Thursday, 30 December 2010

Christine O'Donnell Investigated

Ms Christine O'Donnell, ex-Republican candidate is now being investigated for misuse of funds.
She became notorious over her sexual hypocrisy in the setting of promoting her evangelical Christianity.
Ms O'Donnell called masturbation sinful, opposed evolution, sex before marriage and abortion, of course.

Click on the photo to read more.

It would be interesting to see if US and other countries do anything about their own collections of hypocrites and fraudsters already in governments. One thing for sure, state organizations can promote as well as prevent prosecution of some individuals more than others.

In UK, people have complained that it can be difficult to get some offenders and institutions investigated, but hopefully, the new government will change that. Otherwise, it will be very much as the Justice Minister said would be.

Monday, 27 December 2010


Use of steroids to enhance/recover sexual power probably occurred thousands of years ago through unsophisticated use of gonads.
However, the first steroid hormone was discovered and isolated in 1930's. In 1931 out of tens of thousands of litres of urine a chemist called Aflred Butenandt isolated anabolic steroid hormone and later synthesized testosterone. During the second world war prisoners in concentration camps had steroid hormones administered to them as part of medical experimentation. Adolf Hitler also received a number of testosterone injections for various of his ailments according to his medical records.
After the war, medicinal use of these hormones was to help those who really needed it.
The abuse of steroids amongst sportsmen and women was to improve their athletic performance which led to unfair advantage when undetected. Various attempts to control steroid abuse through legal measures followed as well as different ways of cheating through the intermittent abuse of steroids in order to avoid detection.
The abuse of steroids spread to those who use it for body building but outside competitive situations. The abuse of steroids by some police officers and amongst fireman is thought to now affect 25% of these professionals in USA. The problem occurs worldwide, but it is not certain to what extent.
The legislation is different in different countries. Punitive measures include imprisonment e.g. for supplying other police officers. This is not the case in all the countries. The doses used in steroid abuse are hundred times higher than what doctors would prescribe. Some people use steroids meant for veterinary practice.
The side effects of steroids can include: aggression, excessive use of force (resulting in deaths of victims), depression, mania, psychotic symptoms, paranoia and wild mood swings.
As these hormones have the effect of causing so called programmed cell death, withdrawal of steroids may not lead to complete psychiatric recovery because dead nerve cells do not regrow.
Thus, one may be seeing a new epidemic of mental health problems of novel causation.
Disciplinary measures in cases of police, firemen and others may now have to include random, compulsory testing for steroids and not just usual illicit drugs.
Unfortunately, the testing for steroids has not been done always in cases of unprovoked aggression e.g. by police. Needless to say, women abuse these hormones as well.
There are other side effects of steroids that can occur in some cases of abuse such as hair loss as well decrease in sexual performance. Some people react to their impotence with violence and aggression. Thus multiple causes of aggression do occur with steroid abuse: physical and psychological.

Monday, 20 December 2010


Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts distinguish between envy and jealousy, but most people mix up these complex emotions and actions that follow them which is not surprising as there is some similarity. Envy can be defined as fear of not being able to have something because envious person thinks they lack the ability to achieve it. Jealousy arises when valued relationship is threatened by the emergence of a rival who competes for attention, affection or commitment. Therefore, in jealousy there are at least three people while in envy it can be minimum two up to maximum of billions .
In jealousy the predominant feelings are anger, fear and sadness.
In envy the predominant feelings are of fear, deprivation and malicious joy.
Envy and jealousy can be extremely dangerous, but not always, of course. A person can be more easily recognized as jealous than envious as the latter is usually hidden emotion.
Envy is thought by psychoanalysts to be oral phase of psycho-sexual development of separation/individuation. The aim of envy is to destroy the person (s) with the envied quality. This can be done through rubbishing them or their achievements, smearing their reputations, for example, but there are many ways of harming others. Another way is to deprive them of what they need.
Envy is narcissistic and aggrandizing aspect of self.
Some psychoanalysts like Melanie Klein, who wrote an excellent essay; " Envy and Gratitude", thought envy was constitutional i.e. that some people were born with the tendency to be envious long term.
Psychoanalytic theory is that oral sadistic stage of libidinal development is the one in which destructive impulses towards mother's breast predominate and are not moderated by gratitude towards what good breast provided and if not integrated means that libidinal development is incomplete. It is as if to say if the child is really good breast would not be depriving them. From the feeling of personal badness emerge the acts of not loving others.
There are also professionals who claim that most people experience envy and that recognizing it for what it is can be liberating. If envy is based on false belief of inferiority i.e. that one is not capable of achieving the same as the envied person but one realizes that with work one can, envy can turn into ambition with goals and plans. However, the truth is that not all people are the same and true inferiority exists so one has to learn how to deal with it. One obvious way is to become helpful to those who are successful and become part of that success. Appreciation of other people's talents is one way of dealing successfully with what could become envy. Accepting that everybody including oneself has areas of inadequacy is healthy and not life threatening.
Negative self opinion underlying envy can be further reinforced through own envy and by others who notice envy. However, shame acts as a regulator of envy.
Anything can become the object of envy: success, beauty, friendships, talent, confidence, sexuality, freedom, courage, self -respect, identity, good memory, knowledge, fame and so on.
Envy is poisonous and envious person feels bad. Common way envious people flee that bad feeling is to become sadistic. Sadism is the joy of seeing other person suffer/die.
Envy also causes fear/paranoia of retaliation and leads to avoidance and hostility towards the envied person(s).
Envy has been linked to poor commitment, depression and greed.
Narcissism which accompanies envy is about control over other people but not control for the sake of control. It is about controlling people so that they never get close and find areas of inadequacy in narcissist and expose these inadequacies to him and the rest of the world.
Domination is the key characteristic of narcissistic/envious people who lack empathy for others and surround themselves by co-dependents. In organizations, if they are in position to do it, narcissists appoint people who uphold the image they desire.
Greed and envy go together. In psychoanalytic terms, greed arises when breast is perceived as frustrating and depriving. Greed arises out of the sense of deprivation. One cannot get enough to satisfy one's needs. The working definition of greed for an adult is excessive acquisition of possessions beyond what one needs or deserves. As it is the sense of deprivation that causes greed when the sense of deprivation is severe enough it leads to robbing of others and even destruction of the supply. The greedy person consumes everything in its way.
Some people advocate treatment for envy such as measures that would raise self-esteem, making lists of good things about the envied object as well as self.
Envy is one of the most difficult things to manage. It can come as a shock, out of the blue and from unknown persons one has no control over whatsoever.
Dr Bruce Gregory stated, "... many people have the fantasy that if they try hard, 'do it right,' be reasonable, logical, and have goodwill and a team approach, these factors will generate a positive outcome in interpersonal or group settings. This is about as deep a fantasy as one could possibly have, as it is not based in reality. Why is this? It is... because a narcissist's survival is dependent upon having control, or the perception of control."Ref When this control is challenged, he feels threatened and responds as though his very survival is at stake.

It is thought that large proportion of human beings are co-dependent on narcissists and have the following characteristics:

avoidance of decision making and of confrontation
lack of trust
checking on outside sources before making decisions

The typical psychological defense mechanism used by envious/greedy/narcissistic person (s) is projection and denial of object.

Projection is the name given to the behavior exhibited when person denies it to themselves and others what they truly feel because it is unacceptable. Instead these characteristics are ascribed (projected) onto others. Thus envious person would not say their qualifications are inferior but would adopt the approach of criticizing and exaggerating and publicizing the slightest defect of the envied person.
Here is another example: The desire to have sex with lots of other people becomes criticism of the promiscuity of the envied object. Or allegation of infidelity etc.

Denial of Object is another defense mechanism when envious person denies the envied person's qualities so that there would be no recognition of those. Thus the envious person achieves the sense of superiority over their envied object (person).

Narcissists and co-dependents can have the same characteristics as described above.


This is an interesting aspect of how envy manipulates the public opinion. In the name of social justice e.g. pretending to address the needs of the poor those who worked hard to gather what they have, suffer envious attacks and are deprived of what they have earned. False allegations are made against the envied person and huge amounts of money can be used to defend one's reputation. In fact, one can lose everything by fighting through the courts of the land in an unfavorable political climate.

Knowing that this is what may happen some people move out of the country when certain parties come into power or are on the way of getting into power. Capital leaves the country.

Also, it is not surprising that thousands of doctors were processed through disciplinary procedures when Labour Party came into power in UK. They were stripped of their authority to raise matters of health concerns. Cut and paste judgments of inability to work in teams became common place. As well as terms such as lack of insight in doctors into their deficiencies. Perfect example of projection by envious projecting their lack of insight onto others.
There has been expectation of subordination by doctors to those who are less qualified as narcissistic people do expect such things.
Some Nurses and Social Workers could diagnose and discharge patients although not qualified and against medical advice.

In order to pay for the persecution of doctors Charity Commission allowed the General Medical Council to become a charity. The government lost about £100 million in taxes over a period of time. The courts of the land already decided in 1920's that General Medical Council could not dodge the tax and was not a charity, but who cares about the legal decisions when the need to destroy is so overwhelming.

Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority never became a charity. There is a lot of legally qualified persons in the government so it would appear they did not wish charitable regulation for themselves.

Written by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist

Sunday, 19 December 2010

Anonymous sent in Scientology Report

Anonymous sent to Doctors4Justice a link to Impact a magazine of the International Association of Scientology commemorative issue (26th anniversary):

and conversation thread here:


This morning, I have been rather amused with David Rose's article (click on the photo to read it) in Daily Mail: Look away now, Jemima" which pretends amongst other things not to know why feminists have supported Mr Julian Assange, Mega Whistleblower. If Mr Rose really did not know why he would have asked feminists. So here is a bit of education for Mr Rose but not quite sure if he needs or if it would save him from Chief Editor's whipping for a job, not done to a professional journalist' standard.
In the last ten years or so there has been an increase in the strength of religious fundamentalism globally which has been mainly opposed by feminists while many men and many women took it easy and let it be, as if the problem would go away without anything being done about it. Mr Assange's case represents what happens when religious fundamentalists use human rights language to deceive those in power (eg some Swedish politician who would be only too keen to use women to preserve male power structure and undermine woman's authority- Ms Eva Finne's, Public Prosecutor who threw the case out in August). So, feminists are not as Mr Rose pretends them to be. We are perfectly aware where press comes out in support of oppression of women's and men's rights, on the right, or on the left of politics. The fact that religious fundamentalism is very much against journalism and truth, in general, is another point Mr Rose chose to ignore, but knows only too well. Maybe as homework, Chief Editor of Daily Mail could give him an assignment to write about all of the killed journalists who exposed fundamentalism and died as the result.
During fundamentalist religious rule men are forced to reinforce the patriarchal values which are essentially anti-human rights. Boys are made to feel ashamed of their sexuality, women are demonized, controlled and forbidden from entering political arena. The only ones that are allowed are those who subscribe to the inferior role for themselves. Like Mr Assange's accusers, for example. The truth is that some people are so bad at politics that they should not be given any jobs in politics because of the severe damage they cause and it does not matter if they are women who call themselves Christian Feminists or if they are men.
Real feminists politicians (as opposed to pretend Christian Feminists) have been subjected to exclusion from jobs, harassment and in some cases murdered because what they do has to with the effect they have on power structures. The same applies to whistleblowers. Less capable people are promoted simply because they tow the line of ignorance and certainty. Religion provides certainty that feminism lacks. Religion promises control over women in every way and over children too. Both are meant to be servants of man and his wishes, including sexual if one reads fundamentalists. Religion promotes the certainty of life after death, in heaven. Feminism does not do that at all. Weak people make choices that appear easier at the time and in the process blow themselves up and others.
The prime targets of recruitment by religious fundamentalists are children and women. The most vulnerable people are also the likely victims of indoctrination such as mentally ill and poor. The use of women by religious fundamentalist has been called "beating fire with fire". Recruited women are used to attack other women but also men perceived as a threat to religious dogma. Truth is the old enemy of faith. As an atheist and whistleblower Mr Assange would be a legitimate target for religious fundamentalists including so called Christian feminists.
Allegations of rape are very serious and damaging but so are the false allegations of mental illness in healthy doctors who are whistleblowers and whom The General Medical Council in London destroyed and continues to abuse to the present day. I mention this fact as there is plenty of scandal to write about. Daily Mail has remained very silent on this subject of dictatorship on home grounds. I hope not for long.
Ms Jemima Khan is right we should say no to puppet judges and expose them as they deserve to be exposed. So many times, the Royal Courts of Justice judges did not uphold the rule of the law but sexism when it came to female medical whistleblowers. In a building which looks so much a like a church the values are still patriarchal. Guardian had a brilliant photograph on its front page which emphasized architectural detail and had a group of people with Mr Assange and his legal team looking tiny in proportion. The multitalented legal team are Ms Jennifer Robinson, Mr Mark Stephens and Mr Geoffrey Robertson.
Daily Mail has some good journalists and at times it did expose a lot of what was wrong with religious Labour government policies responsible for the loss of so many lives in UK. NHS hospitals have been left in the hands of lying, but brown nose managers and staff who executed Labour policy demands no matter how many thousands had to die and suffer because of the lack of support for good doctors including female whistleblowers.

What we see in feminists coming to Assange's aid is different kind of politics, the kind that David Rose does not want to face up to. I can see why not. Women do have a right to political opinion and do exercise it. Ms Jemima Khan does and so do many other women in the atmosphere of sexist hostility and rejection. Supporting Mr Julian Assange, is not about screwing him, but about politics, Mr Rose. Religious fundamentalism is anti women's right. it is racist, ageist, nationalistic, warmongering, and destructive in other ways too. Do click here to read a feminist report on religious fundamentalism, what strategies fundamentalists use and what strategies feminists use.
It is demeaning to depict Ms Jemima Khan in the way it has been done by Mr David Rose. He does not ask about her political opinions but just presses on with his green eyed view of a man who appears to have more adventure in his life than some people. Really, pathetic. Religious fundamentalism is seductive and if you read the report on the link above you will see also how even secular countries betray their female voters, oppress them, their reproductive rights and choice as well equality in other areas of life: economic and political. Ultimately, men prefer to be in positions of power rather than to stand by the politics that they advertised to the voters initially.

Some of us feminists have taken a big hit in the last ten years when merely trying to do our jobs properly as professionals because of the religious fundamentalism that took hold of British institutions as forced by the previous Labour Government under Mr Blair's leadership. Daily Mail did expose some senseless harassment of professionals, but in the context of party politics without always getting into the core causes such as anti women, anti children warfare being part of religious fundamentalism. It was just too scary to tell the whole truth to their readers in case it offends them, I guess.

Women can buy as many condoms as they like: male or female. So it is obvious that women that accused Mr Assange were not the particularly responsible and independent lot. In fact, they exhibit classic hostile dependency on men.

Also if Mr Rose did think about it, women who oppose abortion as A.A., accuser does, they also often oppose contraception. So when we really examine allegations against Mr Assange we find a lot of lies. Feminists can see through all of the deception, not because they are more clever but because they do not have the attitudinal problems like some sexist people on the right or the left do.

The report to which I have provided the link is by Ms Cassandra Balchin : Towards a Future without Fundamentalisms

Thursday, 16 December 2010

Julian Assange freed on bail by Justice Ouseley in High Court by Dr Helen Bright

I am delighted that Mr Assange is freed on bail, but unhappy that his freedom is limited because of the severe conditions imposed. He should not be on any bail at all. He should be a free man. Full stop.

Well, that is the life of the whistleblower being persecuted and damaged. Most people do not whistleblow even though majority of people do notice what is wrong. About one third of those who do expose wrongdoing suffer severe damage and the determining factor in their survival is how much support they get.

Justice Ouseley is hardly the risk taker and not great in emergencies injunctions type of situation either (I know from personal experience), but his judgment would be useful to me. I like the way he said: "The history of the way it has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial".

So what was Justice Duncan Ouseley thinking when he had the evidence before him how General Medical Council repeatedly stitched me up with their religious and biased tribunals? Well, he thought the case was weak. He did not think much of the fact that General Medical Council had to apologize to me for defamation either.

I would say some more Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is needed for British judges on whistleblowing. With their 16 hours a year for lawyers of compulsory CPD, I wonder if ignorance is an unspoken requirement for the job.

Yes, support matters a lot to how whistleblowers survive and men do have an advantage over woman in some areas but clearly there is no justice for either sex if you are a whistleblower and what has been disclosed offends/threatens the establishment. In my case it was, and it still is, that religion is forced on mentally ill. Of course, it is forced on children too. In fact, anyone who is vulnerable. Human Rights? Well anyone can read about it, some can write about it but not many have the ability to enforce them.

I notice that there has been some speculation about Mr Assange's personality by a psychiatrist at Fox media. This is so typical for whistleblowers. If Mr Assange was a doctor he would have been sent to some nasty forensic psychiatrist paid for by medical regulator like the General Medical Council in London.
It seems that having integrity as whistleblowers do is both illegal and unhealthy according to the establishment.

Tuesday, 14 December 2010

President Obama's response to UPR on whistle-blowing By Dr Janet Parker MS, DVM

Dr Janet Parker wrote to Dr Helen Bright:

I hope things are going well for you. I did want to let you know the progress I had bringing my concerns for the human rights of medical whistleblowers. On Friday, November 5, the United States underwent its first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. The UPR was a rigorous examination of U.S. human rights policy, and demonstrated that the U.S. has a long way to go to fulfill its human rights obligations.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that they are “endowed with reason and conscience.”

You will see that many of the issues presented by the Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network have been included in the report by the President. I was much honored to be asked to give direct testimony and to have the proposed language read to me by the Office of the Secretary of State over the phone prior to submission to the United Nations. Medical Whistleblowers need to have their human rights protected especially their rights to freedom, equality, and dignity. I was especially pleased that the President included the signing of the CRPD and the Tribal Indian Law Act; Medical Whistleblower supported both with active efforts this past year. I am also happy about the tone of the Presidents' message on many issues.

I have actively advocated for abolishing torture as a means of interrogation and asked the President to issue an executive order forbidding torture. I, as Executive Director of Medical Whistleblower, attended training in New Orleans with experts from the Physicians for Human Rights on the issue of torture evaluation. I, in person, discussed our challenges of torture evaluation of US citizens with important leaders in human rights such as the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis and the Canadian Center for Victims of Torture in Toronto Canada.

We also did discuss the death penalty - my state senator Marci Francisco helped present that issue to the President and I am grateful for her experience and knowledge of that issue here in my home state. As you know I did provide advocacy in regards to the possible death penalty for Dr. Lishan Wang MD who stands criminally accused of murdering Dr. Vanjinder Toor MD.

The issue of homelessness which I have actively worked on for 3 years also made the report - I appreciated the work of Attorney Eric Tars JD, Attorney Maria Foscarinis JD and other staff at the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

I have been happy in the responsiveness of our President on many fronts and over so many issues. We still need a greater acknowledgment of the concerns of the Mandated Reporters, Medical Fraud Whistleblowers, Defenders of Human Rights and Patient Advocates.
Greater consideration must be taken to assure proper criminal investigation of whistleblower complaints and protection of medical whistleblowers. US policies that are inconsistent with international human rights standards must be changed and political, economic and social rights need to be enforced effectively within our legal system.

Still, while the U.S. evaded some crucial questions, its participation in the process is a step in the right direction and I believe that the report is an excellent start.

Dr. Janet Parker DVM
Executive Director, Medical Whistleblower
Director of the working board Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network
P.O. Box C
Lawrence, KS 66044

Comments from Dr Helen Bright:

Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/8/25 , 23rd May 2008) Report of the Working Group for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland identified a number of serious breaches of Human Rights in UK.
It made various recommendations and many have not been implemented up to date. There was nothing specific in UPR about medical whistleblowers or whistleblowers in general although recommendation No: 7 did say that the rights of individual protesters to exercise their freedom of expression and opinion was not reflected in UK legislation which had not been harmonized with Human Rights Act 1998.

And here is what UK agreed to:
UK is quite complacent as it seems very happy that freedom of speech is fully protected.

Medical institutions in UK have been ineffective in protecting medical whistleblowers and have opted for the appearance of cohesion of medical profession by sacrificing of talented whistleblower doctors through its sham medical reviews at the General Medical Council and general means of harassment over many years.

Julian Assange Granted Bail by Dr Helen Bright

Julian Assange, Mega Whistle-blower star, has been granted bail following successful campaign by his international supporters (including D4J) and the legal representation including Mr Mark Stephens and Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC, barrister well known for his work in the area of freedom of speech.

We are grateful to feminist groups and individual women who came forward and this strategy has been most useful considering allegations against him and the absence of formal charges from Sweden.

D4J helped in another case of a male whistle blower accused of sexual assault and wrote to CPS who responded promptly.

However, I expect, defending male whistle-blowers is an easier task than defending female whistle-blowers as sexual politics is somewhat different. Women are expected to be even more subordinate than men when it comes to freedom of speech.

Secondly, whistle blowers are tortured mentally for years and attempts to completely destroy their reputations and life are relentless. For Mr Assange this is not news and he, as well as his lawyers, know only too well, the whole process will take years. While he may be struggling for his survival others will be making their way into comfortable retirements.

The humiliation of having to wear the electronic tag is only too familiar. Doctors who are whistle-blowers are forced by their medical regulators to accept unbearable conditions on their practice and are monitored beyond endurance across the world.

Whistle-blowers are also the victims of envy as those who speak up are brave and good people. Many powerful and not so powerful people do not feel good about themselves and once a whistle-blower is known not to be favored by authorities, a lot more new allegations could be made.

For me as a psychiatrist, it is fascinating to analyze the allegations as these tend to be of the projective nature. In other words false allegations really disclose what the accuser really thinks about themselves.

The more whistle-blowers are oppressed the more they speak up and this is their typical personality trait. Thus draconian authorities always lose this battle.

Wednesday, 8 December 2010


When I looked at the numbers of solicitors being investigated by Solicitors Regulatory Authority, I noticed that the majority of investigations affected people above the age of 41. This phenomenon of middle aged professionals being attacked with increased ferocity occurs in other fields such as medicine too.
Social prejudices have been well described in numerous publications, but are there any physiological aspects of aging that could be addressed? While social attitudes of ageism could take a long time to change are there any quick fixes?
The decline in the production of sexual hormones is more obvious in women, but in men it may be more subtle and over prolonged period of time. Many women take hormone replacement therapy, but what about men?
Symptoms of male "menopause" are decreased energy, drive, sweating, back pains and health problems. Click here to read more. These sort of symptoms such as decreased energy and motivation make one less likely to defend one self vigorously, effectively and before the complaints go any further e.g. to the regulator.
I know there are male lawyers who would rather let their spine crumble than consider hormone replacement therapy. To make the matters worse men do not have regular health screening like a woman of reproductive age may do. There is a lack of awareness as well amongst health professionals.
Interpreting some hormonal data can be difficult as it is not just the blood hormonal levels but also receptor sensitivity that matters. Furthermore, in the absence of base blood levels of hormones how can one say that there has been a significant decline?
One approach would be pragmatic and to ask different questions: Does it matter if one supplements without having all the scientific evidence?
Social prejudice is that as professionals get older they are out of touch and incapable. This makes us all more vulnerable to attacks as we get older.
Decrease in sexual appeal is equated with decrease in power in general: physical in particular.
While some organizations have policies against ageism at workplace these are often no more than several paragraphs saying the same thing all over again i.e. that ageism is prohibited.
These policies do not protect professionals from attacks by clients (patients) who could not care less for such policies. And if they read them, it is highly unlikely there would be any admission of guilt.
Stress has influence on a number of hormones such as corticosteroids and sex hormones. The effects on the body are, actually, widespread. Losing cases in court I would expect would lead to a drop in sex hormone levels. Football supporters get a rise in testosterone levels when their team wins. Bankers have higher testosterone levels when their investments are performing well. Yes, it is quite amazing what turns out to be sexy.
It could be argued that sometimes as we get older we have more responsibilities and are made to answer for other people's deficiencies (juniors, administrative errors etc) in a rather dysfunctional manner. As if they should not take responsibility for their own action or omission.
Repeatedly, women are described as professionals who are more caring and more risk averse. There are less women appearing before disciplinary tribunals than men overall.
However, those that do appear may be more severely punished for their transgressions of socially imposed sexual boundaries which expect women to be nice i.e. agreeable and not professionally assertive when they need to be.
Without risk taking how does one take the necessary professional actions?
When one examines the situation amongst doctors one finds there are no surprises as it is psychiatrists and obstetricians who have the most complaints made against them. Client factors matter too, one may observe, as well as the popular public expectations that professionals should be prepared to risk everything to get the job done for them but there are no client responsibilities. Should all patients/clients have to sign a document which places obligations on them to be decent to those providing professional services?
Taking into consideration that some people are totally incapable of acting responsibly (emergencies, lack of insight, mental incapacity) should a document be produced (and witnessed) at the time to such an effect for professionals' protection?
I have been unable to obtain the number of male and the number of female solicitors found guilty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in London when I asked them for this data. They told me they do not collect this sort of information. Ooops!
Unfortunately, professions will loose the privilege of self-regulation by exhibiting this sort of secrecy and power abuse.
High standards must be protected and expected and not punished by regulators as it has happened in a number of cases already.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

GMC decided their Fitness to Practice Hearings are in keeping with Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998 by Dr Helen Bright

General Medical Council has decided that their adjudication processes are in keeping with Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998 ( the right to a fair hearing). Reasons given: not many doctors appeal against their Fitness to Practice determinations.
Surely, that must be true, as there are some doctors who are having such good times in bed with their patients that they are too happy to appeal GMC decisions that allow them to do so.
On the other hand if a doctor appearing before GMC Fitness to Practice Committee is a woman who asserted her authority during the course of her work and told some male colleagues off, GMC will put" hundreds" of conditions on her medical practice to make it impossible for her to find any work, earn any money and pay lawyers to work on the appeal. So again, GMC wins as no appeals here either.
Medical defense organizations are run by doctors who fear for their own registration if they upset GMC. My experience is that they sabotage appeal requests.
MPS refused to protect women doctors who are defamed because in the words of one of their directors: "Women do not earn as much as men and are not as often in the newspapers". And when they are, MPS hides barristers advice from their membership fee paying member. Wicked.
Medical Defense Organizations can choose to drop the doctor at any stage from their books as the indemnity cover is actually discretionary.
Another reason why some people do not appeal GMC Fitness to Practice Decisions is because they kill themselves instead.
The third reason is discouragement given to doctors by depressed barristers who already know how useless the High Court in London is when it comes to appeals against the tyrannical, sexist and racist medical regulator. So, some people figured out it is just not worth the effort.
Fourthly, British law itself is incompatible with Human Rights Act 1998, so appealing to British Courts may be really silly. I wrote before about some Statutory Instruments. Now, new Statutory Instrument 2010/474 out this year further reinforces bad law. GMC FTP determinations are valid despite any defect in the appointment of any panelist. In fact, one does not even have to be appointed to sit there and judge a doctor. Any obnoxious individual holding obnoxious prejudices can get paid to sit at FTP.
Please, click here to read 2010/474 and you will notice that even wrong word found a way there. They appear to have intended to put in a word "hearing" but put "appeal" instead in Rule 7 (2). Yes, it is a big difference.
It is just GMC trying to prevent appeals against its stitch ups, but getting its pants around its ankles instead.
What a Freudian slip.
And yes, those boys at GMC think they can do it all by themselves. It sure did not take them long.

Wednesday, 1 December 2010


Top General Physicians Blogs Ward for Doctors4Justice has been gratefully received.

We are one of the winners of this award given by Nursing Schools Online.

It is nice to finish this year with an award especially for some of us who have been punished most severely just because we dared to communicate some unpleasant facts about the practice of medicine to the relevant authorities.