How about one's life being saved after being hit by a car doing 69mph in '82 whilst crossing a dual carriageway - and all those hospital employees, wherever they were, giving me treatment which included: emergency ambulance to the hospital 10 miles away after being struck by motor vehicle, almost total blood loss due to injuries, followed by 3 months in Intensive Care on a life support machine whilst in a coma, then 13 major ops [bone grafts etc. for broken legs, broken arm + wrist, skull, bone in back], total of 7 months in hospital [leaving unable to walk, in a wheelchair], 2 years rehab learning how to walk again - but then, 30 years later one's GP [the professionally negligent Dr. M.H. at "Talbot Medical Centre", 68 Kinson Rd, Bournemouth, BA10 6BX and a few of the other characters at that location] blows it all away and doesn't do his job competently for 3 years and nearly murders one by dishing out a seriously dangerous drug [Respiridone] every single prescription without any checks or anything - not even mentioning it once during every fortnightly appointment, nor even checking its compatibility with the other drugs I'm being prescribed by him and there we have the utter negligence of the GP, and to an extent those colleagues of his I had to see also at the time - this entire shambolic behaviour leading to my collapsing 6 times because my heart stopped beating, and I fall to the floor, literally dead - it all caused by this very lack of checking the drug this GP's been prescribing me with no checks during the 34 month period.
After collapsing 5 times over a 6 week period because ones heart has stopped beating, collapsing dead and falling to the floor in the middle of the night, en route to the bathroom, I came around each time, freezing cold, on my floor, however much later and shortly after each time I went straight to the surgery the following morning when it had opened for an emergency appointment, but each GP I saw, after telling each one what happened hours previously when I had collapsed said: "you're fine, go home!" without giving any tests or anything - apart from 1 solitary occasion when a routine blood pressure test was given on my left arm before I was told to "go home"]. NOT ONCE were any checks done on the drugs I was being prescribed - none of that was ever checked at anytime as to the compatibility of the Respiridone with anything else prescribed, nor was the length of time I'd been on the drug checked either. All GPs seen failed impeccably to do their jobs properly. To me, this just shows the utter scandal of the incompetence shown by government employees whose luxurious and ever-rising salaries are funded by the taxpayer and are so high I doubt if any of them can put an accurate figure on what they actually receive in their yearly earnings - what with all the perks they get from drugs companies, plus the "bonuses" we hear about them getting - some of these GPs are a burden on the public, and nothing less.
After my final collapse, in late October 2007 and approximately 6 weeks after this nightmare began, very fortuitously for me I happened to have the emergency appointment with a particularly bright student GP on a training placement, who saw something wrong straightaway - I was looking very ill [as I did after collapsing previously before, but no GP I saw on those emergency appointments took any notice] and after I recounted the tale again, this female trainee GP finally took notice and sent me to the hospital there and then. I collapsed whilst in the hospital 2 days after arriving there and the following day a heart pacemaker implant was given, effectively saving my life - the collapsing being the direct result of nearly 3 years of being prescribed that drug without the proper supervision by "Dr. M----n H-----s", along with the other GPs I saw during those emergency appointments who also failed miserably to do their jobs properly at the time who did absolutely nothing when I saw each of them during the 6 weeks I was collapsing.
And apart from that, other serious and some life-threatening ailments also arrived as a result of this GP's negligence - S.A.D.S. [Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome] , and a "long QT syndrome", with Diabetes2 thrown in, and probably more too that I don't even know about, or haven't been told - but, worst of all - the shortening of one's very life due to having to have the pacemaker and all that goes with that...including dieing in one's sleep any night, any time, such is the nature of "S.A.D.S." combined with a "long QT syndrome". The type of pacemaker I was given can do nothing if the heart speeds up too much as it tends to do now, for no apparent reason [some pacemakers can counter this event], so if my heart speeds up randomly, even if I've just woken up from sleep - my heart can literally just burn itself out with the overactivity of it, and there is no remedy from the type of pacemaker I have, and I'm given a beta-blocker to take daily too, which is supposed to counter this life threatening side effect of the heart malfunctioning, but even though that's being taken, still the overspeeding happens, and I believe its only pure luck that it has ceased each time, or my meditating at the time - when I'm saying prayers, incidentally, as, at the times it's happening and my heart and palpitations are banging away and going crazy I know very well these could be my final moments. There is no "good side" to this GP's incompetence. It is, in fact, a death sentence, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
And then, just to top it all off - every agency one turns to for some kind of recompense regarding mainly the appalling negligence of a GP refuses to acknowledge anything that's happened. They, in effect, are condoning the GP's negligence by their inaction. When one's GP - who's supposed to treat properly the citizens he's paid so highly to oversee, even taking a "Hippocratic oath" in the process - is so negligent, effectively doing the opposite of what he's supposed to do by nearly killing one on at least 5 occasions too, no less, by not doing his job properly ONCE in nearly 3 years - isn't something very seriously wrong here? People have said some government agencies such as the IPCC and CQC are a complete joke anda complete waste of taxpayers hardearnt money - well I see the GMC, the ICO, NHS UK, and Dorset Healthcare, and Dorset Advocacy also as public scandals - all fronts for something they profess to be, but aren't. These frauds are a burden on every citizen - except those who reap the high salaries that goes with those jobs - another public scandal when that money could be put to good use elsewhere, rather than being wasted as it is with these quangos.
Google "Common Purpose" to see the extent of the mammoth scam that's engulfing the nation, its proponents all condoning each others treacherous behaviour, deceiving the nation wholesale in something that is a massive public scandal that few citizens even hear or know about - until something very serious happens to them, and then they find there's no remedy whatsoever to their predicament - least of all from the people they've been paying their taxes too for all their lives!
And, taking things a tiny stage further - suppose, just suppose: are there more who have been in a similar circumstance to myself, in any shape or form - who didn't make it through and stay alive? After all, Dr. Harold Shipman got away with killing his patients for years - 240+ of them it now transpires! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman
- how many other patients, if any - have fallen, and not lived to tell their tale? Are there any more? If so, how many??
Something is seriously wrong...and no prizes for guessing WHERE!!...
Do I sound bitter?...well, I'm not. But I do very much resent the fact that citizens trust their GP, and sometimes that is a very very bad mistake, because charletans are everywhere and are not exempt from those claiming to provide a service at a doctor's surgery. Far from it - my GP
H---hes let his patient down so badly that he nearly killed me by failing to do his job properly once over a massive 3 year period, leaving this patient with a life sentence after practising his gross negligence. And then everyone covers up for this disgrace of a GP?
What a joke!
Updated, from 23/10/2014: http://butlincat.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-surgery-your-medical-health-records.html
Concerning my interractions with my local surgery, I had cause to write to someone recently about what I had experienced. This is what I wrote:
After more months of stonewalling and prevarication, and many many letters having to be sent to them by recorded delivery [or someone there at the I.C.O. would claim my letters didn't arrive], and also having to wait while my so-called "caseworker" returned from a seemingly endless amount of "holidays", the ICO also defended the doctor, by backing the GMC's response to my complaint, including denying my evidence of a photograph taken on my mobile phone on the day of my F.O.I.A. request for my medical records was credible, denying also the credibility of the audio recording of my conversation with the receptionist I spoke with who gave me the F.O.I. form there and then on that day, and to whom I gave back the filled in form after photographing it. A complete and utter dereliction of duty by all concerned.
Excerpt from the email received from the "Information Commissioners Office" [I.C.O.]:
|date:||15 November 2013 15:27|
The chronology of the case
Your original complaint to the ICO was received on 12 August 2013, stating that you had attempted to obtain a copy of your medical records. You included a copy of a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request) and a CD containing an audio file where you discuss how to make a request with the medical centre.
You sent a further letter on 24 August 2013 confirming that you had still not received a copy of your medical records and enclosing correspondence sent to the General Medical Council about your treatment. There was also what appeared to be an incomplete copy of a form sent to a Talbot Medical Centre, but the copy was incomplete and of such poor quality as to be largely unreadable.
A case officer, S A, contacted you on 6 September 2013 requesting further supporting documents – specifically, a full copy of your request, confirmation of the identity of the organization involved, any acknowledgement received and any other related correspondence.
On 7 September 2013 you wrote to Mr A stating that you had already provided this information, but also confirming that the request had been taken from you by the medical centre and that you had not been given a receipt.
You then wrote to the ICO on 10 and 11 September 2013 asking how to make a service complaint, stating that, “I see this Mr. "A"s actions of being either to take an extortionate and unnecessary amount of time over processing my application to the ICO - simply to make me wait as long as possible, or, failing that, amongst other reasons I could include I believe his actions are meant to cause me unnecessary stress, and to generally mess me around.”
Mr A sent a copy of our Case Review and Service Complaint form on 17 September 2013.
On 20 September 2013 you left a voicemail with Mr A and rang our helpline saying that you did not wish the service complaint to be pursued.
You asked for another copy of the service complaint form on 23 September 2013. Mr A sent this on the same day, reiterating the further documents required.
You wrote to Mr A again on 27 September 2013 saying that your solicitor would like to speak with him and asking when it would be convenient to ring.
Mr A replied on 4 October 2013 saying that he would call your solicitor on provision of a telephone number and authorisation to discuss the case.
On 8 October 2013 you wrote to us again reiterating your complaint in more detail. In this letter you confirmed that you had taken a photograph of the request form with your mobile phone.
You asked for a manager to review your case on 26 October 2013.
The actions taken by the case officer
First I feel that I should explain that the ICO is an evidence-based organisation – without proof of a request having been received by an organisation is it difficult to make an assessment against them.
I consider that Mr A was correct to ask for further evidence in support of your initial complaint. Neither the documents provided or the audio CD showed details of the request made, nor did they show proof of receipt. Asking for copies of these to be provided follows our standard procedure and ensures we have the best quality of evidence available to present to the organisation when we approach them.
The address of the medical centre provided to Mr A in your second letter did not match that in your original complaint, which itself was incomplete. As you will appreciate, it is important that we are certain which organisation is the subject of the complaint. I note your comment that, “I filled in your form with information from the internet”, but no ICO complaint form was included with the documents sent in August.
After sending this letter you requested a case review. If the complaint is about the case officer handling the complaint, the correspondence would automatically be passed to a manager for a review of the actions taken up to that point, and Mr Anderson therefore ceased work on the complaint and sent the case to me for review, as advised on 28 October 2013.
Having reviewed the documentation, there are two specific areas in which our service could have been improved.
Mr A did receive your message of 20 October 2013 and responded within his letter to you of 23 October, rather than calling you back. Although I do not believe he intended to cause deliberate inconvenience, we would generally expect case officers to return calls made to their direct dial lines. I therefore apologise that this did not happen.
In this letter he made a further request for a copy of your original subject access request. However, you had already informed him that you do not hold one as it was taken from you by the medical centre.
As part of my review of your case, I have contacted Talbot Medical Centre to ask them whether they have a record of receiving your subject access request. I can confirm that they have no record of a subject access request from you. The evidence you have supplied does indicate that you have made an approach to Talbot Medical Centre regarding a subject access request; however you have been unable to provide a copy of your request. "
On 22.11.2013 22:03, I wrote [full email]:
"Dear all,Regarding this email received from the ICO, stating: "You have asked that I provide you with a copy of ‘a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request)’. I have attached a copy of this document." - of course you haven't attatched any document with the email as you claim. What are you going to say - that my email system isn't working as it should? It doesn't surprise me one bit theres no attatchment as you claim as my entire case I presented to you has always been treated completely unsatisfactorily.As far as I am concerned the rest of the email sent is to be treated with that which it deserves - contempt. I did not give you permission to discuss my case with anybody - simple as that, but you have, and now you bandy words and quote small print to justify your actions.Put simply, if you receive a complaint about an FOI request being ignored by whoever and the complaint is not to your liking the person making the complaint is treated like an idiot. For example my having to deal with the bizarre interractions with a "Mr. Anderson" there at the ICO who seems to send the same letters over and over again asking for the same information hes been sent over and over again with spaces of weeks in between each request from him so as to browbeat the subject who needs his case looked at, and also to drag the whole thing out - perhaps to wear down the complainee, hoping he'll simply "go away" and give up.Well I didn't and I find also you deliberately misinterpret what is written to you, and in general make a mockery of the entire proceedings of dealing with anyones complaint if it doesn't suit you, or somebody connected to you or you are ordered to.My dealings with you I feel have been most unsavoury and completely biased against me - yet you quote your "rulebook" and other get-out clauses and find reason for this and that in order to show you are whiter than white when the whole world and his brother knows us small fish are in no way going to get any justice from these bigger fish such as the "ICO". The way my matters have been dealt with, from my unanswered call to this "Anderson" employee earlier that was ignored that i wrote to you about, to the fact that its claimed I made no such FOI request to the surgery in the first place when I can take you to the very person at the surgery i gave the form to after being given it by her and filling it in there and then, and recording the conversation with her after filling it in [which i sent to you months ago along with photocopies of photographs of the filled in parts of my FOI request made on that day Nov. 14 2012] is unacceptable. Your very email im answering here claims to have attatchment but doesn't - all this and more I find completely unacceptable and you are not fit for purpose, and it sickens me the way you deal with things, especially dragging things out and treating people as if they don't exist - all done in order to protect the people who have done the wrong in the first place - my surgery and its lieing employee who claimed I made no FOI request. It is truly disgraceful how you act and get away with things.We know the reason for my being denied my medical records is because it contains the evidence that I was prescribed a drug for too long - years - and I was wrongly unmonitored whilst being given it too - not having any conversation or anything with the prescribing doctor about this medication during the approx. 2 years of his prescribing, this drug being prescribed for so long it caused my heart to malfunction to the extent that a pacemaker was needed - thus shortening my lifespan as a result.[kindly do not get me wrong - when one has to go one has to go, no problem - but to be forced into a situation because of a dr's failure to keep to a specified code? No way!]. This is why the receptionist at the surgery has said, as you claim, that I never made any FOI request for my medical records on the 14 Nov. 2012 - to cover things up. Really? I restate I have photographs of the filled-in parts of the form taken on 14 Nov. 2012 when filling the form in, along with a recording of the receptionist speaking to me made directly after giving her back the filled in form at the surgery on the 14 Nov. 12. Yet you take this receptionists words over mine.And you keep asking for a receipt im supposed to have been given from the surgery for my handing in of the form. I repeat - no such receipt was given to me then or after, [and I do not even believe this is standard practice for any receipt to be given to a claimant and I was being misled by the ICO by being asked for it - if a receipt was supposed to have been given then the surgery, and this woman, is in the wrong yet again as no receipt was ever given to me!] and on 3 occasions I was told I would be hearing from the surgery regarding my request when I enquired about it - the 1st occasion being on the 14 Nov. 2012, and the further 2 occasions this year when I enquired at the surgery about what was happening to my request to them] Never has anybody from this surgery contacted me ever as they said they would. Yet you protect these neer'do'wells by dismissing my bona fide complaint.I told the receptionist at the time on the 14 Nov 2012 I would pay the £50 fee she quoted there and then, if I may. I was told I couldn't pay then and I would be hearing from the surgery within days, but nobody from the surgery has ever contacted me about my request.It is strange I was told on the 14 Nov 2012 by this receptionist there would be a £50 fee for my records, but when I enquired at the surgery last week about fees when obtaining a new FOI request form the figure of £10 was mentioned by a different female employee by the name of "Jo".Could it be my interraction with you and your interraction with the surgery has caused them to quote the proper fee, that of £10,and has your interraction caused the surgery to stop telling members of the public who wish to see their records the off-putting figure and grossly exagerrated fee of £50?Could it be that I was being "put off" from getting my records in the first place on the 14 Nov. 2012 by being told there would be a £50 fee, but to their horror I offered to pay this ridiculous sum there and then? All would be fiercely denied by the surgery and one wonders about it all but I know which id put my money on.And I already have stated I want no compensation of any kind other than these characters who are causing my early death never be able to act as they have again - from this "doctor" who gave me the offending medication without any monitoring of any kind and the receptionist who lies who is part of this denial for me to have my medical records, to you - the ICO - who dismisses bona-fide cases such as mine because a] they are either ordered to or b] because you don't like my face and wish to protect irresponsible characters, or c] because its all too much for you. All mentioned are in the public pay, of course shown.My very first letter to you regarding my case you claim you didn't receive, or at least somebody there told me after I enquired by phone about it approx. 2 weeks later after sending the letter, this female telling me to send letters by recorded delivery only from then on. I knew then it would be an uphill struggle to be heard at all, and that every letter to you would have to be sent via recorded delivery, which they have been. Another "off-putting scenario here? - having to lay out £2 a time to answer letters id already replied to and sent the required information for? No wonder "Mr. Anderson" was making me reply to his constant letters asking for the information id supplied on so many occasions - each by recorded delivery, but no, I did not "go away".Each time I called "Mr. Anderson" by phone it was impossible to talk with him - he was either "on holiday" or not available, or "at lunch", and the message i left on his ansaphone wasn't answered at all - yet you claim it was, by letter, 6 days later. The phone system you have whereby you give the phone no. and extension no. for the person - in my case "Mr. Anderson" looks good - but of course is completely meaningless and doesn't actually work as my recordings show.J. Graham"
On 22 November 2013 15:55, <email@example.com> wrote:
PROTECT22 November 2013
Case Reference Number RCC0518260Dear Mr Graham,
Thank you for your correspondence dated 16 November 2013.
Our correspondence to you of 15 November marked the end of our review procedure. I can assure you that the confirmation of our assessment contained within that letter represents a full endorsement of our decision in your case, and follows ICO guidance.
You have asked that I provide you with a copy of ‘a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request)’. I have attached a copy of this document.
You have also stated that you did not give permission for the ICO to communicate with the surgery. I would like to draw reference to the complaint form you completed which clearly states ‘I understand that during any necessary investigations, the ICO may need to share the details I have provided so they can investigate. I have indicated any supporting documents that I do not want the ICO to share.’
You also sent a Freedom of Information request to this office on 12 November. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 must be answered within 20 working days. In response to your request I can confirm that clarification of our current service standards can be found here
In addition, as specified in correspondence to you on 28 October 2013, we informed you that a detailed response to the Case Review would be provided to you within 28 days. As outlined previously, in the event that you are dissatisfied with the service you have received from us or feel that we have not acted properly or fairly, you are entitled to raise this matter with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through your MP. If you are not satisfied with the way in which we have interpreted the law you should consider seeking legal advice. Yours sincerely,
Team Manager – Access Rights
DO NOT LET YOUR SURGERY MAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS, UNLIKE THE DRUGS THEY PRESCRIBE...[allegedly, of course].[you can try and stop your records being used, as described below, but they, of course, will ignore that, and still do it]
How to opt out of care.data
First, download an opt-form:
- Here is a .pdf leaflet, which can be printed double-sided and folded (fits in a DL envelope)
- Here is a .doc leaflet, which can be filled in on your PC and either printed or emailed to your GP surgery (if they allow you to email them)
- An opt-out form available in .pdf, .doc or .rtf format is available from medConfidential
- Your GP surgery may have its own opt-out form downloadable from its website.
Fill a form in, and hand it into, post it to, or fax it to your GP surgery.
If you prefer, you can just write a letter to your surgery.
- State that you wish to opt-out of care.data
- Request that both the 9Nu0 and 9Nu4 codes are added to your GP records
- Remember to include full names and dates of birth (and your address if you are happy to)
The two opt-codes (9Nu0 and 9Nu4) will be added to your GP record by your surgery.Remember to opt-out your children, or those for whom you have parental responsibility, as well.
Your children's medical records will be uploaded too unless you opt them out.
If you think that your GP surgery might not be fully aware of their obligations under care.data then add this to your letter:
"Please see the 'BMA FAQs - care.data guide for GP practices' document, at www.tinyurl.com/cdgpfaqs , for information about care.data and the relevant read codes"
- Do not make an appointment with your GP
- Do not arrange to see your GP surgery's Practice Manager
- Do not ring your GP or GP surgery
Remember: if you opt-out now you can opt-in at any time in the future - if you are happy to, when you are happy to, and at a time of your choosing. There is no deadline to opt-in by.
It's your data, you should be in control.
The NHS England care.data leaflet entitled "Better information means better care" that all households were supposed to receive by junk mail deliberately did not include an opt-out form.
Do print off copies of an opt-out form and give to your family, friends and colleagues, or email it to them, send them the link to this site (or to medConfidential), or share this information on social media sites.
This site is also available as a simple Facebook page.
It should be as easy as possible for everyone who wishes to opt-out of care.data to do so.
below - docs got from the hospital in 2007
GP Harold Shipman
Shipman c. 2000
|Born||Harold Frederick Shipman|
(1946-01-14)14 January 1946Nottingham, England
|Died||13 January 2004(2004-01-13) (aged 57)|
HM Prison Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England
|Cause of death||Suicide by hanging|
|Other names||"Dr Death",|
"The Angel Of Death"
|Criminal penalty||Life imprisonment (Whole life order) plus 4 years for forgery|
Span of killings
|Country||England, United Kingdom|
|7 September 1998|
The Shipman Inquiry, chaired by Dame Janet Smith, began on 1 September 2000. Lasting almost two years, it was an investigation into all deaths certified by Shipman. About 80% of his victims were women. His youngest victim was a 41-year-old man. Much of Britain's legal structure concerning health care and medicine was reviewed and modified as a result of Shipman's crimes. He is the only British doctor to have been found guilty of murdering his patients, although various other doctors have been acquitted of similar crimes in the country.
Shipman died on 13 January 2004, the day before his 58th birthday, after hanging himself in his cell at Wakefield Prison.