Public Questions – Evaded

cropped 4905959_s

Here is how Southern Health treats patients and family members when they ask questions at public board meetings.

As dunces, dimwits and idiots.

 

 

There were three questions at the Board Meeting on 26 February 2016 in addition to that posed by Mrs Younghusband, reported at https://mydaftlife.wordpress.com/.

Draft p 21 2016-02-18 001aQuestion 1

Non-answer but funny how they can get the wording of the question exactly right when they are not going to answer it.

Conclusion:

Either there is no-one on the Board with an ICD-10 or DSM-IV condition or they are too worried about the stigma attached to mental illness, even though their patients evidently have to ‘go public’ to obtain any form of justice.

Question 2:

Non-answer and they do not even publish the list of alleged un-investigated incidents: see https://999crash.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/questions-questions/.

Conclusion:

Southern Health does not think that patients have the right to know if they are likely to be at risk of HIV, Hepatitis and degrading treatment etc. and what has been done to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

The Chairman will involve Mr Hill in reviewing the handling of his complaint – the complaint on these items was not handled in the first place – it was avoided: there is nothing to review.

Question 3:

Draft 22 2016-02-18 001b

 

Minutes incorrect:

Question asked:

“Does the Chairman have a zero-tolerance policy towards breaches of the law and dishonesty. When there is prima facie evidence of such conduct, which arguably is corrupt, will he suspend any officials pending a full disciplinary inquiry”

Where has the word ‘policy’, used in the Minutes, come from?

Actual answer given:

i)   The Chairman answered: unequivocally, “YES” to breaches of the law.”

ii)  The Chairman said that we had different ideas on what constituted dishonesty. 

Mr Hill responded that he considered dishonesty to include not just dishonesty per se but when professionals (by their professed expertise) should know they are being dishonest, i.e. the knew or should have known test for negligence established in Bolam.¹”

Where did the word, “Wilful” in the Minutes come from?

Just like common law principles that have been in existence since the Magna Carta, the common law principle of, ‘Ignorance of the law is no defence’ is unknown at Southern Health.  

If stopped for speeding, try, “But I didn’t do it deliberately officer.” Up go the chances of the police issuing a ticket – or even upgrading the charge to driving without due care and attention.

Even McNair J’s ordinary man on the top of a Clapham omnibus¹ would know this but apparently Southern Health officials do not – as least, if it benefits them.

¹ Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s