Many allegations have been made against Professor Southall and Dr Martin Samuels by the Henshalls. We though examine the behaviour of the Henshalls. We can see the behaviour to counterattack by complaints of breach of confidentiality. This is identical to all complaints made by Ms Penny Mellor. She cites a breach of confidentiality repeatedly so that this in effect silences every doctor from defending themselves. In effect, the pattern is startlingly similar.
The issue below surrounds one of the complaints made by the Henshalls - the signature on the consent form. The audience should ask themselves whether they are convinced by the memory lapse. The Complaints from the Henshalls have been ongoing for a number of years prior to the piece below.
This shows that doctors cannot defend themselves in the public forum without being subject to GMC proceedings.
The Henshall case
This is a piece from the BBC
A decision by the General Medical Council to clear a consultant of serious professional misconduct for leaking information to the media has been backed by the High Court.
A judge in London on Thursday upheld a ruling on Thursday that Dr Keith Prowse was justified in disclosing a patients’ confidential documents. He leaked the documents to Channel 4 News in order to counter allegations that a woman’s signature had been forged on a form consenting to the inclusion of her two premature babies in ventilator research trials at North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent.The babies were born in February and December 1992.
Authorised disclosure
One of them died and the other was left severely disabled.Respiratory consultant Dr Prowse authorised the disclosure of the forms to Channel 4 News after Mrs Henshall and her husband Carl approached the station with claims that the hospital used their two daughters in the trials without permission.The controversial CNEP ventilatorExamination of the documents, the consent form and other forms signed by Mrs Henshall, showed that the signature was genuine.
Mrs Henshall, from Clayton, Stoke, complained to the General Medical Council about the leak of confidential documents.
But in May this year, the GMC committee held that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, Dr Prowse had disclosed the documents in the best interests of patients.
The committee said the allegations of forgery against doctors in the paediatric department would have seriously undermined the trust of parents and seriously damaged standards of medical care.
Memory lapse
Parents would have been reluctant to accept the advice of doctors they believed to be guilty of forgery.The allegation of forgery was “entirely false”, the committee said. Lawyers acting for Mrs Henshall complained that the finding implied that Mrs Henshall had lied.
They said it “coloured” the committee’s ruling to the extent that the whole decision should be overturned.But on Thursday, Mr Justice Keith refused Mrs Henshall permission to challenge the decision.He held that the finding did not reflect on Mrs Henshall’s honesty or credibility.The committee, which had heard evidence that she might have suffered from a memory lapse because she signed under the after-effects of anaesthetic, was simply saying that she had indeed signed the consent form.
The judge also rejected a plea that the reference to the falsity of the forgery claim should be deleted from the record of the committee’s decision because it could prejudice a medical negligence damages claim being brought against the hospital on behalf of her disabled child.Mr Justice Keith said the forgery issue had no bearing on the pending damages claim, which concerned the quality of the research and care provided by the hospital.
"He was specifically concerned that, in breach of an injunction, Mr and Mrs Henshall had sent to the GMC papers that had been stolen from his office. He maintained his refusal of consent to disclosure despite their offer to undertake not to use any information derived from his responses save for the purpose of their complaints to the GMC; he maintained that, because of their behaviour, he had no confidence that they would comply with any such undertaking"
This is the judgment on Dr Keith Prowse, the doctor involved above.
Professional Conduct Committee
Date(s) of Hearing: 16 - 18 May 2001
Name of respondent doctor: Prowse, Keith
Registered qualifications: MB ChB 1962 Birm
Registered address: Shropshire
Panel:
Mr M Devaux (Chairman)
Dr Bhanumathi
Professor Gomes da Costa
Dr Gunasekera
Mr McFerran
Mrs Pollard
Professor Whitehouse
Legal Assessor: Mr A Pugh QC
Committee Secretary: Venessa Carroll and Guy Wilkinson
Type of Case: New Conduct
Representation:
GMC/Complainant: Mrs Rebecca Poulet QC, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse,
Solicitors
Doctor(s): Dr Prowse was present and represented by
Miss Nicola Davies QC, instructed by Ryans, Solicitors
Charge
“That being registered under the Medical Act,
‘1. In June 1997 you were the acting Chief Executive of the
North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust; Admitted and found proved
‘2. a. On or about 3 June 1997 you disclosed certain medical records to Lynn May of M & M Associates. Namely
i. In respect of child “B”,
A consent by proxy form dated 12 February 1992,
ii. In respect of child “C”,
A consent by proxy form dated 14 December 1992,
b. In respect of Mrs “A”,
A patient consent form dated 14 December 1992,
A patient consent form dated 11 February 1992,
A patient consent form dated 10 April 1991,
A patient consent form dated 18 November 1992,
Admitted and found proved
c. You failed to obtain the appropriate consents to such disclosure in respect of the records listed at head of charge 2 i a, b or c; Not found proved
‘3. a. On or about 3 June 1997 you authorised the disclosure by
Lynn May of the medical records listed in head 2i a-c to Kent Baker at Channel 4 TV News, Admitted and found proved
b. You failed to obtain the appropriate consents to such disclosure in respect of the records listed at head of charge 2 i a, b or c; Not found proved
‘4. a. On 4 June 1997 Lynn May disclosed the medical records listed at head 2 i a-c to David Blackhurst at Sentinel newspaper, Not found proved
b. You failed to take necessary care to protect the
confidentiality of these records by preventing this further disclosure;’ Not found proved
“And that in relation to the facts alleged you have been guilty of serious professional misconduct.” Not guilty of serious professional misconduct
Determination:
Dr Prowse: The Committee have carefully considered all the evidence presented to them and have made the following findings of fact:
Head 1 has already been admitted and found proved.
Head 2(a), in its entirety, has already been admitted and found proved
Head 2(b) has not been found proved
Head 3(a) has already been admitted and found proved
Head 3(b) has not been found proved
Heads 4(a) and 4(b) have not been found proved
Heads 2(b) and 3(b) of the charge allege that you failed to obtain appropriate consents for the disclosure of the consent forms signed by Mr and Mrs A and identified in head 2. At the time when you decided to make these disclosures, the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust was faced with the prospect that allegations of forgery against doctors practising in the paediatric department were planned to be broadcast on television within 48 hours. Such public allegations would seriously have undermined the trust of patients and their parents in the paediatric department. Such a breakdown of trust would seriously have damaged the standards of medical care provided by the paediatric department. In particular parents of babies and young children would have been reluctant to accept and act upon the medical advice of doctors whom they believed to be guilty of forgery. The best interests of these patients demanded that such allegations (which were entirely false) should not be made.
Furthermore Mr and Mrs A had already given written consent for the open and public discussion of their concerns.
It was your opinion (supported by professional advice) that only the disclosure of documents containing the unchallengeable signature of Mrs A would be sufficient to prevent the allegations of forgery being made. The best interest of your patients therefore required this disclosure. In the judgement of the Committee and in these circumstances, the disclosures you made were not prohibited by the professional rules governing confidentiality. Accordingly the further consent of Mr and Mrs A was not necessary or required or appropriate.
So far as head 2(b) is concerned, you were entitled, in the judgement of the Committee, to make the disclosures referred to in this head in order to obtain advice which it was reasonable for you to seek.
The Committee have not been satisfied by the evidence that any of the allegations contained in head 4 have been proved.
The Committee wish to make clear that the circumstances in which you were placed were truly exceptional and nothing which the Committee have decided should in anyway be understood to diminish the obligation upon doctors, whether or not they are acting as managers, to preserve the confidences of patients.
The Committee have determined that the facts alleged against you in the admitted heads of the charge are insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. They have accordingly recorded a finding that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of the matters to which the charge relates. That concludes the case.
Date(s) of Hearing: 16 - 18 May 2001
Name of respondent doctor: Prowse, Keith
Registered qualifications: MB ChB 1962 Birm
Registered address: Shropshire
Panel:
Mr M Devaux (Chairman)
Dr Bhanumathi
Professor Gomes da Costa
Dr Gunasekera
Mr McFerran
Mrs Pollard
Professor Whitehouse
Legal Assessor: Mr A Pugh QC
Committee Secretary: Venessa Carroll and Guy Wilkinson
Type of Case: New Conduct
Representation:
GMC/Complainant: Mrs Rebecca Poulet QC, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse,
Solicitors
Doctor(s): Dr Prowse was present and represented by
Miss Nicola Davies QC, instructed by Ryans, Solicitors
Charge
“That being registered under the Medical Act,
‘1. In June 1997 you were the acting Chief Executive of the
North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust; Admitted and found proved
‘2. a. On or about 3 June 1997 you disclosed certain medical records to Lynn May of M & M Associates. Namely
i. In respect of child “B”,
A consent by proxy form dated 12 February 1992,
ii. In respect of child “C”,
A consent by proxy form dated 14 December 1992,
b. In respect of Mrs “A”,
A patient consent form dated 14 December 1992,
A patient consent form dated 11 February 1992,
A patient consent form dated 10 April 1991,
A patient consent form dated 18 November 1992,
Admitted and found proved
c. You failed to obtain the appropriate consents to such disclosure in respect of the records listed at head of charge 2 i a, b or c; Not found proved
‘3. a. On or about 3 June 1997 you authorised the disclosure by
Lynn May of the medical records listed in head 2i a-c to Kent Baker at Channel 4 TV News, Admitted and found proved
b. You failed to obtain the appropriate consents to such disclosure in respect of the records listed at head of charge 2 i a, b or c; Not found proved
‘4. a. On 4 June 1997 Lynn May disclosed the medical records listed at head 2 i a-c to David Blackhurst at Sentinel newspaper, Not found proved
b. You failed to take necessary care to protect the
confidentiality of these records by preventing this further disclosure;’ Not found proved
“And that in relation to the facts alleged you have been guilty of serious professional misconduct.” Not guilty of serious professional misconduct
Determination:
Dr Prowse: The Committee have carefully considered all the evidence presented to them and have made the following findings of fact:
Head 1 has already been admitted and found proved.
Head 2(a), in its entirety, has already been admitted and found proved
Head 2(b) has not been found proved
Head 3(a) has already been admitted and found proved
Head 3(b) has not been found proved
Heads 4(a) and 4(b) have not been found proved
Heads 2(b) and 3(b) of the charge allege that you failed to obtain appropriate consents for the disclosure of the consent forms signed by Mr and Mrs A and identified in head 2. At the time when you decided to make these disclosures, the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust was faced with the prospect that allegations of forgery against doctors practising in the paediatric department were planned to be broadcast on television within 48 hours. Such public allegations would seriously have undermined the trust of patients and their parents in the paediatric department. Such a breakdown of trust would seriously have damaged the standards of medical care provided by the paediatric department. In particular parents of babies and young children would have been reluctant to accept and act upon the medical advice of doctors whom they believed to be guilty of forgery. The best interests of these patients demanded that such allegations (which were entirely false) should not be made.
Furthermore Mr and Mrs A had already given written consent for the open and public discussion of their concerns.
It was your opinion (supported by professional advice) that only the disclosure of documents containing the unchallengeable signature of Mrs A would be sufficient to prevent the allegations of forgery being made. The best interest of your patients therefore required this disclosure. In the judgement of the Committee and in these circumstances, the disclosures you made were not prohibited by the professional rules governing confidentiality. Accordingly the further consent of Mr and Mrs A was not necessary or required or appropriate.
So far as head 2(b) is concerned, you were entitled, in the judgement of the Committee, to make the disclosures referred to in this head in order to obtain advice which it was reasonable for you to seek.
The Committee have not been satisfied by the evidence that any of the allegations contained in head 4 have been proved.
The Committee wish to make clear that the circumstances in which you were placed were truly exceptional and nothing which the Committee have decided should in anyway be understood to diminish the obligation upon doctors, whether or not they are acting as managers, to preserve the confidences of patients.
The Committee have determined that the facts alleged against you in the admitted heads of the charge are insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. They have accordingly recorded a finding that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of the matters to which the charge relates. That concludes the case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment