Support for whistleblowing nurse struck off by NMC

[Greegz]

As a matter of fact we are not posting from the same computer but from a shared internet connection (lptops are very mobile), does that mean that my opinions are any less valid than antijens because we know each other and share some of the same opinions?

[annaj]

No antijen, I haven't said follow rules regardless.

I have said do everything in you power to adhere to the ethical principles that guide your profession, because they are important, and if you feel you have absolutely no choice but to break them, then accept that you may lose you registration as a consequence.

I don't believe that a TV programme with pictures of patients was the only way change could have been acheived. I don't believe that not obtaining consent form every patient filmed, not just every patient "featured" was justified. I do believe that this nurse believed she was doing the right thing and feel sorry for her having lost her career.

As I say, I have answered every question and accusation leveled at me, you have not answered any of mine or responded to my attempts at reasoned debate except to insult me.

And as for the evidence that I have been accused of not providing, and since you and Greegz are so keen on links, here are The GMC Guidelines on Confidentiality Of particular interest are points 22 and 23 Disclosures in the Public Interest, which state that consent should be obtained unless it is not possible to do so, and in this case I believe it was possible. And section 29 Disclosure where a patient may be a victim of abuse or neglet which advises that confidentiality can be breached to without consent only if the patient doesn't have capacity to consent, and then only to a senior colleague or statutory agency, which in this case could have been the cheif executive, the director of nursing or if that was ineffective the NMC or the Health Service Ombudsman, but not the nation via a television programme. Now, obviously, I realise these are GMC not NMC guidlines, but as I said earlier I am talking about doctors because that's what I know about and since I have been accused of being uninformed I felt it best to stick to what I know.

And in case you're wondering why I continue to defend myself despite saying that I'm going to walk away, it is because you continue not only to misrepresent me and insult me but also to question my professional ethics, which I find not only upsetting, but very difficult to accept when you seem to have so little understanding of the issues I am talking about.

Edited to say - cross posted with a couple of post there and so it looks like I ignored them, which I didn't.

Greegz, no there's nothing wrong with sharing opinions and internet connections with another user, it's common knowledge that one of the other posters on this thread is MrJ, I just prefer openness. As I said in my last post I have reserched this case away from the forum and as it happens, my conclusion is that the judgement was technically right, although I think a lesser sanction than being struck off would have been more appropriate. The GMC often advises supervised practice or specific retraining and I think the NMC is harsher in it's judgements and not always rightly so. The reason I initially said I was reserving judgement was that, believe it or not, I wanted to open debate without being antagonistic to those supporting the petition. But since you insist on an opinion, there it is. Nice debating with you to, you seem to understand the concept better than your friend/aquantance/significant other/internet connection buddy antijen.

[antijen]

Have I broken a rule on this forum, I have a neighbor who is a nurse and a friend, and apart from some of the commwents directed at me on this forum, I care passionatly for nurses and patients, if I have broke any rules and if you sean are at the moment acting as adminastrator, I admit I did not read the rules before joining this forum, I also have grown up children who have often thought of posting there views, as individuals, therefore if they share the same ISP as me I take it there is no rule of confidentiality for them, are you saying each time someone puts up a post and has someone using the same ISP who agrees, you as administrated reports each finding. What is your criteria for giving this information. And does it apply if two people disagree using same ISP>

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not acting as administrator or even moderator antijen, nor do I think you are breaking any forum rules. Administrator himself can maybe clarify on the whole IP thing

But there is a lack of tact in some of your posts which have rubbed me up the wrong way so I called you on it, that's all. You seem happier dishing out insults than taking them, regardless of their foundation. That's nothing to do with forum rules, just bad manners

[annaj]

antijen, I'm not a moderator or andminstrator and haven't accused you of breaking any rule, because as far as I know you haven't. I did draw attention to the fact that I believed Greegz to be a friend of yours who had registered to support you, because, as I said, I prefer these things to be out in the open.

[Marmora Man]

May I summarise as I see it? The following three statements are,l I believe, uncontested?

1. A nurse broke the "rules" to highlight a serious problem that she had tried to resolve using existing formal / appropriate guidelines.

2. Nobody, including the nurse involved, disputes that the rules were broken.

3. Almost every commentator (including the NMC) seems to agrees that the problem was serious and needed to be resolved.

Given these three points the question is surely - was the penalty appropriate to the offense?

In my view it was not - by removing the lady's PIN number and her opportunity to work as a nurse and earn a livelihood has been seriously affected. This seems excessive - it would be a totally appropriate penalty for those clinical professionals carrying out, or condoning the abuse but not for the whistleblower herself. A disciplinary warning, possibly a temporary suspension and / or some retraining would have been a far more balanced outcome.

[annaj]

As I said four posts up MM, but I don't think anyone is actually reading my posts.

my conclusion is that the judgement was technically right, although I think a lesser sanction than being struck off would have been more appropriate. The GMC often advises supervised practice or specific retraining and I think the NMC is harsher in it's judgements and not always rightly so

[Keef]

Before admin said anything I thought they were the same person, because they use exactly the same sort of language, and insulting, aggressive nonsense.

People have signed the petition, be happy about it, don't have a go at people that take issue with it, it's called debate, and the world would be a fecked up place if we all just went along with everything without talking.

I have read the links, and stick to what I said before, so their. I was INFORMED, as you put it :))

[antijen]

sean. I asked you if you were administrating as I believe you do this on this site at times, but I can't be bothered putting up link, as it takes me so long due to lack of computor skills. I can believe this has been turned just from reading this forum and following threads, it has the feeling of a court room, where the jury is rigged, but who's defending what. When people decide to defend a system that clearly isn't working then they start defending thereselves. I do not feel nor was it my intention to insult individuals on this forum, I am merely expressing my views.

annaj Glad to hear you "prefer to get things out in the open" shame about the confidentiality code though.

[Greegz]

annaj, its not that i'm insisting on an opinion as you put it, i just feel that evidence has been presented, largely because of this case, that suggests that the system especially regarding the rules of confidentiality need to change. If every elderly or terminal patient had to wait years for investigations to be carried out regarding abuse or neglect, how many do you think will or do currently survive until the investigation has been completed? It's ok to post the guidlines on confidentiality etc as antijen has done also but to me it just re-iterates and highlights the current public and professional frustration and confusion relating to this. If you read the whole documents, they are very contradictory. Also, you stated that you are sticking to the GMC because thats all you know but this individual issue IS about a nurse and nursing ethics and is backed by nursing unions. Information is publically avialable. The point I was making was that it would maybe be better if you did have a fuller understanding of the individual case aswell as the wider national problem before opening up a debate about a nurse and nursing ethics when you have stated you know nothing about it. Lets not forget the reason for the thread being posted to begin with.

[Marmora Man]

I'm bowing out of this thread - too much name calling, too little debate.

[Sherwick]

Sean, I think that you should read your own posts before accusing others of bad manners!

Look, it's quite simple really.

It is wrong for care home staff to abuse patients.

Is it also wrong to film the abuse without the consent of all said patients.

Which is the greater wrong?

Or, which of the following two is more utilitarian in bringing the greatest good for the greatest number of people IN THIS CASE?

1. Pursuing the proper channels and not breaching patient confidentiality by not filming or broadcasting the film after not gaining consent?

2. Bringing the abuse very quickly to the attention of a national audience via Panorama - abuse that had been reported and had already given rise to over 5000 complaints?

In my view, the more utilitarian instance is number 2. This is because pursuing number 1 at best only benefits the patients in the film (who may additionally be harmed in any case by abuse if number 1 was followed - in fact they were harmed as the film showed). Number 2, on the other hand, brings a lot of benefit to those who were filmed, as well as benefitting other patients at the hospital who won't be abused, as wll as benefitting other future patients at the hospital who won't be abused, and potentially benefitting patients at other hospitals who won't be abused as staff are now scared that they could be filmed.

It's wrong to breach patient confidentiality yes. But it's more wrong to follow the proper channels to report this abuse because of the length of time involved, thus the extra amount of abuse that would have taken place (in my humble opinion).

[antijen]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,266337

My neighbours helped put up link.

Keef I am happy and thanks to all who signed, are you suggesting I should not have got into a debate, and supposedly take my diffrent views of this case where? I am being honest of what I feel, and if it be that I'm accused of above, I dont care.

[antijen]

Thanks Sherwick Totally agree.

[Huguenot]

I'm guessing that Greegz and antijen weren't at the hearing either?

In which case I assume that their argument is hypothetical, and by consequence no better informed than anyone else's?

I favour annaj's views because they're both circumspect, and pay reasonable respect to the conviction that you don't blow the rules of your profession wide open because you've subjectively decided that the time is right.

In principle I support the concept of the ultimate (whistle-blowing) sacrifice, but can't endorse an indiscriminate green light.

[Keef]

I'm with you I think MM.

[Keef]

are you suggesting I should not have got into a debate, and supposedly take my diffrent views of this case where?

Not at all, I was saying that without debate, the world would be a fecked up place.

[SeanMacGabhann]

By god you are trying my patience

You specifically asked if i was admin "at the moment". Your words. I said i was not acting in that capacity in direct answer to your question which is absolutely true. So why then insinuate i was lying then go to the trouble of posting a link to prove that i sometimes moderate ? What does it all mean ?!

[antijen]

You put it over in your post that I was unaware it was a debate when of course when people are looking from opposite perceptions it may become passionate and feel personal, this should not take you away from the issue, as this thread has now become for me.

[bignumber5]

What keef said.

Apologies for confusing everyone (or, at least, a select group) regarding Nuremberg: To Clarify: antijen denied bringing up the Nazis, yet she brought up Nuremburg. I was attempting to highlight that antijen had exemplified Godwin's Law in action, because the only other reason for bringing up that particular city would have been if there had been a similar ethics incident there, which there hasn't. My own brand of dry sarcasm doesn't always come over very clearly in print.

As for the "debate" on this thread, it pittered out long ago, when one side attempted to put forward it's 1st person understanding of professional ethics, and the other side simply blazed away at them without actually reading, digesting or responding to what had been said. That's not a debate. Debate requires 2 camps with differing views to allow eachother a voice, and to have the basic courtesy to listen. That's not what's happening here.

And that is why, like Deborah Meaden in every single episode of Dragon's Den, I'M OUT.

[Greegz]

exit the instigator

[Sherwick]

bignumber, I already identified above that the reason for bringing up Nuremburg was NOT because there was a similar ethics incident there.

[antijen]

Sean You are seriously going OTT, and I mean it, I did not put up a link to insinuate you were lying, it did not even come into mind. I put it up because I found it strange that the only way I knew you administered was by clicking the wrong button one day and being in the section linked. And I was confused when reading your posts on this thread, I thought it may make a diffrence for people reading and understanding who was controlling and also a link into that section. "What does it all mean?" You tell me sean, I know what its about for me.

[antijen]

I like things out in the open too.

[annaj]

exit the instigator

Does this mean you're leaving? I hope not, because although we don't agree, you seem to be actually reading what I'm posting.

I accept that you don't think you were pushing me for an opinion, but your posts read very much as if you were. And as Hugenot pointed out, I think I am as well placed as anyone else to have an opinion, since I have both researched this specific case and have an up to date and thorough knowledge of medical ethics in pratice.

I disagree that this case shows that the rules on confidentiality have to change or that there is widespread confusion within the professions about it. This case proves that at one unit there was an unacceptable level of care and the systems in place to prevent that and protect the vulnerable failed. And it proves that if you break the, in my opinion, known and understood code of practice you will face sanctions.

I do not accept that there was no possible way to take consent from the individuals filmed and I do not accept that a television expose with pictures of patients was the only way to change things and nothing that anyone has said has changed my mind. Even accepting that the normal channels of complaint hadn't worked there is always a higher level to report to - the NMC, the Health ombudsman, the police even if you have witness abuse, before the media. And even if you felt the media was your only choice than was it necessary to show individuals and if it was why on earth not take their consent?

Confidentiality isn't hard to understand it's very, very simple. We all have a right to privacy and control over information about ourselves and our health.

Finally, and please correct me if I wrong, but you seem to imply that abuse of terminally ill patients is a widespread problem. Is that what you're saying or have I misread? And if so, what is your evidence for that?