Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0665.htm
Doctors face agonising decisions about child abuse, but they must be accountable The actions of the General Medical Council (GMC) have once again prompted paediatricians to caution that what they see as a witch-hunt may discourage doctors from undertaking child protection work. The first time was when the GMC moved against Professor Roy Meadow two years ago. But in rushing to the defence of Professor David Southall, who has been found guilty this week of serious professional misconduct, parts of the medical profession are making a mistake. It is not in the public interest for doctors to be deterred from examining children, or from giving evidence in abuse cases. But nor is it in the public interest to suggest that doctors should somehow be immune from criticism if they act incompetently or inappropriately. Southall believes that a campaign has been orchestrated against him, and this may well be true. Much attention has focused on the allegation that he falsely accused a mother of murdering her child, which he denies and which has not been corroborated by the social worker in the room. But this is only one of several charges on which the GMC's ruling turned. He was also found to have hidden the notes of children in different cases, conduct which it would be bizarre not to regard as unprofessional. Rather than expressing its “disappointment” at the verdict, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health might have done better to explore why so many accusations have been levelled at a man who was first barred from child abuse work in 2004, after he wrongly accused the husband of Sally Clark of murdering their two sons, having watched him on a television programme. Child protection work is undoubtedly fraught. Child abuse is a highly emotive issue and has become even more so since the case of Victoria Climbié. Doctors and social workers understandably fear letting another child slip through the net to a tragic death. Meanwhile, there is increasing public concern about miscarriages of justice, fuelled by a steady drip of appeal rulings that have overturned previous judgments against parents, including the murder convictions of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark. Hostility and suspicion lie on both sides of the argument. But the need to protect children is increasingly being used as an argument for protecting professionals from their own regulat-ory bodies. That ways lies the potential for great injustice. Professionals must be accountable for their actions in child protection work as much as they are in police work. The royal colleges should be arguing for more scrutiny, not less. This would mean, first, more research into injuries which were once considered to be diagnostic of abuse but where there is now increasing doubt. For many years, Professors Meadow and Southall encouraged the view that unexplained illnesses or injuries were a likely sign of parental abuse. Recent judgements and American research have cast doubt on areas ranging from certain types of fractures to allegations of “shaken baby syndrome”. These doubts should have been awarded more credibility. There also needs to be far more openness in the court system. Two years ago the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee recommended reforms to open up the family courts. It is an affront to justice that these courts remain secret, closed to the media, with judgments made public only at the discretion of indvidual judges. Public confidence has plummeted since reports have started to surface of repeated miscarriages of justice. These courts cannot send people to jail but they can remove children from their parents permanently, which is another form of life sentence.
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Perceived neglect
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0664.htm
One Thursday lunchtime, Lisa Bacon was visited by social services after an anonymous caller reported her for allowing her seven-year-old son to walk to school alone. Had she done wrong? Thursday, 1pm, about to have lunch. Knock at the door. It's a woman from children's services come to investigate an anonymous report made about me to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Was it true, she asked, that I let my seven-year-old walk to and from school alone, that I left him home alone, and that I let my youngest child (three) play unsupervised in the road out front? My appetite evaporated, as did any peace of mind, for the next few weeks. How is a parent supposed to react to allegations of neglect? I was, and am still, upset, even though I know the complaints are unjustified. Seven weeks earlier, I had started letting my son (who's now eight) travel 1km each way to and from school alone. We live in a quiet residential area and almost the only cars on the road are those on the schoolrun. We discussed where was safe to cross and I followed behind as I have another school-age child, so I always knew my son got to school OK. After school we met before he headed off. He had a key to let himself in at home because he got so far ahead. Twice my younger child had been too ill to attend school, so I let my nearly eight-year-old son go to school without me following behind. He loved the independence. He whizzed off on his scooter - he was never late to school any more. He whizzed home to use the toilet, have a snack, start his homework. He didn't argue with, or have to wait about for, dawdling and temperamental siblings. On a few occasions, he left the house to come back up the road to chat with us coming home. I expressed considerable praise the first time - because he remembered to lock the door behind him, and I hadn't talked about that previously. Suddenly, my son felt a tangible link between privilege and responsibility. He's been keen since to show himself as responsible in other ways. There were hiccups; once I left my son playing just inside the school gate, expecting him to follow soon after. Instead he got into a fight, and after that I always waited for him to go out of the gates before I headed home. Once he had a lift home from another well-meaning parent. It was a good opportunity to reiterate that he mustn't take lifts home from school, even from people we know. Also, since his seventh birthday, on a handful of occasions, I had left him alone at home so I could do the school run. Typically for about 25 minutes, always because he was ill or recovering from illness and it seemed cruel to get him dressed and drag him up to school and back for such a short period. Once he had a strop about not wanting to go to school. Exasperated, I left him alone to quickly take my other child up to the school; after I left, he changed his mind and followed behind. In the two weeks preceding my visit from the council, I had twice left him at home alone briefly for less urgent reasons - dashing for a newspaper (12 minutes) or to take another child to swimming lessons (25 minutes). We had long and repeated chats about safety issues - what to do if there's smoke or fire, no cooking when home on his own, no helping anybody look for their lost puppy, no going into other people's houses on the way to school, always watch for cars, etc. As for the claim that cars were having to brake suddenly to avoid hitting my littlest child in the road out front - I was flummoxed. "When?" I said. But there were no more details. My youngest has dashed into the road on occasions. I think I can remember waving thanks to drivers who had to slow down suddenly. Or maybe in the mornings, starting off to school when the children sometimes stood at the top of the drive (still off the road), waiting for me to lock the door - did drivers get worried then? The only awful incident was when a lady brought my toddler to the door to say he'd been out in the road alone. He had unexpectedly learned to undo latches on the side gate. We put an extra latch on the outside, where he couldn't reach. I thought we'd done enough. But now I found my competence as a parent being questioned. Maybe I deserved to be told off for my (many) mistakes and misjudgments. But how many of us have made parenting decisions that we soon regretted or that other people didn't like? I might have expected some disapproval from others for my actions but I didn't expect anyone to report me for it. The woman from children's services left without telling me to change anything I was doing. A week later, a letter came saying (only) that in the view of social services, my son was too young to leave home alone, even for short periods. He should be supervised at all times. I wrote back, to clarify whether "all times" applied to the school journey, too. And at what age would my son be, in the view of social services, old enough to leave unsupervised for specified periods? Up to half an hour, up to two hours? Without specific guidance from social services I don't see how I can avoid coming to their attention again. I still await their reply. At a time when we are repeatedly warned that we should let children take more risks and have more freedom, it didn't seem so ridiculous to try giving my eight-year-old a little responsibility. I am not a self-confident person, and I've struggled ever since with parenting decisions - caught between my instincts and the fear of "What will someone else think?" My sleep is disturbed; it's hard to relax. Maybe I should just drive all my children to and from school, instead. This would pollute the air, add to global warming, add to the risk of road accidents around the school, and contribute to the risk of my children becoming obese - but nobody would report me to the NSPCC about any of those things. I'm not a fighter or a campaigner. If children's services tell me not to do something, I won't do it - the last thing I want is for them to keep their file open on me. If someone else says, "I wouldn't let my eight-year-old walk outside or stay at home alone," I have no opinion. Individuals should make up their own minds about what risks they find tolerable to expose themselves and their families to. That's not the same as declaring that everyone else should balance risks against possible benefits. Anyway, the decision has been taken away from my family; I don't feel we have the same choices as other parents in these matters any more. We have been disempowered by a single, anonymous phone call.
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0664.htm
One Thursday lunchtime, Lisa Bacon was visited by social services after an anonymous caller reported her for allowing her seven-year-old son to walk to school alone. Had she done wrong? Thursday, 1pm, about to have lunch. Knock at the door. It's a woman from children's services come to investigate an anonymous report made about me to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Was it true, she asked, that I let my seven-year-old walk to and from school alone, that I left him home alone, and that I let my youngest child (three) play unsupervised in the road out front? My appetite evaporated, as did any peace of mind, for the next few weeks. How is a parent supposed to react to allegations of neglect? I was, and am still, upset, even though I know the complaints are unjustified. Seven weeks earlier, I had started letting my son (who's now eight) travel 1km each way to and from school alone. We live in a quiet residential area and almost the only cars on the road are those on the schoolrun. We discussed where was safe to cross and I followed behind as I have another school-age child, so I always knew my son got to school OK. After school we met before he headed off. He had a key to let himself in at home because he got so far ahead. Twice my younger child had been too ill to attend school, so I let my nearly eight-year-old son go to school without me following behind. He loved the independence. He whizzed off on his scooter - he was never late to school any more. He whizzed home to use the toilet, have a snack, start his homework. He didn't argue with, or have to wait about for, dawdling and temperamental siblings. On a few occasions, he left the house to come back up the road to chat with us coming home. I expressed considerable praise the first time - because he remembered to lock the door behind him, and I hadn't talked about that previously. Suddenly, my son felt a tangible link between privilege and responsibility. He's been keen since to show himself as responsible in other ways. There were hiccups; once I left my son playing just inside the school gate, expecting him to follow soon after. Instead he got into a fight, and after that I always waited for him to go out of the gates before I headed home. Once he had a lift home from another well-meaning parent. It was a good opportunity to reiterate that he mustn't take lifts home from school, even from people we know. Also, since his seventh birthday, on a handful of occasions, I had left him alone at home so I could do the school run. Typically for about 25 minutes, always because he was ill or recovering from illness and it seemed cruel to get him dressed and drag him up to school and back for such a short period. Once he had a strop about not wanting to go to school. Exasperated, I left him alone to quickly take my other child up to the school; after I left, he changed his mind and followed behind. In the two weeks preceding my visit from the council, I had twice left him at home alone briefly for less urgent reasons - dashing for a newspaper (12 minutes) or to take another child to swimming lessons (25 minutes). We had long and repeated chats about safety issues - what to do if there's smoke or fire, no cooking when home on his own, no helping anybody look for their lost puppy, no going into other people's houses on the way to school, always watch for cars, etc. As for the claim that cars were having to brake suddenly to avoid hitting my littlest child in the road out front - I was flummoxed. "When?" I said. But there were no more details. My youngest has dashed into the road on occasions. I think I can remember waving thanks to drivers who had to slow down suddenly. Or maybe in the mornings, starting off to school when the children sometimes stood at the top of the drive (still off the road), waiting for me to lock the door - did drivers get worried then? The only awful incident was when a lady brought my toddler to the door to say he'd been out in the road alone. He had unexpectedly learned to undo latches on the side gate. We put an extra latch on the outside, where he couldn't reach. I thought we'd done enough. But now I found my competence as a parent being questioned. Maybe I deserved to be told off for my (many) mistakes and misjudgments. But how many of us have made parenting decisions that we soon regretted or that other people didn't like? I might have expected some disapproval from others for my actions but I didn't expect anyone to report me for it. The woman from children's services left without telling me to change anything I was doing. A week later, a letter came saying (only) that in the view of social services, my son was too young to leave home alone, even for short periods. He should be supervised at all times. I wrote back, to clarify whether "all times" applied to the school journey, too. And at what age would my son be, in the view of social services, old enough to leave unsupervised for specified periods? Up to half an hour, up to two hours? Without specific guidance from social services I don't see how I can avoid coming to their attention again. I still await their reply. At a time when we are repeatedly warned that we should let children take more risks and have more freedom, it didn't seem so ridiculous to try giving my eight-year-old a little responsibility. I am not a self-confident person, and I've struggled ever since with parenting decisions - caught between my instincts and the fear of "What will someone else think?" My sleep is disturbed; it's hard to relax. Maybe I should just drive all my children to and from school, instead. This would pollute the air, add to global warming, add to the risk of road accidents around the school, and contribute to the risk of my children becoming obese - but nobody would report me to the NSPCC about any of those things. I'm not a fighter or a campaigner. If children's services tell me not to do something, I won't do it - the last thing I want is for them to keep their file open on me. If someone else says, "I wouldn't let my eight-year-old walk outside or stay at home alone," I have no opinion. Individuals should make up their own minds about what risks they find tolerable to expose themselves and their families to. That's not the same as declaring that everyone else should balance risks against possible benefits. Anyway, the decision has been taken away from my family; I don't feel we have the same choices as other parents in these matters any more. We have been disempowered by a single, anonymous phone call.
Parents' accusations 'are making child protection a precarious job'
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0663.htm
Doctors involved in child protection say that their position has been made impossible by the decision of the General Medical Council to strike off the paediatrician Professor David Southall. The GMC panel believed the evidence given by the mother of a ten-year-old boy who died by hanging and dismissed that of Southall and a social worker who attended the interview with the mother. She said that he had accused her of murdering the child but Southall said that he had raised that as one possibility in a discussion. His claim was backed by the social worker. Rosalyn Proops, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that she shared the concern expressed by paediatricians at the decision. She said: “For an experienced paediatrician to be asked by the court to produce a report on a case and then for the GMC to find the evidence of the mother, given by video link, more persuasive than two professionals who have written it down . . . what more do you need to say?” Southall has been the subject of repeated complaints to the GMC by parents who feel that he has wronged them. After the ruling, the website used by those parents has speculated about which paediatrician should be considered next. On the evening of the ruling the website forum included the following exchange (misspellings have been left uncorrected): First contributor: “The fight not over yet, their are others out there who have done the same. So we still have to fight to put things right for all the familys out here. They sould not be aloud to resign from the doctor register and walk away.” Response: “Best wishes to all affected by this. Things must happen from here on.” Second response: “Oh yes, now onto his mates . . .” The website, msbp.com, champions parents who believe that they have been the subject of false accusations. But paediatricians say that they doubt that the GMC has the ability to distinguish between false and true. Some have suggested boycotting new procedures for investigating child deaths, which come into force next April, unless the GMC is excluded from having any role in complaints. It would not be safe for any doctor to be involved in the multi-agency reviews that are planned, they argue, because they would have no protection from malicious complaints. “It’s really frightening” one doctor who asked for anonymity said. “There are lots of paediatricians who have already walked away and I can understand why. I’ve stopped myself. I’m not taking any more cases. “Child protection is very demanding. If you get it wrong, a child could be harmed and die, or if you get it wrong the other way, a child could be wrongly removed from home. The GMC judgement was perverse – it doesn’t understand the issues.” The Southall verdict “sends out a simple message to any doctor so much as thinking about engaging in child protection: ‘Don't bother. It isn’t worth it, you will lose your livelihood,’” said a statement from Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA), a group that backs Southall.
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0663.htm
Doctors involved in child protection say that their position has been made impossible by the decision of the General Medical Council to strike off the paediatrician Professor David Southall. The GMC panel believed the evidence given by the mother of a ten-year-old boy who died by hanging and dismissed that of Southall and a social worker who attended the interview with the mother. She said that he had accused her of murdering the child but Southall said that he had raised that as one possibility in a discussion. His claim was backed by the social worker. Rosalyn Proops, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that she shared the concern expressed by paediatricians at the decision. She said: “For an experienced paediatrician to be asked by the court to produce a report on a case and then for the GMC to find the evidence of the mother, given by video link, more persuasive than two professionals who have written it down . . . what more do you need to say?” Southall has been the subject of repeated complaints to the GMC by parents who feel that he has wronged them. After the ruling, the website used by those parents has speculated about which paediatrician should be considered next. On the evening of the ruling the website forum included the following exchange (misspellings have been left uncorrected): First contributor: “The fight not over yet, their are others out there who have done the same. So we still have to fight to put things right for all the familys out here. They sould not be aloud to resign from the doctor register and walk away.” Response: “Best wishes to all affected by this. Things must happen from here on.” Second response: “Oh yes, now onto his mates . . .” The website, msbp.com, champions parents who believe that they have been the subject of false accusations. But paediatricians say that they doubt that the GMC has the ability to distinguish between false and true. Some have suggested boycotting new procedures for investigating child deaths, which come into force next April, unless the GMC is excluded from having any role in complaints. It would not be safe for any doctor to be involved in the multi-agency reviews that are planned, they argue, because they would have no protection from malicious complaints. “It’s really frightening” one doctor who asked for anonymity said. “There are lots of paediatricians who have already walked away and I can understand why. I’ve stopped myself. I’m not taking any more cases. “Child protection is very demanding. If you get it wrong, a child could be harmed and die, or if you get it wrong the other way, a child could be wrongly removed from home. The GMC judgement was perverse – it doesn’t understand the issues.” The Southall verdict “sends out a simple message to any doctor so much as thinking about engaging in child protection: ‘Don't bother. It isn’t worth it, you will lose your livelihood,’” said a statement from Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA), a group that backs Southall.
Protect me from child protectors
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0662.htm
I wasn't surprised to hear the words “miscarriage of justice” and “Professor David Southall” mentioned in the same breath this week. What shocked me was how many in his profession wanted to paint him as the victim. Many parents will have been relieved to see Southall struck off by the General Medical Council for what it described as his “deep-seated attitudinal problems” and his “lack of insight” into his failings: parents, that is, such as Sharon Bozier, whose daughter Hannah was referred to Southall with breathing problems and taken into care after he misdiagnosed the problem as parent-inflicted; and parents such as Stephen Clark, wife of the late Sally Clark, whom Southall accused of killing his children after deciding he looked a bit shifty on television. It is about time someone in the child protection industry was brought to account for their failings. Of course we need the State to intervene when parents mistreat their children. But there is too long a history of child protection agencies pursuing obsessive campaigns against families and carers, devoid of evidence, sheltered from criticism by the secrecy of the family courts — and escaping with their jobs when their incompetence is exposed. Remember the Cleveland scandal of 1987 in which 96 children were wrongly taken into care, most as a result of Marietta Higgs and her horrible, discredited anal dilation test — after which Dr Higgs was allowed to carry on working as if nothing had happened? There was the Orkney scandal, where social services ploughed on with their fantasy of a satanic abuse ring in spite of protests by the children that they had not been abused. Then there was the case of Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed, the nursery nurses falsely accused of abusing their charges. After being acquitted in court, Newcastle City Council found them “guilty” through its own inquiry, forcing them into hiding. The authors of the report, led by a consultant paediatrician, Camille San Lazaro, were later found to have libelled the nurses, the judge ruling that their work was “unbalanced, obsessive and lacking in judgment”. Yet the GMC declined to strike off Dr San Lazaro, and she carried on working. As Charles Pragnell, who was head of research at Cleveland social services at the time of the 1987 scandal puts it, child protection agencies “are racked with too many theories for which there is little or no evidence. Social workers' training does not equip them for undertaking investigations. There is a group conditioning among social workers and paediatricians which prevents them ever accepting they are wrong.” Innocent remarks by children, he adds, are blown up into full-scale investigations because of the requirement to report immediately to their appointed “child protection officer” anything that could possibly be interpreted as a sign of abuse. Child protection workers then begin with the assumption that abuse must have taken place. The consequent deluge of investigations makes it all the harder to pick out genuine abuse. I know what he means, because I have been at the receiving end. I have a pubescent mentally handicapped daughter who, besides tantrams and uncooperative behaviour, this year started taking her trousers down at her special school and playing with herself. The school went to some lengths to reassure me and my wife that this is common behaviour when you have a two-year-old mind in an adolescent body, but would we mind if the local child development team helped? We agreed, and soon afterwards were met at home by two health workers. It soon became clear, however, that the pair did not see their remit as offering useful advice: rather, before even meeting our daughter, they had jumped straight to the conclusion of child abuse and were on a fishing expedition for evidence. There followed another visit from one of the workers, who waited until I had left the room before accosting my wife with the suggestion that our daughter “may have been interfered with”, adding: “How do you react to that, Mrs Clark?” One could almost see the cogs of the health worker's brain clunking round: men are child-abusers — must be something going on. She added menacingly that if our daughter carried on removing her clothes an investigation would follow. So that's the thanks you get from the State after ten years of bringing up a difficult child: no help, no praise, just put under suspicion of child abuse. Fortunately, in the absence of an official inquiry, I can speak and write about our experience. Many others, some of whom have had children taken away, have been silenced because of the secrecy surrounding the family courts — which allow no reporting and have no juries.
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0662.htm
I wasn't surprised to hear the words “miscarriage of justice” and “Professor David Southall” mentioned in the same breath this week. What shocked me was how many in his profession wanted to paint him as the victim. Many parents will have been relieved to see Southall struck off by the General Medical Council for what it described as his “deep-seated attitudinal problems” and his “lack of insight” into his failings: parents, that is, such as Sharon Bozier, whose daughter Hannah was referred to Southall with breathing problems and taken into care after he misdiagnosed the problem as parent-inflicted; and parents such as Stephen Clark, wife of the late Sally Clark, whom Southall accused of killing his children after deciding he looked a bit shifty on television. It is about time someone in the child protection industry was brought to account for their failings. Of course we need the State to intervene when parents mistreat their children. But there is too long a history of child protection agencies pursuing obsessive campaigns against families and carers, devoid of evidence, sheltered from criticism by the secrecy of the family courts — and escaping with their jobs when their incompetence is exposed. Remember the Cleveland scandal of 1987 in which 96 children were wrongly taken into care, most as a result of Marietta Higgs and her horrible, discredited anal dilation test — after which Dr Higgs was allowed to carry on working as if nothing had happened? There was the Orkney scandal, where social services ploughed on with their fantasy of a satanic abuse ring in spite of protests by the children that they had not been abused. Then there was the case of Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed, the nursery nurses falsely accused of abusing their charges. After being acquitted in court, Newcastle City Council found them “guilty” through its own inquiry, forcing them into hiding. The authors of the report, led by a consultant paediatrician, Camille San Lazaro, were later found to have libelled the nurses, the judge ruling that their work was “unbalanced, obsessive and lacking in judgment”. Yet the GMC declined to strike off Dr San Lazaro, and she carried on working. As Charles Pragnell, who was head of research at Cleveland social services at the time of the 1987 scandal puts it, child protection agencies “are racked with too many theories for which there is little or no evidence. Social workers' training does not equip them for undertaking investigations. There is a group conditioning among social workers and paediatricians which prevents them ever accepting they are wrong.” Innocent remarks by children, he adds, are blown up into full-scale investigations because of the requirement to report immediately to their appointed “child protection officer” anything that could possibly be interpreted as a sign of abuse. Child protection workers then begin with the assumption that abuse must have taken place. The consequent deluge of investigations makes it all the harder to pick out genuine abuse. I know what he means, because I have been at the receiving end. I have a pubescent mentally handicapped daughter who, besides tantrams and uncooperative behaviour, this year started taking her trousers down at her special school and playing with herself. The school went to some lengths to reassure me and my wife that this is common behaviour when you have a two-year-old mind in an adolescent body, but would we mind if the local child development team helped? We agreed, and soon afterwards were met at home by two health workers. It soon became clear, however, that the pair did not see their remit as offering useful advice: rather, before even meeting our daughter, they had jumped straight to the conclusion of child abuse and were on a fishing expedition for evidence. There followed another visit from one of the workers, who waited until I had left the room before accosting my wife with the suggestion that our daughter “may have been interfered with”, adding: “How do you react to that, Mrs Clark?” One could almost see the cogs of the health worker's brain clunking round: men are child-abusers — must be something going on. She added menacingly that if our daughter carried on removing her clothes an investigation would follow. So that's the thanks you get from the State after ten years of bringing up a difficult child: no help, no praise, just put under suspicion of child abuse. Fortunately, in the absence of an official inquiry, I can speak and write about our experience. Many others, some of whom have had children taken away, have been silenced because of the secrecy surrounding the family courts — which allow no reporting and have no juries.
Friday, 7 December 2007
NHS is not a Rolls Royce service; we have failed the MOT
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0661.htm
As under-fire Stormont Minister Michael McGimpsey consults frontline health care staff over his draft budget plans, Nigel Gould talks to one key worker, Dr Brian Patterson, who says that while cash is important we are wasting what we have From his day-time job as a busy family doctor - and, even more significantly - his position as chairman of the British Medical Association's influential council in Northern Ireland, Dr Brian Patterson is more equipped than most to give a verdict on the state of our health services. And the Portglenone GP, with decades of experience, does not mince his words. "We have improved a lot, yes ... we have gone from abysmal to bad," he told the Belfast Telegraph. "We are not fit for purpose. We need a vision to meet the needs of a 21st century health service. "We do not have a Rolls Royce service - we have failed the MOT. "We are providing an unacceptable level of service for patients. Many of them have been forced to go private. "Our NHS is static at a time when we should be re-engineering the future." Dr Patterson, one of Northern Ireland's highest profile GPs, paints a grim picture of a pressure-hit NHS that has left current staff demoralised and problems retaining "disillusioned" medical students. And he called for more "coalface workers in all disciplines". Dr Patterson said that while more cash was desperately needed we could hardly plead for more money when we are "wasting what we have". "I support the Minister (Michael McGimpsey) in his bid for more cash," he said. "But we must use what we have better." And in a message to our politicians, Dr Patterson said: "We cannot afford the luxury of stationary politics. Major progress is needed and we must be reconfiguring for the future rather than fighting fires." Dr Patterson said that the Review of Public Administration, which was expected to transform the health service here, had only been half implemented. While health trusts have merged, the four health boards, which were to be axed to make way for a single health authority, are still up and running. This, he said, was "the worst case scenario". "Half a reform is more dangerous than no reform," he said. "The health and social services boards are demoralised. There is no clear agenda for the future. They are being asked to do more with less. "This is a steep learning curve for the devolved government. "The profession is willing to help but issues must be addressed, not postponed or reviewed or blamed on others. "We must move ahead as fast as possible. If we sit back and plead we are unsure or overwhelmed, we are doomed."
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0661.htm
As under-fire Stormont Minister Michael McGimpsey consults frontline health care staff over his draft budget plans, Nigel Gould talks to one key worker, Dr Brian Patterson, who says that while cash is important we are wasting what we have From his day-time job as a busy family doctor - and, even more significantly - his position as chairman of the British Medical Association's influential council in Northern Ireland, Dr Brian Patterson is more equipped than most to give a verdict on the state of our health services. And the Portglenone GP, with decades of experience, does not mince his words. "We have improved a lot, yes ... we have gone from abysmal to bad," he told the Belfast Telegraph. "We are not fit for purpose. We need a vision to meet the needs of a 21st century health service. "We do not have a Rolls Royce service - we have failed the MOT. "We are providing an unacceptable level of service for patients. Many of them have been forced to go private. "Our NHS is static at a time when we should be re-engineering the future." Dr Patterson, one of Northern Ireland's highest profile GPs, paints a grim picture of a pressure-hit NHS that has left current staff demoralised and problems retaining "disillusioned" medical students. And he called for more "coalface workers in all disciplines". Dr Patterson said that while more cash was desperately needed we could hardly plead for more money when we are "wasting what we have". "I support the Minister (Michael McGimpsey) in his bid for more cash," he said. "But we must use what we have better." And in a message to our politicians, Dr Patterson said: "We cannot afford the luxury of stationary politics. Major progress is needed and we must be reconfiguring for the future rather than fighting fires." Dr Patterson said that the Review of Public Administration, which was expected to transform the health service here, had only been half implemented. While health trusts have merged, the four health boards, which were to be axed to make way for a single health authority, are still up and running. This, he said, was "the worst case scenario". "Half a reform is more dangerous than no reform," he said. "The health and social services boards are demoralised. There is no clear agenda for the future. They are being asked to do more with less. "This is a steep learning curve for the devolved government. "The profession is willing to help but issues must be addressed, not postponed or reviewed or blamed on others. "We must move ahead as fast as possible. If we sit back and plead we are unsure or overwhelmed, we are doomed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)