|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
The Times Exposed SOS PATIENTS IN DANGER , HELENA KENNEDY QC AND ALERT : Patients rights ? Or Collusion with the Labour Party ? SOS Patients In Danger are infamous and quoted many times in many newspapers . Particular favourites include Michael Horsnall of the Times and Beezy Marsh of the Daily Mail . Who are SOS Patients in Danger ? This comprises of a lady and her answer machine . Does the lady have a legal education ? I think not . Does the lady have a medical education ? I don't think so either . What she does do well is draw pictures in courts ie she is a court artist by trade . What professional nature does she comment in these well read papers . The profession is that once a relative of hers was mistreated by an NHS hospital . This was a case that did not succeed in court and hence that is the experience with which she bases many of her comments in these newspapers . She is well connected having known judges during her court attendances and ofcourse many journalists who attend these courts . Personally , I feel that these newspapers should obtain the opinion of those who actually know about the health service such as Dr Michael Urwin of the Voluntary Euthanasia Group or medical negligence lawyers who are experinenced in these matters . It is misleading to the people to state facts such as SOS-NHS Patients in Danger claims that the Government has failed to uphold its statutory duty to protect vulnerable elderly patients from doctors who deliberately withhold intravenous fluids to hasten death. The practice, admitted by doctors and nurses to be widespread, is said to have received tacit approval in many hospitals in order to relieve pressure on NHS beds. The group's legal action will challenge the legality of guidelines to doctors, introduced last year by the British Medical Association after consultation with the Department of Health. The guidelines allow doctors to deny hydration and nutrition by tube for stroke victims and those suffering from dementia, even when the patients are not terminally ill, if it is thought to be "in their best interests". After discussions with Helena Kennedy, QC, SOS-NHS Patients in Danger plans to take High Court action under the 1998 Human Rights Act, which comes into force in October. The legislation incorporates the articles of the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights and will make it unlawful for doctors, hospital trusts and health authorities to "act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right". Claimants have hitherto been obliged to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. " The TimesApril 22 2000 BY MICHAEL HORSNELL Let us dissect what is being said in these sentences . Lets first take the BMA guidelines . These are neither statute nor are they ever followed in reality . They are the media's idea of statute and law . In clinical medicine, the consultant will use his judgement and by law no matter what these guidelines state , he/ she has a right to withdraw nutrition and hydration from patients if there is no clinical benefit . These have been seen in many cases such as Bland . BMA guidelines are useful to the media and the public but in reality the NHS rarely adheres to them . This is simply the truth . Baring that in mind , taking the BMA guidelines to court may well " alter them " under Article 2 ( a long shot given the case law ) but what effect will this have in reality given that the NHS rarely follows them . Caselaw will not be changed and hence decisions of the future will remain identical so what would be the point ? For those who do not understand the law , this represents a false sense of security in that " something is finally being done " . This unfortunately is not so . How many people will be forced to pay legal cost towards this chase . Who did Ms Quenzler obtain advice from ?There is someone amongst the labour peers called Helena Kennedy QC . Extract from BBC news 1997 "The new peers come from the world of politics, the unions, big business, the law and the arts. Helena Kennedy QC, the high profile, left-wing barrister,becomes a Labour peer" Where does Helena Kennedy's allegeance lie ? To the people or to the labour party and her establishment . Is Helena Kennedy really going to place her peerage in danger and fight the government for patient rights . The answer is " NO" . Taking the BMA guidelines to court serves as nothing but media food which journalist who has no idea of its true implications catches on to and runs around shouting it to papers outloud misleading vulnerable patients . The tag at the end QC implies something wonderous is possible and Ms Quenzler has latched onto the new Human Rights Act 1998 for dear life . The only flaw is that she has to realise that we still have the same caselaw and courtsand the same biased judges with Bland to haunt us at every point . These are judges who support the establishment implicitly and the medical profession . Saying that judges are learned individuals who merely follow case law . Ms Quenzler was recently quoted in the front page of the Times 13th July2000 as "This incredibly irresponsible judge has created a monstrous precedent which must be reversed immediately for the protection of all vulnerable patients whose lives are now ever more at risk from doctors who kill and then hide behind the medical profession's code of secrecy." a) The precedent already existed before with many cases hence the judge merely followed what was already stated in law . b) "incredibly irresponsible " judge is probably not the correct term to use for a learned member of society who has merely followed caselaw . Judgement by law must follow a set precedent and it may have been the wrong decision in some people's eyes but it is for a lawyer to comment not someone who has no experience in law . If we note the words " incredibly irresponsible " then we can call on Ms Quenzler to explain why she has advised may relatives at the cost of tax payers money to " exhume " bodies after the Shipman trial even when Diamorphine was not mentioned in the medical notes . Was this not " irresponsible " ? Perhaps Ms Quenzler should look nearer home before calling learned people " irresponsible " . She should also know that precedents cannot be reversed immediately " . "And Gerard Wright, QC, a patron of Alert, another anti-euthanasia group, said: "I am astonished that the judge should make a decision of this kind. It sets a dangerous precedent because it is all too easy for doctors to say there is no point fighting any longer" This has always been the case for many years and is not a recent event . Alert is an anti Euthanasia Group but how are they fighting for patients rights? Isnt it so that Alert had a stall at the BMA conference on the 26th June 2000 and indeed refused to join us in a Human Rights Protest outside the BMA . Baring in mind the BMA has the very guidelines they are supposedly fighting against , why were they in support of them on the 26th June 2000 . In addition , we should all note that the medical professionals who are in Alert have not stood for patients rights recently or broken the code of secrecy that is implied . Indeed many of them are BMA members! Finally , the recent case concerning the 19 month old child is always a very emotive issue for his parents . My opinion is that this decision should have not been taken in a court of law . Instead it should have been left to his parents to decide what was best given the circumstances . The baby is their child and hence they have the right to care for it the best way they see fit . The judge merely made a decision based on case law . Resuscitation would not be effective given the fact this child was in respiratory failure . The patient would more than likely go into a respiratory arrest and not a cardiac arrest hence ventilation would have to be considered . Given the child lives at home , this would be unsuccessful . In practice only 1:10 arrests survive . It is a traumatic experience and it is often considered that patients with long standing carcinoma should not be resuscitated . This is medical policy and furthermore this is the policy that was taken in this case . Ofcourse, in children patient autonomy is impossible and one has to balance the parent's understanding of resuscitation being a " miracle cure " to their child when it merely prolongs suffering . That is the parent's choice and finally not ours as doctors . They said: "We know our child better than anyone else and neither of us would want to cause him any unnecessary suffering. But we should have the final decision-making power as to whether our child should receive ventilation." This neither will be altered in law nor in medical practice in the future because there simply no unanimous consensus between patient groups to fight together and campaign for a change . As long as this is non existent in a society that cares more about fame and fortune and names in papers , these practices will continue and furthermore the media will only choose to feature what they feel is required by their establishment editors . Presently, patients speak with a thousand voices whereas they should speak with one . There is no cohesion because the British society would like to believe that doctors are the be trusted and the NHS are here the assist them . The journalists follow storylines to " protect the public interest " and hence there is no Freedom of Expression and the patient has no forum with where they are able to fight . Instead , newspapers like the Times choose to place a forum to Julia Quenzler who has no medical or legal knowledge and who seeks advice from the very government Peer who condones the practices in the hospitals of this country and the QC from a group who colludes with the British Medical Association who hold directives for involuntary Euthanasia and Presumed Consent . The question is who is in league with who and what are the purposes of these groups , fame , fortune or patients rights ? I ask the Times , let the patients speak and give them the right to Freedom of Expression . Perhaps the Times could explain why they are to still holding pictures of myself and Dr Illangaratne holding the banner " Cremate the GMC , Bury the BMA , Kings of Dishonesty ". Where were Alert and SOS Patients in Danger in the " Protest for Human Rights in the NHS 2000 " ? Everyone of us who believes in patients rights were there . Let us see what their reponses were :- Alert " We have a stand inside with the BMA and hence we can't possible attend , It would not look right " SOS Patients in Danger " We do not wish to be associated with NHS Exposed " Julia Quenzler . Perhaps Helena Kennedy disapproved ? We state our case . The lesson to be learned is all is not what it seems ................. who is in contact with who and is there really any justice anywhere . Dr Rita Pal
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
