|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Campaign for Medical Accountability Amber Astron, who founded the Campaign for Medical Accountability as a result of the treatment her mother received, has written to the Institute in part as follows: Before my mother died, I joined GASP (Group Action for Steroid Prescriptions) which is now a registered charity and has around 20,000 members - some of the case histories regarding side effects, damage and death from steroids are horrific. 'My mother ended up on 16+ different drugs a day - including some that were contraindicated' My mother had many side effects after being prescribed steroids for asthma and ended up on 16+ different drugs a day. The last six months of her life were spent in hospital in revolting circumstances - more and more drugs (including some that were contraindicated), vaccines, daily blood tests, bone marrow extraction, biopsy, etc, etc, all with no diagnosis. In the end she died after all treatments were withdrawn (supposedly at her own request) and she was given diamorphine and slowly drowned over five days in her own body fluid. When blacking out and unable to stand, she was being hauled over a metal stand to compare standing and sitting blood pressure; a second opinion was blocked until my own GP intervened, etc, etc. A nightmare! 'I went through the clinical complaints procedure and found it was a whitewash' Anyway, I went through the clinical complaints procedure and found it was a whitewash. I then started campaigning. In December '96, I joined up with some other families and lobbied parliament. We had regional TV there and seven MPs came out to meet us. We had a massive response from MPs of all parties. Now we have the campaign, press release and petition, so as to put pressure on for a change in law. An end to 'doctor investigates doctor' From a press release. This Campaign has relevance for everyone. Whether we are treated through the NHS or Private Sector, negligent and dangerous medical practices can and do occur, and the Private Sector is even less well regulated than the NHS. In 1994, a report by the National Consumer Council estimated that five per cent of hospital admissions were due to adverse side effects from prescribed medication. Medically induced illness costs the NHS money and bed space; it also devastates the families of those who die without full account from the medics who treated them. The Campaign for Medical Accountability is calling for an openly accountable medical profession, and signatures are currently being collected for a petition calling on the Government to legislate for: (1) A Complaints system that makes trusts and doctors fully account for all medical treatments they provide; with an end to 'doctor investigates doctor' cover-ups. 'Patients to be informed of interactive properties of drug treatments' (2) Patients to be informed of side effects and interactive properties of drug treatments. (3) A prescription watchdog to monitor and reprimand in cases of harmful over-prescribing. (4) Continuing training and refresher courses for all doctors. 'The right of a patient to nominate a trusted other' (5) The right of a patient to nominate a 'trusted other', with whom all treatments are to be jointly discussed and approved. Why these five points ? (1) The complaints system, despite the reforms introduced by Lord Woolf in 1996, remains heavily biased in favour of the medical profession. There is still no appeals structure, and the independence of reviews remains questionable. Doctors close ranks and will not speak out against each other. It remains true that a doctor is more likely to be struck off by the General Medical Council for having sex with a patient, than for killing a patient through negligence. 'A doctor is more likely to be struck off for having sex with a patient, than for killing a patient through negligence' Doctors hide behind the mask of 'clinical decisions' when confronted with their incompetence. Doctors are protected at every level by the very system set up to deal with patients' complaints. Most complainants want a concise and independent assessment of what went wrong, why, and what action can be taken to protect patients in the future. Whilst it is recognised that there are cases where financial compensation is justified, for example where a treatment has resulted in the patient being disabled and in need of long term care, in cases where a relative has died as a result of treatment, no amount of financial compensation will provide the answers sought. It must be suspected that fast track litigation procedures are simply another method of silencing: preventing the much needed public debate on medically-induced deaths. These cases almost never get to court. (2) Information regarding side effects and interactive properties of drug treatments should be given to patients so that they can debate the pros and cons of treatment openly with the doctors treating them, and be actively involved in the decision making. There are currently thousands of cortiocosteroid users, on long term oral treatment, who have experienced severely damaging side effects from the tablets, but were never warned of the long term effects when they started treatment, and are now unable to come off the medication because of adrenal suppression. (3) A prescription watchdog would help to cut down on the level of over-prescribing which would reduce costs (which are ultimately borne by the taxpayer). It would also serve as a safety monitor for vulnerable sections of the population - for instance, ample research exists to show that the elderly are particularly vulnerable to over-prescribing. A range of different drugs may be given for a variety of different ailments, the interactive side effects of these drugs may then give rise to further symptoms, which result in more drugs being prescribed. Over-prescribing can mask true symptoms of illness making correct diagnosis increasingly difficult. (4) With the introduction of new technological treatments and diagnostic tools, and an ever increasing number of new drugs, it is vital that all doctors are kept up to date with on going training and refresher courses. How many doctors have time in their busy schedule (or make the time) to read up-to-date drug research or to refresh their knowledge? How many doctors are prescribing drugs in a dangerous fashion, because they have not studied the full implications of usage? Do they know the interactive side effects when combinations of drugs are given and the contra-indications? 'Relatives may be told they have no right to information, or to have questions answered' (5) When seriously ill we are vulnerable. It is very easy, when in a worried or confused state, to agree to treatments without a clear understanding of the risks involved. We are also open to manipulation by a profession which can appear omnipotent. Patient confidentiality may be used as a way of isolating the patient. Relatives may be told they have no right to information, or to have questions answered, when concern is expressed about treatment being given. The right of a patient to nominate a 'trusted other' is a badly needed safeguard against doctors' abilities to abuse their position of power over the patient. All of the above criticisms of the system have been made based on research documentation and the experiences of patients and their families. Copies of the petition are available by sending a SAE to: Campaign for Medical Accountability, Amber Astron, 7 Narcissus Rd, London, NW6 1TJ.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
