Shaftesbury Society Exposed

Web www.nhsexposed.com

Email to a friend

Shaftesbury Society vs Dr Rita Pal

" Christian Care in Action"

"The Shaftesbury Society exists to enable people in great need to achieve security, self worth and significance and through this to show Christian Care in action

Patron : The Queen Mother
President : Lord Shaftesbury
Chief Executive : FM Beckett

This report is dedicated to the memory of Mr Stephen Hill who died on 10^th October 1995 .

His future has been denied
His parents have been forced to undergo the biased complaints procedures that have not achieved justice.
The public are urged to form their own opinion from the information presented

CHASING JUSTICE .

What would Stephen be doing had he been alive today ? What would Stephen Hill be doing if he had been given the opportunity for a Right to Life ? Would he be watching the next match of Wolverhampton Wanderers ? Would he enjoy the newly decorated room his mother had prepared whilst waiting for her son to come home in the half term ? Would he be using the mobile phone his father promised him ?

Disabled people of society have been discriminated against for many years . In a world where perfection in image rules the minds, discrimination is a commodity that is rife in our society . Does this discrimination inflict those in the health profession ? There are those who refuse to see that a disabled person as equal to everyone in society . They refuse to see them as individuals who need to be provided with the same opportunities as the majority of the population .

Stephen Hill lived an independent and normal life with a family who adored him . At the age of 25 his eyes would light up at the Wolverhampton Wanderers like any man of his age . His disability of spina bifida did not mean he was not capable of thought , feelings and opinions . He had a vibrant sense of humour and indeed his independence to lead his own life led him to a college run by the Shaftesbury Society, where he led an active life . He had been there since the age of eighteen . A pleasant gentleman with a will to live . He had plans and dreams like many men of his age. He attended major events and he particularly liked snooker , motor racing and ofcourse the Grand Prix . Tennis was a sport he cherished . He had gone to Wimbledon in July 1995 to see the men's semi finals . Three months later he was dead .

Talking to his family one evening, two days before his death , he asked for a mobile phone . His father had agreed that he would have one at half term . His mother had redecorated his bedroom . He never saw his mobile phone and he never set eyes on his bedroom .

What happened to Stephen Hill ? Why was he well and talking two days before his death ?

I have looked at the correspondence with the Hill family and I cannot imagine why the death of a disabled person should command such disrespect by the authorities .

Letters back and forth from the UKCC , the Social Services and ofcourse the Shaftesbury Society. A beurocratic nightmare of the worst variety .

Mrs Hill continue to search for the truth four and a half years later.

Mr Stephen Hill was taken ill on the 10th October 1995 . At 5pm he was said to be " breathing in a laboured fashion " . No attempts were made to resuscitate and furthermore later in the Social Services Inspection statement (page 40) from the nurse concerned stated that " Due to the nature of Stephen's physical disabilities and the suddenness of his death , Mrs …. Used her professional judgement regarding this and considered it was not possible "

I recently wrote to the Shaftesbury Society for the medical notes refused to Mr and Mrs Hill time and time again . These notes have been seen by the social services and the UKCC yet , Mr and Mrs Hill are denied copies . They have agreed to " let the records be seen " with solicitors present on both sides yet no copies can be obtained .

My letter to them concerned the request for the notes under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 .

Listed below is the reply from Anthony Collins Solicitors . I would like the public to judge the following points ?

• Have the Shaftesbury Society been unjust in denying Mr and Mrs Hill the notes ?
• Have the Shaftesbury Society ensured that Mr Stephen Hill was taken care of adequately and resuscitated ?
• Is the home registered to care for individuals who are disabled and terminally ill via the Registered Homes Act 1984 ?
• Does the home have adequate resuscitation facilities ?
• Do the staff have Advanced Life Support Training ?

Any reader is free to express their opinion on this matter . The answers will be disclosed by us in due course of the following battle .

" These comments are neither true nor justified and have the potential to have a damaging effect on the reputation of The Shaftesbury Society which will be fully entitled to take all necessary steps to protect its reputation " - The Shaftesbury Society solicitors.

This article is written under Article 10 Freedom of Expression

LETTER NUMBER 1 ANTHONY COLLINS SOLICITORS ACTING FOR THE SHAFTESBURY SOCIETY .

Dr Rita Pal
NHS Exposed
Campaign for Individual Rights

--> Sutton Coldfield
West Midlands

ANTH0NY C0LLINS
S0LICIT0RS

St Philip's Gate 5 Waterloo Street
Birmingham B2 SPG

Telephone 0121-200 3242
Facsimile 0121-212 7442
MDX 13055
Birmingham 1
email acs@acollins-sol.co.uk

Dear Doctors

Re: Our Client: The Shaftesbury Society

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter sent by you to The Shaftesbury Society and apparently copied to 11 other parties. You should by now have received the letter of 22 May from Mr Langworth confirming that they have asked us to comment and we confirm that until such time as ourselves and our clients are satisfied that you have the necessary authority of Mr and Mrs Hill to discuss this matter we can only comment on the issues you raise generally and cannot enter into correspondence on the particular circumstances relating to Stephen Hill.

We would like to mate the following clear:

1. It is not the policy of The Shaftesbury Society to operate "do not resuscitate" policies nor do they condone the use of such policies. The Shaftesbury Society has on occasion refused admittance to prospective service users whose parents sought to impose such a policy on Shaftesbury.
2. There is a very clear distinction in law between the responsibilities of operators of homes run pursuant to Part 1 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and those run under Part 11 of that Act. Hinwick Hall is registered under Part 1 and therefore any medical care at such a home has to be provided by or under the supervision of the patient's GP.
3. The circumstainces in which there is a right of access to health records is governed by the Access to Health Records Act 1990. That Act does not apply to The Shaftesbury Society as it is not a "health professional" within the definition under Section 2(1) and therefore is never a "holder" of a health record by virtue of Section 1(2).
4. You will appreciate that all organisations are subject to duties of confidentiality breaches of which can give rise to claims by third parties (such as employees and other service users). Where Shaftesbury would be in breach of such duties there can be no voluntary disclosure unless there are strict controls over the method by which disclosure takes place.
5. We suggest that you take urgent legal advice in respect of your threats to publish information with regard to our client. We shall write to the Internet Service Provider which hosts your web site informing them of the threats which you have made and will ask them to monitor the content of the web site closely unless we receive your written undertaking not to publish any information regarding our client without their permission by close of business on 26 May 2000.
6. It is not apparent whether the letter to our client dated 15 May was in fact copied to the people listed at the erid of the letter, however if it was this itself would constitute publication and may give rise to an action in defamation if you do not immediately withdraw the allegations made and confirm by return that they will not be published either on the web or otherwise. The particular unsubstantiated statements you have made about our client are :

( Comments relating to Stephen's death )

These comments are neither true nor justified and have the potential to have a very damaging effect on the reputation of The Shaftesbury Society which will be fully entitled to take all necessary steps to protect its reputation.

Our client reserves the right to take further action against you without further notice in the event that such statements are not withdrawn.

Yours faithfully

Email to a friend

[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views]

All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated.
No material from this site may be copied, reproduced or stored, electronically or otherwise,
without the express written permission of NHS Exposed.
Where material is reproduced from this site without the express written permission of NHS Exposed, NHS Exposed reserves the right to recover a fee of £100 per copy from the individuals and / or organisations concerned. Use of this site, and / or reproduction of material from this site without the written permission of NHS Exposed, will be taken as acceptance of these terms and conditions.
All material is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act.