Monday, 27 April 2009

Quick Shoot The Messenger

I have just forced myself to sit through Panorama and the case of the 'whistleblower nurse' Margaret Hayward.

I am literally shaking with rage, that somebody who took the risk of exposing the wanton cruelty and neglect of the old and dying in the Royal Sussex by staff and management was struck off by the NMC for 'breaching the client confidentiality of her patients'. Her patients relatives and the RCN are behind her the Whistleblower legislation designed to protect people like Margaret Haywood fails when faced with institutional embarrassment and failure by the State.

Why is Margatet Hayward being punished FFS ?

The State has created a climate of fear amongst patients,nurses and staff, by those managers working in the 'caring' profession.

Margaret is faced with losing her means to earn her living and home, because she took the State on and 'won'. The vindictive shits in the NMC must recognise the 'overarching Public Interest' in this case, not seek to silence people like Margaret Hayward.

One day we will all be old and dying. Do you want to die alone, lying in your own filth and in pain. This is what Socialism is- the individual does not matter, the tractor Stats do.

There is a petition somewhere, I will link to it at some point, demanding her immediate reinstatement. If anybody has a practical plan that the people of this country can assist Margaret and people like her- I am all ears.


Farmer Geddon said...

consent was actually given for filming

Reg said...

18782 signatures now

Great Big Billygoat Gruff said...

In Scandinavia whoistleblowers are protected

defender said...

The problem is much greater than just this case, the state has started to openly close the net in many ways.
freedom of speech- fucked
right of assembly-fucked
political freedom- fucked
freedom of movement-fucked
habias corpus-fucked
health care-fucked
rights of parenting-fucked
freedom of information-fucked
holding the exceutive to account-fucked
generally we are-fucked
It has taken them a long time to get to this position but they seem to be there now.
I cannot believe that this has been the work of incompetent inept or stupid people, this has the smell of a detailed well worked out plan carried out over many years. Now that it is almost complete we are struggling to find a way to explain it without feeling like muppets for not seeing it earlier.
We have been in denial and now we are looking at reality.
The future does not look bright, I worry that the final nail will be the implimentation of the Lisbon treaty next year. It will go through by whatever means necessary.
I really am thinking that there will not be a political solution after all.
We have been outflanked, its going to be submit or die.

Anonymous said...

If the BNP were in power I expect we would make her chief advisor to the Minister of Health

an ex-apprentice said...

Dear Mr Guthrum,

I had occasion recently to look up the Panel Judgement.It states:

"The patient confidentiality which she broke in so doing concerned the care (or lack of care) which (certain) patients on that ward experienced in that time frame and their suffering in consequence."

It seems extraordinary that exposing a patient's suffering due to a deliberate and negligent lack of care can be considered to be an action to be prevented by the relatively trivial issue of confidentiality. The legalistic navel-gazing is as nothing compared to the suffering, cruelty and degradation being meted out.

The Panel had regard to the protocol drawn up between Panorama and Mrs Haywood, prior to filming, which stated:

"PRIVACY There are going to be major problems with privacy. M will be recording patients at their most vulnerable and compromised. She will attempt
wherever possible not to record any highly personal or intrusive procedures, however if she feels she needs to record evidence of bad practice she will continue to record but will try to capture medical staff faces wherever practical.

TAPES We will inform patients and / or their families that we have been recording on the ward. Our aim will be to wipe tapes which do not need to be preserved for various reasons but not wiped until senior member prod team has agreed.

FAMILIES Unless families have explicitly alerted programme teams to bad practice, they will not be informed about filming until we have finished and reach the consent stage. Once filming is completed, we will seek the consent of every patient filmed or where they are too ill or incapable of giving informed consent, families or where appropriate, a close friend will be contacted and given time to come to a decision without pressure."

The protocol recognised the difficulties with regard to privacy and confidentiality and the intention was clear that consent was to be obtained prior to the programme going on air. Mrs Haywood was not reckless as to her responsibilities - she actually took steps to address the issue of confidentiality in a way she considered complied with her duty in this respect.

The Panel, however, took the view that in handing over the tapes to Panorama confidentiality had, at that point, been breached, regardless of any intention to subsequently seek consent.

On the public interest defence, available in certain circumstances, the Panel stated:

"But paragraph 5.3 of the Code sets out certain circumstances whereby information may be disclosed outside the team (of nurses and carers). If consent cannot be obtained for whatever reasons, disclosures may be made only where
they can be justified in the public interest (usually where disclosure is essential to protect the patient or client or someone else from the risk of significant harm).
The registrant relies on that sub - paragraph to justify her action in disclosing the confidential information to the Panorama team. Moreover, by reference to the paragraph in the protocol relating to FAMILIES she can say that no patients would be shown in the Panorama programme unless they or their families had given their consent. She says she was justified in carrying out the filming and breaching patient confidentiality because of the awful conditions on the ward.
It seems to the panel that the registrant’s stance must be tested by reference to the words in parentheses. Was disclosure of the confidential information essential to protect the patient from the risk of significant harm?
The panel is sensible to the fact that there may be instances where disclosure of confidential information may be essential to protect a patient from significant harm. But it addresses the issue of whether it was essential in this case. The panel has concluded that, for it to be “essential” for the registrant to breach confidential information, she must first have exhausted all other avenues of addressing the inadequacies on the ward; alternatively there must be an immediate need."

The panel decided that the pubic interest defence could not be relied upon since in their view Mrs Haywood had not exhausted all internal means of remedying the deficit in care. They go on to say:

"In the circumstances, the panel find the registrant is guilty of misconduct. She followed the behest of the film makers who were concerned “to portray the truly appalling care given to some elderly patients” to quote from the Record of Secret Filming and Recording application for permission to film, rather than her obligations as a nurse. There was a conflict of interests here and the registrant followed her role as a person engaged by the Panorama programme rather than her duties as nurse.
Further the panel finds that the registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of her misconduct. There has been no indication from her that the misconduct of which she is guilty has been remedied. Rather she relies on the justification of exposing the conditions on the ward to the public not the need to discharge her duties as a nurse."

One of her duties as a nurse was certainly to preserve confidentiality, and it seems to me that she both recognised that duty and took steps to properly and fully address it by the protocol she drew up. The distinction drawn on this by the panel seems to be one which it was not necessary to draw and they could easily have taken a different view without compromising their rules.

I would suggest that a greater duty, both as a nurse and a human being, was to take steps to bring to an end the cruel and degrading treatment being meted out to the helpless elderly patients.

Amazingly, the panel noted that the claims from hospital management that all issues were being addressed were untrue, and it was not until after the programme was aired that improvements were made.

There is such a thing as natural justice, and the fine print of the law or the rules should not act to prevent it. There was no mention whatever in this judgement of the benefit brought about by Mrs Haywood's action, no mention of the patients, and no mention of the nurses, doctors and NHS managers who conspired in silence.

Mrs Haywood deserves the thanks of every one of us. I sincerely hope this is not the end of the matter for her.

wonderfulforhisage said...

Would that the 'Useless Tories" echoed your anger.

Defender 21:50

Your list seems to me much more important than the finacial mess the Country is in. I'd rather be a free man in Carey Street than a Government pawn in Bond Street.

jailhouselawyer said...

Don't shoot this messenger...Labour's new election poster is unveiled

Anonymous said...

I think the first thing to learn would be the names of the members of the fuckscum committee who came to this "decision".

jaydeeaitch said...

But isn't this the ideal opportunity for you guys. Follow that wonderful man's lead and raise a petition on No 10 website. I know I could do it, but with you it might go somewhere.

I'm no great leader. You are.

wv: geoursol. Sounds like something McDoom would use.

subrosa said...

Think about it, it's all part of the New World Order which I honestly never believed in until recently.

Balding Nobhead Party said...

Fuck em. Its their generation that sat back and let this happen. This government didn't just turn up and fuck everything up, the country has been in the process of being fucked up before most of us were born. These old twats are the fools who kept the LabCon democracy illusion going. They voted. They paid the unions. They were all the blue rinses in the 80s Thatcher audiences, cheering as she sold off everything that held our country together. Then they got decrepid and the kids outsourced them because one just doesn't have pissypants parents round the house these days. These horrorhomes are the logical culmination of the descisions they made and so to reiterate, fuck em.

Ampers said...

What we are going to have to do is to send one of us to work for the Samaritans, then perhaps we can find someone willing to do what needs to be done.

Anonymous said...

Why is Margatet Hayward being punished FFS ?

The State has created a climate of fear amongst patients,nurses and staff, by those managers working in the 'caring' profession.

You answered your own question there, chief.

an ex-apprentice said...

Dear Mr Nobhead,

I am new hereabouts and so I don't think our paths have crossed. I would have remembered, such an imbecilic cretin as yourself is surely unforgettable.

Presumably you called yourself Nobhead because The Gobshite Messiah was taken?

That normal epithet of absolute contempt, cunt, is somehow rendered inadequate and woefully insufficient in your case. You are a concentrated, super-thick, genetically modified, extra potent, industrial strength, unadulterated grade A cunt of the very highest order. I can’t say fairer than that.

Anonymous said...

"If anybody has a practical plan that the people of this country can assist Margaret and people like her- I am all ears."

Yeah, all call in sick tomorrow. Fuck it. I'm going to.

Dick the Prick said...

I thought the BBC have been woefully shite in all this too. On the day of the judgement they did a bloody vigorous interview with her which was blatantly scripted, all to the point of covering their arses. Surely it was the editors who had the ability to pixelate faces, eliminate identifyers and pay for a barrister's opinion prior to screening - cunts.

Anonymous said...

Guido is doing this person by person. I think one way to do it is to take corrupt scum and make examples of them by completely destroying them publicly. Make it personal like they do with us. Somebody also said that at the next protest, people should do it outside their MP's house. I think that's a bloody good idea. They live close by and they'll get the message that they can't hide.

The Penguin said...

Despite the so-called protection. What did that ginger cunt Kinnock do in Brussels?

The Penguin

killemallletgodsortemout said...

Fuck it. Do what the French do. Go on strike for a day here and there; blockade Dover for a few days, get the Royal College of Nursing to extract its dainty digit, and strike for a few days.

Balding Nobhead Party said...

Ex-apprentice. All of those things I may indeed be but I'm also right. I have no sympathy for people who do not prepare for old age. If you raise your kids to be careerist twats who won't care for you when your old then you reap what you sow. And when was the last time you saw 50 somethings protesting for better pay and conditions for the carers who will very soon have to wipe thier arses? Exactly. Why should people wipe your arse for fuck all when you think your own kids are too good to do it. Especially when you signed your house over to those same kids so the local govt couldn't sell it to raise the funds to care for you? This is where being a stupid selfish motherfucker leads

Anonymous said...

Henry North London said...

Sadly the GMC and the hand of Common Purpose is here

If you speak out about insufferable stuff in the NHS whether you be a doctor or a nurse you get hounded out.

The GMC would strike a doctor off for filming You can bet your bottom dollar on it.

The Penguin said...

What's with the cover-up of 92 dead in Gosport Hospital?

FOAMYOB said...

Dick the Prick gets it about right. The BBC made a mess of the whole thing - I suspect they put the opportunity for some gritty TV on a budget (i.e. not having to pay Fiona Bruce £400000 to front it) and it sounds to me as though they manipulated a none-too-bright nurse without giving her adequate safeguards.

I dare say she'll do alright though, considering that there's no doubt she broke her contract terms, which is cause for summary dismissal anywhere you go. She's 58, so less than 2 years to retirement, she'll probably get her job back on the strength of public opinion, then it being the public sector she'll get shedloads of cash as compensation, then she'll be all over "Hello" and "OK" and half the womens' magazines in the papershop.

If she can find someone like Max Clifford to manage it, she'll be a millionaire by the summer.

Swiss Bob said...

I had that idiot Harman Pride on my live chat today. She said it was the nurse's fault because she breached patient confidentiality and she should have been working instead of filming. I think in this context 'working' means beating up old ladies and spitting in their food, nice.

Anonymous said...

So, NULabour is now such a damaged brand that the term Nobhead Party is preferred. could I suggest Ingsoc instead, though I believe it's been used before.

Anonymous said...

As Bishop Hill has pointed out, the NMC is answerable to the Privy Council, so probably has been leaned on by the Government.

Alan Wallace said...

She's been stamped on for going against the official line. The Govt spend £97bn a year on the NHS and the official line is this is money well spent. Forget the fact that, from NHS figures, 34,000 people a year die in hospital unnecessarily (36,000 died in Iraq in 2006. In the middle of a civil war). 120 people a week die from hospital acquired infections. In Europe, the figure is 2 a week.

Much of the money that Labour has poured into the NHS goes to quangoes - the National Patient Safety Agency, the NHS Confederation, the Nursing & Midwifery Council, Monitor, the Healthcare Commission and the Health Protection Agency - all New Labour creations, all set up to "provide an integrated approach to protecting UK public health". £425 million a year goes to these people, yet European countries have standards of healthcare miles better than the UK without any quangos.

The NHS is a job creation agency for bureaucrats who all profess to being essential to making healthcare better. They're actually making it worse - one person contracts MRSA or C-Diff every 10 minutes, but heaven help anyone who points out the emperor has no clothes

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails