She Probably Thinks 'Ethics' Is A County In The South East Of England...

Scerif initially denied wrongdoing but eventually admitted she knew what she was doing was wrong and that she was not entitled to use the pass.

She said when she was stopped by the TfL ticket inspector she 'panicked' and tried to do what she could to minimise the seriousness of her actions.

She said she lied as she was 'ashamed and fearful of the consequences.'

She has since completed an ethics course and said she 'genuinely apologised to her family, the TfL ticket inspector, the TfL organisation, her profession, her colleagues and the public.'

Her profession? Yes. Amazingly, it's Junior Doctor.

In giving Scerif the all clear to return to work, tribunal chairman Jayne Wheat said: 'Dr Scerif maintained her denials for a significant period of time until the suspension imposed by the 2019 Tribunal.

'But during this period she has undertaken considerable learning activity and her reflections were thorough and genuine. She provided genuine and honest responses regarding her acceptance of her dishonest conduct and provided convincing evidence of the insight that she has developed into her failings.

'The Tribunal was impressed that, despite the challenges presented by the Covid19 pandemic, Dr Scerif had continued with her online training, and secured a mentor that she has continued to liaise with. There is a minimal risk of repetition.'

We're supposed to be impressed that she managed to complete an online course while working at home? Seriously?

Maybe Replicants Already Walk Among Us..?

Kehren Sajid, of Handsworth in Birmingham, was today sentenced to a 12-month community order for five charges of common assault on four toddlers in the Winnie the Pooh playroom of the city's Small Talk Nursery last year.

Yup, that’s right. Toddlers. That she handled with all the care and delicacy of abattoir workers unloading pigs…

Judge Elizabeth Fisher told the 31-year-old: 'By virtue of their age, the children were vulnerable victims.'

She added: 'It is not surprising to learn that one of the mothers of the children concerned is angry at the way in which her child had been treated by you. '

I think it’s ‘surprising’ that only one was!

'Nevertheless it is clear you are remorseful for what occurred, for the way in which you treated these young victims, your lack of nurture and care. 'It is clear you need assistance as far as victim awareness is concerned. '

Ummm, what?

Is that a pretty clumsy way of saying it would be nice if nursery workers didn't view their charges as ‘victims’ at all? I thought these judges were all about the eloquence?

Sophie Murray, defending, said: 'She is sorry for the distress caused to the parents of these children.'

What about the distress of the children? Doesn't she even recognise that?

She added the treatment was 'rough handling' and it was unlikely Sajid, who is NVQ-qualified, would ever be employed looking after children again.

Oh, I don’t know. I rather doubt that’ll be the bar to future employment that you seem to think it might be. 

So we have qualified child carers hauling around toddlers as if they were sacks of spuds, while in care homes for pensioners, you can die of cardiac arrest because the nurses employed to prevent this don’t feel much like bending down to save you…

Rather than NVQs and positive CRB vetting, perhaps we’d be better off relying on a Voight-Kampf test?

Bit Of An Underestimation...

A woman in charge of a residential management company which used LBS clampers says they were hired because they were “a little bit more aggressive”.

In the same way that a rabid half-starved wolverine with a bulldog clamp on its testicles is 'a little bit more aggressive' than this kitten:

Ms Sullivan admitted she had not heard of LBS before it was taken on and was not aware of its track record...

Ms Sullivan must be unique in the business world, being unaware of the term 'due diligence'.

Or 'Google'...

I Guess Gamers Aren't Too Fussed, At Least...

Sometimes I look at a fuss being made over something, and I not only don't 'get it', but I wonder just how these things get started in the first place.

There has, it seems, been a cause celebre in the fashion and make-up world:

Kate and Laura Mulleavy, the fashion designing sisters behind Rodarte (remember how they both lost weight just for Anna Wintour?) have collaborated with MAC Cosmetics to create a line that was originally called “Juarez”.

The little town in Mexico? The one with a shoot-em-up named after it? Well, what's wrong with th...

Oh:

Unbelievable. The Mexican border town in the state of Chihuahua has been called “a serial murderer’s playground” and is widely regarded at the murder capital of the world.

Seriously?

Apparently so, as the cosmetics company, faced with the outrage! of thousands of women with eating disorders and men with suspiciously co-ordinated wardrobes, promptly rolled over, offered a mea culpa and renamed the range. They also ponied up $100,000 to a non-profit organisation dedicated to 'helping women in need'...

London-based blog, Healing Beauty, has been covering the story voraciously, and helped set up a petition. They are unimpressed by MAC’s donation.

They want more..?

While fashion designers such as the late Alexander McQueen can plead genius in their defence (I personally hated McQueen’s “woman’s head on a plate” necklace) there are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed.

And, boy, did MAC cross them. The name for its “Juarez” sheer white lipgloss? “Ghost Town.”

Oh, FFS..!

Medical Ethics? What Medical Ethics?

Isn't it nice to know that no matter what your personal circumstances, there's always a support or pressure group or advocate somewhere that will stand up for your rights?

It seems that doctors wish to forcibly treat a woman with learning difficulties who has cancer and does not wish surgery. Step forward the disability network to uphold her rights and...

Oh. Wait.

Last night Liz Sayce, chief executive of Radar, the disability network, said: “The right to refuse treatment is a cornerstone of human rights and medical ethics, but so too is the duty of care.”The head states that saving the woman’s life is right; the heart recoils at the thought of deceiving and compelling her into undergoing a procedure which she does not want.”

Is it me, or is there a sense of 'mustn't upset the apple cart' about that statement?

“Society, however, must be careful to treat every case individually, and ensure that this case provides no precedent for over-riding the consent of people with learning disabilities in future.”

In other words, 'oooh, we'll let you do this just the once, but don't get too cheeky in the future!'.

Naturally, some medical professionals are 'what's all the fuss here? we do it all the time!' about this:

Dr Evan Harris, a former member of the Commons Science and Technology committee, said: “In A&E departments up and down the country, patients without capacity such as those drunk, drugged, psychotic, confused or with dementia are treated seemingly against their will, day in and day out. Learning disability coupled with needle or hospital-phobia in a patient with cancer needing is unusual but is a relatively routine matter for clinical ethics.”

It seems mental health campaigners aren't the only ones who've lost sight of what they are supposed to stand for...

Via UK NewsNetwork .

Update: MummyLongLegs has a piece of her mind for the medical establishment too...

”Don’t you know that it’s different for girls?”

We all remember Alan Digby the ‘Beano’ editor, who gave that pompous brush-off to eight year old Jacob Rush, who had the temerity to question Dennis the Menace’s politically correct makeover:

'I would not say Dennis has been watered down, he has evolved as the character has done throughout his lifetime. He still has his catapult and peashooter, but does not use them against people any more.'

Imagine my surprise, then, on opening this morning's 'Metro'. It seems that his fellow Beano character does so quite happily, as long as it’s for charidee:


Hmm. I guess Minnie just hasn’t ‘evolved’ sufficiently, right Alan?

Or perhaps there are people in this world who will do anything - even compromise their stated principles - in order to be seen to be sucking up to the right people, eh?

I Can Answer That One For You, Ramon…

However, one question remains: who will be held accountable for what went wrong?

No-one.

The employment tribunal was inexorably drawn to the conclusion that I had been suspended from my position at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital as a direct result of the concerns I raised in letters to the trust's management. Further, it was confirmed by the chief executive of the trust that my exclusion was not based on any clinical grounds regarding my practice, yet my suspension was maintained for a period of 10 weeks. This shows a complete disregard for the job in hand – to deliver care and services to patients.

You assume, Ramon, that that’s the job of all those people that, like you, work in the NHS.

But it clearly isn’t.

Some are employed to do what they did to you, and anyone else stupid enough to think that care of patients is the main function of the NHS…

So, what now? What measures will be put in place to ensure that another person within the NHS can raise legitimate and well-founded concerns about the impact that cost-cutting is having on the level of care that is provided by an NHS trust, and will not be silenced by the stigma of being perceived as a troublemaker?

None.

Beginning to get the message now?

There exists little in the way of a regulatory mechanism, punitive measures or indeed any general oversight to ensure we do not see any more highly skilled medical professionals removed from the NHS because they took their duty of care to patients seriously.

Yup. And if you think that isn’t by design, well, I’ve a bridge to sell you…

What mechanism will deter any trust from pursuing this course of action again, without being held accountable or being severely punished for doing so?

None, of course. And that’s why they should be ‘held accountable’ and ‘severely punished’.

But they won’t be.

Two Bald Men Fighting Over A Comb Again…

As Mark Wadsworth points out, this story has everything…

Cherie Blair's stepmother was sworn at by her boss and her family connections dismissed with a 'sneer' in a row which led to her losing her job, she said on Monday.

Her family connections tend to raise something a bit stronger than a sneer in most circles…

The 55-year-old, who hopes to become a Labour MP at the next Election, claims she was unfairly dismissed after complaining that Burnley-based Cool UK was chaotic and unsafe to work at.

What makes her think she can cut it as an MP?

Well, it seems she’s already got the makings of one:

An employment tribunal heard claims that she lied about being a qualified teacher and that there had been numerous complaints about her performance - allegations she denies.

She also refuted accusations that she ordered a junior colleague to pose as a voter and write comments on a website supporting her candidacy.

She sounds like she’d fit right in!

In Loco Parentis...

An official review into a "racist" hammer attack on a schoolboy was unacceptably delayed because his school's insurers feared it would effect (Ed:sic) their liability, a judge ruled yesterday.

The board should have told the insurers where to get off.

Sack the lot of them...

”Yeah... that's right Richard... I don't care. I'm not trying to solve a puzzle here...”

The ‘Times’ appears to have done some of that investigative work that modern journalism graduates shun the way Dracula shuns the sunlight. And what they’ve found doesn’t make pretty reading:

Sixteen years after a man was sentenced to life in prison for murdering his heavily pregnant wife by hanging, The Times has uncovered evidence that throws his conviction into doubt.

Not new evidence, either.

This isn’t a case of ‘Oh, we actually found the one armed man that this chap always claimed committed the crime..’ This is a case where the police have apparently conspired to deny and cover up evidence that the one armed man existed, despite knowing full well that he did:

Long-lost notes of police interviews have emerged that suggest that Eddie Gilfoyle was at work when his 32-year-old wife, Paula, died.

The notes catalogue a series of blunders, including the destruction of evidence before scene-of-crime officers arrived. They also show that those first on the scene were convinced that they were dealing with a tragic suicide.

What changed their minds? We’ll come to that…

The notes were not shown to the jury and not mentioned during Gilfoyle’s trial in 1993. Merseyside Police repeatedly denied that they existed.

Because by then, they were firmly into the ‘murder’ theory, and all that inconvenient evidence wouldn’t go down too well.

So they began ignoring it:

The Times has obtained notes of interviews with the officers called to the house on the day that she died. They state that the doctor who declared Mrs Gilfoyle dead told police that she had died six hours earlier – when her husband was at his workplace.

The 20 pages of notes appear to have been taken during an internal inquiry into police blunders at the scene. Until their disclosure today, there had been no suggestion that the doctor had addressed the question of time of death at the scene. There is no mention of it in his statements to the murder investigation.

Well, once you start down the murder route, introducing evidence that you initially had no reason to suspect it was murder calls into question your reasons for considering it murder now.

Instead, the doctor told the trial jury that Mrs Gilfoyle had been dead for between three and eight hours before being found. This could have given Gilfoyle time to kill her after work.

Is this the same doctor? If so, he has some questions to answer too…

The notes detail a series of mistakes that led to the internal inquiry by Merseyside Police. Mrs Gilfoyle’s body was cut down without any photographs being taken. Evidence was destroyed or tainted. The existence of the inquiry was not disclosed to the defence before trial.

The records also indicate that officers let a mortuary assistant destroy the noose – a vital piece of evidence that could have revealed who tied it.

But perfectly valid if you have no reason to doubt the evidence that you’ve been given by the doctor on the scene:

The notes emphasise that there was no evidence of a struggle. Her body had no marks or defensive injuries. The doctor examined her and decided that there was nothing suspicious. He was “99.9 per cent happy with it being a hanging”.

However, when family, friends and workmates described how happy and optimistic Mrs Gilfoyle had been, the police began to wonder if she might have been murdered.

Aha! And they couldn’t really say to the family ‘Well, there’s no evidence now.’

Because awkward questions might have been asked about why…

So, let’s put the husband on trial, and let the chips fall where they may, seems to have been the cynical decision. One that the CPS was happy to go along with:

The evidence at Gilfoyle’s trial was almost all circumstantial. Nearly twenty witnesses said that Mrs Gilfoyle had been making plans for the future. A trial source told The Times: “For two days, friends and relatives and workmates gave evidence in which they said that this girl was vivacious, bubbly, so excited about this new birth. The morning she ‘committed suicide’ she got books about children’s names. After two days of people saying she was happy, the idea that a pregnant woman hanged herself? The jury just looked astonished.”

And presumably the judge’s summing up didn’t put enough emphasis on the weighting they should give to that circumstantial evidence.

Gilfoyle’s family contacted the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), which was so alarmed by its inquiry into the handling of the investigation that it alerted the Crown Prosecution Service to doubts about the conviction.

The criminal profiler David Canter, who worked with police to help to convict him, revealed last year that he had had second thoughts. Writing in The Times, he said that fresh research into suicide notes had persuaded him that Mrs Gilfoyle took her own life.

Well, that’s nice of him…!

But when you read his explanation for his change of heart, you see just how the ‘expert witness’ isn’t necessarily anything of the sort:

All these matters and other factors, most notably the demanding creative imagination, beyond Eddie’s abilities, that would be needed to invent the sequence of notes and letters changed my opinion. I formed the view that my original analysis had been too greatly, if inadvertently, influenced by the story that the police had originally given to me. The reliance on number crunching was also misleading. I therefore wrote a further report for Eddie’s second appeal which argued that there was a psychological logic that made it very likely that Paula had taken her own life.

Yup, instead of approaching the case with the detachment you might expect from an ‘expert’, and asking what the evidence pointed to, he seems to have started out along the line fed him by the police! Still, at least he appears to have been a real qualified professional. That doesn’t always happen, as DumbJon has pointed out!

It’s a very worrying case. I’d like to say that it couldn’t happen today.

But I wonder….

The Hippocratic Oath Needs Updating...

A little girl with a very rare medical condition died after a hospital threatened her parents with a police protection order if they did not comply with a new treatment plan, it has been claimed.

Really…?

Such immediate and overwhelming action seems a little out of character for the system which so dismally failed little Alfie, Sean and Lois. No speedy action for them, and their parents weren’t simply arguing over the appropriateness of medical treatment – they were directly abusing them!

So, tell me more:

Father Malcolm, who had taken the lead in his daughter's care, believes the change in treatment led to her death and that Francesca would be alive today if his hand wasn't forced with the threat of police intervention.

Last night the devoted father-of-six spoke out about the tragic circumstances of his daughter's death, calling for a change in the way vulnerable children are treated.

Ahh, I think I see the real picture emerging:

Speaking of the hospital's decision to pursue a 'much more aggressive' therapy plan he said: 'I had warned in writing that such a medical approach may prove fatal, based upon the fact that I had been Francesca's full-time carer for almost the whole of her life and had studied her medical condition and her response to treatment 24/7 for 11 years.

'I have conducted significant research into her case since her death and I am entirely satisfied that the treatment killed her and that neither I nor her mother nor Francesca herself would have agreed to this approach but for the intervention of child protection procedures.'

It seems Mr Blair-Robinson made the mistake of being a devoted, law abiding father, and not a feckless violent drug addict. Such threats wouldn’t have scared them, if anyone even made them.

It also seems he challenged the medical authorities’ god-like right to do as they pleased to advance their careers and research stats. And that could not be tolerated, as we’ve seen before:

But after moving from Surrey to West Sussex in 2006 the doctors overseeing Francesca's care changed.

When she collapsed in May 2007 medical staff at St Richard's Hospital, in Chichester, wanted to change the way she was treated. She made a swift recovery but doctors still advocated 'aggressive use of IV antibiotics' and oxygen therapy, claims Mr Blair-Robinson.

Which the parents felt wasn’t the right treatment for their daughter. Silly of them to think they might actually have a say in the process:

He said both he and his ex-wife objected, and within a week were summoned to a meeting where they were confronted without warning by a social worker, police officer and medical staff.

'Her mother and I were threatened that unless we withdrew our opposition to the hospital's medical plans, Francesca, a frail and vulnerable child with a very sharp intellect, would be made the subject of an immediate police protection order.'

It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mr Blair-Robinson was bullied and threatened because he could be.

Terrified the couple complied and the little girl was referred to Southampton General Hospital which set out the more 'aggressive' programme.

Within five months she had died of respiratory failure, a death that Mr Blair-Robinson would not have happened if he had been allowed to continue taking the lead in her care.

But doctors are always right, aren’t they?

And it seems in this case, they didn’t even keep records:

He believes there should have been a narrative record of her care in her medical notes and a better system of information sharing and is calling for an overhaul of the way the NHS handles complex cases of children with special health needs.

An overhaul of the ability of medical staff to behave as they please with no comebacks might be in order too….

”He doesn't understand the concept of money? He just inherited $3,000,000 and he doesn't understand the concept of money?”

A recent post by Leg-Iron, on the subject of those who feel threatened by the cures proposed by (among other things) genetic screening prompted a lot of debate and a follow-up post, where the point was made that we need the check on the rate of progress that the ‘placard-wavers’ provide:

“Stick to highlighting what you see as immoral, even if the rest of us don’t agree. There might well come a time when the rest of us will think ‘Wait a minute. This time, they have a point’.”

Well, get ready for the next battlefield, and it’ll be interesting to see how the lines form up:

New research published today will bring prenatal testing for autism significantly closer, prompting experts to call for a national debate about the consequences of screening for the disorder in the womb and allowing women to terminate babies with the condition.

And why might this provide those ‘experts’ with a better reason than usual to bewail the march of progress?

Because it directly threatens them, and not just their jobs:

Enabling couples to terminate the pregnancy if an autistic disorder is detected is highly controversial. Autism is a spectrum disorder, which famously includes mathematical and musical savants as well as children who are unable to communicate and spend their lives in an institution.

Hmm, aren’t noted scientists and media pontificators often claiming that they (and other historical figures) sit within the ‘autistic spectrum’?

Why, yes, it seems they are. And that throws up some issues for the ‘experts’:

Parents of children with autistic spectrum disorders are particularly strongly opposed to testing linked to termination and fear it would lead to greater discrimination and less support for them.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the research team, told the Guardian that it is now time to start considering where society stands on the issue.

"If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population?" he said. "We should start debating this. There is a test for Down's syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism is often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition."

Yes, indeed it is. And there will now be an almighty hoo-ha in the scientific world over the possibility of reducing numbers of autistic spectrum-affected children:

The research could, equally controversially, open the way for treatment, he said. "We could do something about it. Some researchers or drug companies might see this as an opportunity to develop a pre-natal treatment. There are drugs that block testosterone. But whether we'd want to would be a different matter."

Why not leave it up to the parents to decide that? It is, after all, their decision, just as the decision to abort any other potentially damaged child should be – they, after all, are the ones who have to live with (and cope with) the consequences?

Naturally, the various charities, trusts and organisations are sounding warnings as they perceive their jobs potentially under threat:

The National Autistic Society says some of its members think a test to predict autism could be useful in helping parents prepare and get support for their child. At the moment, many children are not diagnosed for two or three years, which is a source of frustration. But none have said they wished it had been possible to have a termination.

"I think it is really important that the autism community has a key role in shaping the research priorities in this area," said Amanda Batten, head of campaigns for the NAS. "There could be some real gains in recognising autism early. There are benefits, but there are concerns. People think it is about eugenics.

"It is important to stress that everyone with autism has the potential to make a unique and valued contribution to society. It is not always the autism that is a problem. It is other people and a lack of services and support."

‘Give us more money and you too can ignore reality’…

On the other hand, there are those who can see the other side – again, on behalf of ‘society’:

Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the British Medical Association, agreed a debate was needed. "The question, then, is are we comfortable with [testing] for a disorder which is life-limiting in terms of opportunities and experience, rather than life-ending?" she said.

If you can (potentially) treat it and either alleviate it or eliminate, why not…?

Why does the medical profession push for preventative action like the inclusion of folic acid into everyone’s foodstuffs, if not to prevent exactly this kind of outcome?

And if it does turn out to be preventable, then the other kind of ‘public good’ advocates will be waiting in the wings to trumpet the ‘cost to society’ if people refuse:

The more complicated ethical issue would be that of treatment in the womb, she said. "You get to the situation where you have a very great difficulty if families say we wouldn't want to be tested. As a society, do we accept that people can refuse tests when the outcome can make a difference to that unborn child?"

It’s a minefield, indeed…