Coming up this summer; a two-week General Medical Council (GMC) tribunal for the consultant psychiatrist to be held in Manchester in August, and four Nursing and Midwifery (NMC) tribunals.
- Four years after LB drowned, alone, in an NHS bath.
- Over three years after an independent report found he died a preventable death through neglect.
- Nearly two years after an inquest jury determined he died through neglect and serious failings.
It’s all going on this summer. The pipers are suddenly calling the tunes.
The NMC sent me (Rich has dropped off these communications without explanation) four identical letters last week which open with a cheery:
On behalf of the NMC, thank you for your time and commitment in helping us to investigate this case; your help is greatly appreciated. Without the evidence provided by witnesses we would not be able to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the public. We recognise the valuable contribution you have made to this investigation.
‘This case’? ‘My help’? ‘The valuable contribution…‘ Really?
Is humanity bypass a criteria for a job at the NMC? I’m all for change but spare me the vacuous Dambuster shite. LB died.
The letter continues by ‘asking me’ to provide my unavoidable (in bold) commitments in June, July and August. There is no reflection of the enormity of demanding these dates (after years of crap all action) so breezily, four times over, with a response deadline of ten days. No. The reverse. If those pesky bereaved parents don’t get their act together to respond, there is a simple fallback position:
If we do not hear from you we will assume you are available and proceed to schedule the hearings.
I’m then directed to a lengthy weblink which I have to retype from the letter to find out more (there is so much so wrong here but seriously, if you ain’t sending a letter electronically, a URL is as good as fucking useless).
It gets worse.
At each of these tribunals, the staff member is represented by a barrister who can ‘cross-examine’ the witness.
Giving your evidence in person also allows the opposing side, if present at the hearing, to ask you questions and test your evidence. This is vital to ensure a fair and thorough hearing.
The opposing side? I don’t think that the staff who should have been looking after LB are on an ‘opposing side’. What a terrible way to frame the process. But if there are opposing sides, surely both (or none) have recourse to legal representation? (Witnesses are not allowed representation). How can this possibly be a fair or thorough process?
The concerns and focus of these regulatory bodies should be on the integrity, professionalism and abilities of the people they register, not putting (bereaved) members of the public through trial and examination. There’s a shedload of evidence to draw upon to do this, including two weeks of inquest recordings, staff and other witness statements.
James Titcombe described his and his partner’s experiences earlier:
I have spent days giving evidence to both regulatory bodies, checking this evidence, finding supporting documentation and waiting for action. In the next few months, I’m expected to travel to Manchester and wherever in the UK the four NMC tribunals are held (using annual leave and making sure I’m available at all times), to be cross examined by five different barristers.
You can fuck your denim, sportswear and trainers ban.