|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
What Really Happened to Dr Jennifer Colman Index
Chapter One : The Facts behind the Myth The Role of Professor Thomas Sherwood prior to Dr Colman’s hearing in 1987 Jennifer Colman passed all of the Cambridge Final MB exams and “failed” pathology eight times. That in itself seems remarkable given that she had passed pathology in her final Tripos at Cambridge, graduating with BA (Hons). There was suspicion of unfairness at the time and the Clinical School was questioned vigorously by Mrs Lesley Barnett, her senior tutor, after a drunken medical student had boasted to Dr Colman and others at the Graduation Ball that he knew the School would fail her. However there was no means of appealing failure or having the examination paper reviewed or reassessed. However in December 2005 Dr Colman discovered from the screening papers recovered from the GMC that Wendy Cogger, a GMC assistant registrar had written in the screening papers that Dr Colman had been “successfully excluded” by Cambridge from their university examinations. This rather supports the public assertions of the drunken medical student in 1982. By any standards this was an unfair act to injure Dr Colman in that the predominant purpose was to prevent her from qualifying as a doctor and to earn a living in a secure profession of her choice. The question is how did Wendy Cogger know this? It now appears that Professor Sherwood sent bundles of documents from Dr Colman’s Clinical School File to the GMC on two separate occasions in 1986 in order to secretly bring pressure to bear on the GMC to serve the purpose which was to exclude Dr Colman from the practise of medicine, but most importantly he also sent them to Lord Walton who, acting alone, had already determined that Dr Colman should not have qualified and should not be registered. The whispering campaign was underway. The Screening Note of 30 October 1986, signed off by Wendy Cogger, appears below and shows the way in which the GMC trawl to find anything they can once they have decided the doctor involved should not practise. You must ask yourselves how far does this covert activity go and does it influence panels who ultimately hear the cases? Natural justice shows that if there was a problem then at the least Jennifer Colman should know what that problem was, offer an explanation, which if not accepted then be given an opportunity to remedy it and that to act covertly as Wendy Cogger revealed that some of the Cambridge examiners did would suggest that they had no real problem but the exclusion was based on personal prejudice and discrimination. Dr Colman was an older woman in medicine. When she entered Cambridge to read medicine only 25% of medical students at Cambridge were women. It should be realised that Jennifer Colman also had to pass an interview for entrance to Cambridge as well as qualify academically. Moreover Cambridge University’s Faculty Board of Medicine minutes show that on the occasions that Jennifer Colman had to seek permission for further attempts that there was division of opinion and that Jennifer Colman was supported by a number of her Cambridge Professors. Later, however, there was an expression that the members of the Faculty Board would not want to allow Jennifer Colman to re-sit but on an interpretation of the regulations they had to allow it. Dr Colman was already qualified as a Licentiate from the Society of Apothecaries in London, and in practise as a doctor when she sat the Cambridge Pathology Examination on the last two occasions. Since Dr Colman had long since passed all her major Final MB clinical examinations, that is Surgery, Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, examinations which are overseen by independent external examiners then it is argued that Dr Colman, who already held a BA (Honours) and an MA from Cambridge was “robbed” improperly and unfairly, and largely due to Thomas Sherwood’s influence, from ever being able to enjoy the privileges that her MB. BChir could have conferred on her. The Faculty Board minutes show that Thomas Sherwood once he became dean had secured the right to sit on the Final Examiner’s meeting and to offer any further opinion about any student before the final lists were published. By the time this meeting took place it is arguable that any external examiners, who had examined clinical students, would have left Cambridge. It also has to be noted that Pathology is unlike major clinical subjects, and is an examination which does not attract the same sort of input by external examiners as the other subjects. The student is never examined in the context of their work in the presence of patients and it is a laboratory based subject. Further activities by Thomas Sherwood Thomas Sherwood did not stop there in his efforts to exclude Dr Colman and he pursued her over a number of years during the mid 1980s to 1990, often unknown to her, with something akin to an insidious obsession and continued to do so well into the 2000s when she stood for election and was elected to the GMC at which point his most recent letter to the GMC was being quoted in the Lancet, of which he was their ombudsman. She was not the only student whom he acted against whilst Dean of the Clinical School and not the only older woman student. These are some of his activities :- (i) On 19 June 1985 Professor Sherwood telephoned the GMC, spoke to Robert Gray and recorded the conversation in a handwritten note. He wrote ”My responsibility to ask the GMC to decide whether this girl should continue to have provisional registered status, and obtain further house jobs, in view of her performance in the two posts she has held at Yarmouth and Mansfield. My feeling is that she shouldn’t” He then notes, “They are starting a mechanism to stop her. They are making further investigation enquiry of Mansfield”. (ii) On 3 June 1986, Professor Sherwood wrote to the Master of the Society of Apothecaries following a telephone conversation which he had had with them concerning his position in respect of Dr Colman who remained provisionally registered, although a year earlier he had maintained that it was his view that she should not continue to have provisional registration whilst not being minded to promote her to the full register either. He also said in the letter, “The GMC will however, know, of other events concerning Dr Colman that have been brought to their notice” He sent a copy to the registrar of the GMC. (iii) On 15 August 1985 he wrote to Dr Colman in response to her requesting he accredit her for full registration and threatened her by concluding his letter with the words “Silence would not be in your interest”. Dr Colman drew this to the attention of her solicitors, Le Brasseur, and asked them to stop him from sending these sorts of letters to her home. (iv) On 8 September 1986 Professor Sherwood wrote to the register of the GMC about Dr Colman with a file of papers containing Dr Colman’s recent letters to him requesting full registration. He stated that the Scottish Secretary, [BMA] i.e. Dr Vallance-Owen had phoned him on Dr Colman’s behalf. Dr Vallance-Owen had supported Dr Colman and pointed out the regulations to Thomas Sherwood and his duty to act properly and fairly towards Dr Colman. Thomas Sherwood’s letter is couched in terms which suggest that Dr Colman is doing something wrong rather than avoiding his oppressive behaviour towards her and her career. This was when Dr Colman’s case was at the preliminary phase in the GMC. (v) On 3 October 1986, page 48, Professor Sherwood wrote to Lord Walton about Dr Colman with a further bundle again reiterating his personal views of why he would not write up Dr Colman, even though she had obtained all the consultants’ necessary recommendations and signatures. The Bundle would contain Dr Colman’s clinical school notes. Even in 1986 for Thomas Sherwood to send Dr Colman’s personal data outside the Clinical School without her knowledge would mean that he was acting in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984 and also her confidentiality. Cambridge University must be responsible for Thomas Sherwood’s covert and unlawful behaviour. It is necessary at this point to turn first to Dr Colman’s experience
as a Pre-registered House Officer in employment at the James Paget Hospital
and at Kings Mill Hospital, Sutton in Ashfield and to also consider the
covert activities of the GMC during these times before returning to further
activities of Professor Thomas Sherwood and his oppressive and unfair
treatment of Dr Colman. His sole intention was to prevent her from practising
as a doctor, even with her registration.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
