Alder Hey - Yet Another Example of Damaging Damage Limitation.
Alder Hey is yet another sickening example of a betrayal of trust by
clinicians and Health Service managers of ordinary members of the general
public who had trusted them to safeguard their interests in their hours of
grief.
What is extremely alarming is the conspiracy of silence that is
triggered as soon as any members of the general public (and it is they who
have exposed the vast majority of health scandals) voice legitimate
concerns about unethical and often dangerous practices. What often ensues
is a knee-jerk reaction by heath authorities which conceals, obfuscates,
patronises, uses status and power to belittle; to in effect shoot the
messenger - all to the detriment of the public; all to retain confidence
in a rotten system.
In the last few days, from out of the woodwork, the communicators
have appeared, eloquently justifying the unjustifiable. Are such good
communicators needed ? Don't we need honest communicators ?
Lets try some honesty !
All hospitals are communities, very small communities and in these
small communities even the behaviour of maverick clinicians is known,
especially to their colleagues. So why the scapegoating of Van Velsen ?
Who is protecting who ? Van Velsen's clinical practices in my view are in
the very least ghoulish, bizarre and unethical, but he was not the only
maverick clinician working within the health service. Who protects the
public from people like this individual ? Certainly not the Trusts, Health
Authorities, Regional Health Executives nor the Commission for Health
Improvement. Neither do the professional bodies who issue guidance. The
GMC assisted by the Royal Colleges have been completely ineffectual. Not
one body within health has shown itself willing to challenge unethical
practice; not one body in health is proactive in protecting the patient.
The British Health Service desperately needs an Independent Medical
Inspectorate, accountable to the public through Parliament and not in any
way connected to any professional body. The professionals working in the
Health Family have to become far more accountable, open and transparent.
Their allegiance is to the public they serve and not, as happens now, to
their professional bodies and colleagues.
The public are rapidly losing confidence in the health professionals.
It is time to allow the many enlightened dedicated clinicians, who do
believe in openness, gain greater control - it is they who are the ones
who can truly work in genuine partnership with the general public.
Rapid Response:
Alder Hey - Yet Another Example of Damaging Damage Limitation.
Alder Hey is yet another sickening example of a betrayal of trust by
clinicians and Health Service managers of ordinary members of the general
public who had trusted them to safeguard their interests in their hours of
grief.
What is extremely alarming is the conspiracy of silence that is
triggered as soon as any members of the general public (and it is they who
have exposed the vast majority of health scandals) voice legitimate
concerns about unethical and often dangerous practices. What often ensues
is a knee-jerk reaction by heath authorities which conceals, obfuscates,
patronises, uses status and power to belittle; to in effect shoot the
messenger - all to the detriment of the public; all to retain confidence
in a rotten system.
In the last few days, from out of the woodwork, the communicators
have appeared, eloquently justifying the unjustifiable. Are such good
communicators needed ? Don't we need honest communicators ?
Lets try some honesty !
All hospitals are communities, very small communities and in these
small communities even the behaviour of maverick clinicians is known,
especially to their colleagues. So why the scapegoating of Van Velsen ?
Who is protecting who ? Van Velsen's clinical practices in my view are in
the very least ghoulish, bizarre and unethical, but he was not the only
maverick clinician working within the health service. Who protects the
public from people like this individual ? Certainly not the Trusts, Health
Authorities, Regional Health Executives nor the Commission for Health
Improvement. Neither do the professional bodies who issue guidance. The
GMC assisted by the Royal Colleges have been completely ineffectual. Not
one body within health has shown itself willing to challenge unethical
practice; not one body in health is proactive in protecting the patient.
The British Health Service desperately needs an Independent Medical
Inspectorate, accountable to the public through Parliament and not in any
way connected to any professional body. The professionals working in the
Health Family have to become far more accountable, open and transparent.
Their allegiance is to the public they serve and not, as happens now, to
their professional bodies and colleagues.
The public are rapidly losing confidence in the health professionals.
It is time to allow the many enlightened dedicated clinicians, who do
believe in openness, gain greater control - it is they who are the ones
who can truly work in genuine partnership with the general public.
Competing interests: No competing interests