pointed out that there were very important reasons for the  regulation that required all staff to  wear name badges and that even the Chief Executive had a name- badge hanging around his neck. The young nurse went off in a" huff" having given the wrong name!  Another nurse, more responsible, who had overheard the discussion came and apologised and gave the nurse's correct name. The next thing was that the Sister in charge of the Ward called the visitor into a side room and then proceeded to "tick off " the visitor. Apparently the nurse had complained that "she could not take any more of this!". However, the Sister had to concede that the nurse was in the wrong. The visitor  suggested  that the nurse  was very immature being only 18 or 19 years old and perhaps she was not suited to being a nurse. Astonishingly, she was told that  the nurse was fully trained and  24 years old!. Obviously, the Sister should have checked that all nurses in her charge had their name badges on and should have  disciplined this nurse, but  seemed  quite unable to do so. The visitor later spoke to a middle -management nurse who admitted that discipline in the hospital was very poor.

How did the young, spiteful  nurse get "even"?. Well, the patient requested  that she should like to have a word with  her  gynaecologist whenever he was available. The nurse agreed to pass on the message. The next thing the bewildered  patient  knew  was the gynaecologist  storming into her room at 6pm that evening in his surgical garb stating that never in all his years of experience in the NHS had he been interrupted during an operation by a telephone call down to the Theatre "demanding" that he immediately come to see a patient on the Ward. The irony is that the patient was told off and the nurse got away with her deliberate,  malicious behaviour!
 

4th May 2002

MESSAGE FROM APANA: 
VACCINES & AUTISM : CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN USA

APANA is a network of individuals who have autism or Asperger's Syndrome, and their families and friends. We all have personal knowledge of the devastation that is frequently caused to autistic and Asperger's individuals when they are given  prescribed mood altering medication  The fact that these medications are particularly unsuitable for such people seems to go un-noticed by the medical establishment, and the problem is on a huge scale. People with autism, who already have vulnerable brains, frequently never recover from the adverse effects of these drugs.

Thimerosal - Thimerosal is the most common preservative that is used in vaccines and biologics that are marketed in the United States. Thimerosal is used to help prevent a vaccine from spoiling; for inactivating bacteria used to formulate several vaccines; and in preventing bacterial contamination of the final product. Several of the vaccines recommended routinely for children in the United States contain Thimerosal. However, reports have surfaced linking Thimerosal to mercury poisoning in infants, often causing autism.

On July 7 1999, the American Academy of Paediatrics ( AAP) issued, with the US Public Health Service ( USPHS), a joint statement alerting clinicians and the public of concern about Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines. The reason for the warning is that Thimerosal contains a related mercury compound called ethyl mercury. Mercury is a toxic metal that can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor and behavioral dysfunctions.

The Food and Drug Administration suggested that some infants, depending on which vaccines they receive and the timing of those vaccines, may be exposed to levels of ethyl mercury that could build up to exceed one of the  federal guidelines established for the intake of methyl mercury. Symptoms of mercury toxicity in young children are extremely similar to those of autism.

This can explain the recent increase in the  numbers of children diagnosed with autism since the early 1990s. The numerous amount of children diagnosed with autism seems to directly correlate with the recommendation of both the hepatitis B and the HIB vaccine to infants in the early 1990s. Autism is a neurological disorder that is characterised by impairments in language, cognitive and social development.

20th November 2002

The Executives,
The Royal College Of Nursing,
LONDON 
17th May, 2002

Dear Executives,

I watched this programme with growing horror that eventually turned to disgust and anger. I hope you were watching too. If you were not I have a video copy of it., fortunately!  I am sure that ITV Meridian will be pleased to supply you with one. !f this is the standard of behaviour your nurses have sunk to, then I suggest you have failed in your duties as a Royal College.

The staff concerned were relating the 'tricks' they get up to , to discomfort their patients. The distress they must have caused is unbelievable. At first we thought it was a "spoof" programme because the nurses were laughing at the treatment they meted out to the poor vulnerable patients. it soon became obvious that heir nasty, sometimes sexual , practices were real. We could not even smile; never mind laugh!

We wish to have your comments on the behaviour of the staff involved. What actions are you intending to take on this most unprofessional behaviour? Please do not tell me that these members of staff have left the profession. This could only have occurred if there were a lot of "looking the other way"! Once it is acceptable practice, it spreads. the rotten apples infect the others.

It is frightening enough to become a patient, with the painful procedures and loss of dignity involved, without the added stress of worrying about the unacceptable behaviour of the staff.

Yours sincerely,
 JJ Baker  ( JILL Baker)

SIN, too, watched this programme and was deeply disturbed by  what it saw. Surely the junior nurses who, without any authorisation, took it upon themselves to catherterise unnecessarily a young male patient who had been annoying them, without anaesthetics, causing him severe pain, were committing a criminal assault ? Is the nurse's disciplinary body going to be pro-active and seek out the names of these nurses in order to reprimand them?  The atmosphere in  an operating theatre showed a total lack of respect for the human body, when throwing someone's amputated limb around for 'fun'  was considered to be acceptable practice. In this case the consultant was responsible for setting the 'tone' of the operating theatre. The 'antics' of the ambulance paramedics were unbelievable!  Remember this was only the practices the staff thought they could relate in public.. What else goes on? SIN, with others, have been warning the D.o.H for years  that  there is no accountability and hence no quality control. When is the D.o.H  going to act?

SIN contacted the Royal College of Nursing and spoke with their Press Officer.  It was understood that that the RCN released a Press Notice objecting to  the programme's  content on the grounds that ( a) it would bring the Nursing Profession into disrepute and ( b) would cause a lowering of pubic confidence in the NHS.  In addition the RNC has lodged a complaint with ITV Meridian. SIN believes that a better response from the RNC would have been to have issued a  Public Apology for the  unacceptable behaviour of these nurses and to have reassured the public that immediate steps would be taken  to issue  Directives to all Senior Nursing Managers in our hospitals   to remind British nurses of the   high standards of professionalism to  which they should attain, and that such behaviour was unacceptable. This would have increased public confidence in the Nursing Profession. It was  amazing  that these nurses( and ambulance paramedics)  all thought that what they were relating was highly amusing. The RNC seemed more concerned that such behaviour was being made public, rather than that such unprofessional  behaviour was common place in our hospitals. One can only infer that such  'high jinks' at the patient's expense must be  common place, otherwise these nurses would not have thought it 'OK' to divulge such practices. We are sure that these nurses were in fact 'good' nurses, simply that they had been inadequately trained and monitored.

 30th.November 2002

Jill was in the Ward for nearly 4 days, from Wednesday to Saturday, and although she received antibiotics she was given nothing to eat or drink. Her  husband, by the Saturday was getting very worried as Jill was getting weaker and decided to take his wife  home, they were also not very impressed by the cleanliness of the Ward and were wondering what was the 'special treatment' she had been promised.  Unexpectedly, the Ward staff tried to prevent Jill from discharging herself and one Junior Doctor threatened Jill that if she left the hospital she would not get anymore treatment in any other NHS hospital! Ill as she felt Jill reminded this young doctor that the tax-payer had paid for her training and that the NHS belonged to the patients and not to the doctors.  [What power these doctors have! - how dare they cause such distress ] This Junior Doctor was identified and disciplined. Eventually antibiotics were prescribed and Jill went home to be well  looked after by her husband. 

Jill decided to obtain her notes, which took 4 months to arrive. This hospital, in line with all the others, broke the Law - those notes should have been released within 40 days. On reading them, Jill discovered the now notorious DNR ( Do Not Resuscitate) had been written down for her. A great deal of publicity followed.  It was also discovered that 'TLC' written on hospital notes authorised by a health professional ' did not mean "Tender Loving Care' but -  'Total lack of Care' - this was actually  verified by a Chief Executive on a Kilroy programme.

It was not surprising  then, when Jill found that she required further treatment for a cancer on her leg, that she declined to go into the Local Portsmouth Hospital Trust, because of her experience with  MRSA and chose instead to have the operation performed under BUPA at a private hospital which claimed to have no MRSA infection. However, Jill then had the audacity to send the bill of £632 to the local Health  Authority, claiming the Trust could not guarantee protection from MSRA. The HA refused at first to pay and then eventually offered to pay when Jill had started proceedings against them in the Small Claims Court, with the proviso that Jill must sign a 'confidentiality clause'.  Jill refused, and the HA declined  to pay the bill. So, the battle went to the Courts.

The First Stage: Jill took her claim, as a 'litigant in person' to represent herself in the 'Small Claims Court'. This was the cheapest option, both for Jill and the HA , which really means the Tax-payer! It was the most appropriate court for such a claim, this court only dealing with claims up to £5000.

The Second Stage: The Defendants went to the Southampton County Court for an Appeal.  This ,of course, increased the expense both for Jill and for the Tax-payer! The HA appealed against  the case being heard in the 'Small Claims Court' and requested that the Trust be involved in the defence. At their appeal in the Southampton County Court, the HA & the Trusts' solicitors requested that the case be moved to the much more expensive higher  'Multi-Courts'. [Please remember that all this legal manoeuvring is being paid for by the tax-payer - the HA and Trust are using the scant resources of the NHS to pay for these unnecessary legal battles. The Trust & HA were also fully aware that Jill was  a cancer patient and a pensioner. Not only had they  no moral qualms at using scant NHS resources but also none at putting extra stress on this very ill  patient.] The HA & Trust won their Appeal. Jill Baker issued the following Press Release.

The Defendants were appealing against the Portsmouth Judges allocation of the case to the Small Claims Court. Mrs Baker was claiming £632 for an operation she had done at BUPA because the NHS Hospitals have an epidemic of MRSA bacteria. She had caught it before, when she went in the Portsmouth NHS Hospital and a doctor put DNR on her notes.

The cost of going to the Higher Court would be between £12000 and £20,000 and possibly up to £30,000.

[Jill felt that this unnecessary transfer to the Higher Court was the Defendants  attempt to pressurise her into dropping the case because of the  great costs involved  if she were made to pay her own and the defendant's costs should she lose -  Jill  considered it to be emotional blackmail. The Judge appeared to have similar thoughts]

The judge, said that it could go to the Higher Court if the HA were willing to pay their own costs  because she was a pensioner. This would still leave Jill facing a hefty bill for her own costs] After contacting their clients, they informed the judge that they were agreeable.

The Judge said that they were trying to crack a nut with a power hammer. He also said that he would not like a DNR on his hospital notes unless he was trying to get euthanasia through the back door.

Experts on Channel 4 News said this case would go all the way to the House of Lords because it was of national importance.

The Third Stage:                     Victory for Jill Baker, Pensioner

A patient, Mrs Julia Jill Baker, who required a skin cancer removed from her leg, refused to go into an  NHS Hospital for the operation because the last time she was a patient, receiving chemotherapy treatment, she was infected with the killer MRSA disease. A doctor, whom she has never met, put a 'Do not resuscitate' on her notes and Mrs Baker believes that because she was infectious and old she was considered 'non cost-effective' to treat. Her husband, realising the danger she was in, forcibly removed her from the hospital.

She went to a private hospital to have the leg tumour removed and sent the bill of £632 for reimbursement to the Health Authority.. Mrs Baker believed that after paying her national insurance contributions for forty years she was entitled to be treated in a clean, safe hospital. The NHS 'has a duty of care' to all patients. Mrs Baker believes that it has allowed the MRSA bacterium to get out of control. Mrs Baker  claims that  there has been an average of 1,000 new cases of MRSA in every NHS hospital in the last year. The numbers, she believes, are doubling every year. The young, weak and elderly are in great danger and she is concerned  that all   hospital executives are  expected to 'play down' the real danger of this killer bug.

When the Health Authority refused to reimburse Mrs Baker, she took them  to the Small Claims Court. The Health Authority tried to have the claim thrown out of court. They failed. Various Court appearances lasted almost 2 years  [all costing the tax-payer and Jill Baker money] The Defendants tried to blackmail Mrs Baker by threatening her with costs of £20K - £30K in an attempt to stop her court action. The Appeal Judge said they must pay their own expenses if they wished to go to the Multi Court. This removed the ability of the Health Authority to 'blackmail' Mrs Baker and prevent her from continuing her case.

Mrs Baker refused to withdraw her claim. Just four days before the  Court hearing on 9th. October 2002, the Health Authority gave in and sent her a cheque for the full amount!!!!!  Mrs Baker believes that the  Health Authority wished to avoid Mrs Baker presenting the damning evidence she had collected to the Court. This, she believes would have alerted the public to the real danger of  MRSA.

This case, Jill believes, has created a PRECEDENT. In future if NHS patients believe their lives to be in danger because of the unsafe conditions in the NHS hospitals they can do the same as Mrs Baker and have their treatment in a clean, safe hospital and send the NHS the Bill!!!!!

Jill Baker may be contacted on Tel: 0239 2261 009

Jill's battle was not over money*! Her aim was to raise public awareness of the extent of the MRSA bug in our NHS hospitals and to warn  the public that patients are at risk. Thereby putting pressure on he Trusts and Health Authorities to clean up our wards. Too much concentration on waiting lists have diverted attention from the fact that the Trusts have been failing to maintain basic hygiene standards  on our hospital wards, thereby cultivating conditions in which the super bugs can thrive.We believe that the numbers of cleaning staff have been reduced considerable over the last decade whilst the numbers in 'management ' have escalated during the same period

SIN is delighted that Jill had the courage and financial resources to persist in her court challenge. This, of course has been detrimental to her health. We believe, however, that although she set a precedent it was not a legal precedent because the case never reached the courts and therefore did not go through the due process of Law. SIN believes that many medico-legal cases are settled out of court at the 'eleventh hour', after years of unnecessary legal wrangling, after a huge amount of money has been accrued by the lawyers at the expense of the tax-payer and the patient, not to mention the trauma and stress to which the ill patient or relatives are subjected, in order that precedents are not set!  We believe this is a despicable bullying and blackmailing tactic used against ill  patients and their relatives who have a justified grievance. Often a 'confidentiality' clause is written into any out-of-court settlement.

Advantages of an out- of- court settlement are:

•      no facts are made known to the public
•      no one is made accountable
•      no legal precedent is set -  the most important advantage to the NHS & the medical profession?