Newsletter No.8
The
Queen's Golden |
Welcome to Issue No. 8 of "The Separatist", Wokingham & West Berkshire Mind's newsletter. In this issue we are featuring an article by our committee member and former secretary Denise Grimsdell. She and here family were at the march on 14th September where their T-shirt logos were a hit. Denise has had bad experience of NHS general and mental health services. Her trauma was treated by an independent trauma specialist. She still sees a hypnotherapist once a month and finds this helpful. Private medicine and homeopathic services found and treated the health problems that led her into the mental health system.
Denise has recently entered politics with her husband Richard, who is standing for the “Health & Community Issues Party”, founded by a patient injured by the NHS and insulted by its complaints system. If anyone would like information about the party or wants to contact Denise please send an email to heyes@ontheside.org You can read Denise's story in full below
New Crisis Suite Opened
We are pleased to announce that due to the efforts of our volunteer David McLean who has worked very hard in adapting our old utility room, we are now able to offer a much needed extra short-term crisis bed. The Official opening of the McLean Suite was held on Tuesday 11th March during our open day, which ran from 10am to 10pm.
I Sued a Psychiatrist and Won
by Denise Grimsdell
I sued a psychiatrist in defamation/malicious falsehood. I won. But what if the proposals in the Draft Mental Health Bill had been at his disposal two years ago? Would he have won? Although he had never met me he set in the minds of NHS colleagues the idea that I was a risk to others. A malicious intent set the scene for my displacement from society. If the bill had been in law would I have had an apology or a CTO, compensation, or an Order to remove my liberty indefinitely?
His
defamatory comments were made in a telephone call to an out of area
psychiatrist who noted them. They did not originate from the
opinionated judgements that collectively shape the psychiatric assessment.
He was not my psychiatrist. There was no previous psychiatric
history. Neither were they based on any test findings of medical
science.
Psychiatry is a pseudo-science, a phoney fraternity
that dares to call its members healthcare professionals. The
reality lies with the trail of over medicated, drug impaired patients,
stigmatised, isolated from life and sucked into the cult like no
return world of the mental health system.
It was determined on "hearsay" (his GMC defence - no action taken) that I was a risk to others but could appear normal whatever the definition of normal to the deformed logic of a psychiatrist. My loftily built psychiatrist was warned to watch his safety around a wasted (medical neglect of physical illness) middle aged female with arthritic joints.
The employing NHS trust refused to acknowledge his malicious action. There was no consideration for the negative consequences that would arise for my health. With his falsities on medical records I could expect prejudiced, inappropriate and defensive medical care. GPs, at the bottom of the medical hierarchy, rely on the investigations and opinions of consultants. They do not question them. On the contrary, they treat them with deference, like gods. If multiple consultants are involved the potential for perpetuation of error increases. The loser in this scenario is always the patient. This "snowball effect" is prominent in my medical history. It is one of the reasons I have not had an NHS GP for over three years.
Apart from the personal upset of the serious and false allegations against me, the psychiatrist had sabotaged an out of area referral to another hospital’s psychiatric department. I believed the referral would bring acceptance, recognition and treatment of symptoms brought on by a psychologist’s "therapy" methods. A psychologist who works with the offending psychiatrist.
The "hearsay" allegations arose from the husband of the psychologist complained of. He is also her boss. Unknown to me, (then) he conducted the Trust’s "full and thorough" investigation of his wife, giving a perverted twist to the term "Keeping it in the family"! I was not asked for any information. The NHS find this acceptable, an investigation I should trust. Ordinary people find it "abhorrent", "nepotistic", a "cover up". The complaints procedure was "fatally flawed". I was denied natural justice as well as remedial treatment.
The psychiatrist’s initial support for my traumatic experience was lost to "hearsay" originating from a husband covering up for his wife’s unethical "therapy". With it went more of my trust and respect for NHS medical personnel. His manner changed from "I may still have an article about abusive therapy", to one of written threats. If I continued to pursue my complaint I should be sectioned for assessment. My husband, if he continued to support me, must remain the other half of a delusional "folie a deux". If however, he gave me up for assessment "that would change the picture completely". We called it arrogance. Mind called it blackmail.
Our "delusions" were borne of naivete, nothing more. We believed NHS medical professionals to have personal and professional integrity that would put patient health above the interests of colleagues. We thought the NHS would be open to discussion and a professionally conducted investigation. Five years later, bitter experience and contact with NHS victims, relatives and campaigners around the country, sees us much wiser. The NHS does not give a damn about the victims of medical blunders or the consequences for family life. The priority is to protect its own. The aggrieved patient has two choices - shut up and go away, or raise a claim in the Civil Courts.
My legal claim was initially drafted in breach of confidentiality. I had seen a solicitor who advised I had no chance of a successful litigation because doctors can say and write what they like. I did not accept. I drafted the claim without legal representation, claiming only the costs (petrol etc) of the wasted journeys to the out of area psychiatrist. At the first County Court hearing the trust’s solicitor, influenced by the allegations, was fearful of me. Her remit was to have the claim dismissed by citing the psychiatrist’s qualified privilege. I argued he had no privilege as he was not my psychiatrist and did not know me. The judge was thoughtful for both sides so I used an analogy. I asked how he would feel if a doctor he had not met, who had not examined him, told his GP he would die of heart disease. He said it sounded like there was a case to answer in defamation. I was instructed to find a solicitor and given a deadline in which to submit an amended claim in defamation/malicious falsehood.
The claim was pushed to the High Court by the Trust’s solicitor who knew my legal costs would rise with the appointment of a barrister to act in the High Court. The Trust were aware that we were in financial difficulty due to the expense of private medical investigations and therapy and a long period of sick leave. Shortly after submission of the amended claim I received a Court Order throwing out the claim under Section S.139 (2) of the Mutual Health Act! I telephoned the court to correct the typographical error and struggling to contain my laughter, told the clerk there is nothing Mutual about the Mental Health Act!
The Order said I needed permission of the High Court to proceed with the action. I was bewildered. I had never been detained in a psychiatric hospital and had never been inside the local psychiatric hospital. I found the answer in a "Sworn Statement of Truth" submitted by the Trust’s complaint’s manager. In it she said I had been treated at the Trust’s hospital for psychological problems. The truth - I was referred for outpatient therapy. During one session a hypnoanalytic therapy technique was used without consent to probe all areas of my personal life except the childhood that haunted me.
Mind corrected the court and after another Hearing the claim was allowed to continue. I worked seven days a week to finance the restoration of my slurred name. I am principled and believe in paying my way.
Meanwhile, the Chief Executive, during a telephone conversation, spoke of the psychiatrist’s impending retirement and popularity with patients. He did not want legal action at the end of his career. I did not want legal action at all. I did not want the tremendous pain and symptoms caused to me, that I lived with from morning till night for two miserable years, without help because the Trust’s priority lay with protecting a colleague. I wanted the Trust to talk with me honestly, listen to me honestly, say sorry to me honestly, it won’t happen again. It is all any harmed NHS patient wants. Honesty and transparency are not concepts NHS medical personnel encompass, especially not in mental health where MH labels are routinely used to discredit complainants.
The Chief Executive’s view of his psychiatrist did not match that circulating on the patient grapevine or that of an ex-staff member who warned us of the Trust’s vindictive disposition. I knew from talking to patients that he was unpopular for a variety of reasons. As for his retirement - he retired, came back, retired, came back and as far as I know, remains in post.
For weeks legal letters passed between solicitors, the Trust’s certain of a win if the matter went to court. I knew the Trust had things to hide. Finally the letters discussed terms for settlement. The psychiatrist asked me to apologise for questioning his professionalism! No I did not! I was entitled to an apology in open court but did not pursue it, accepting instead a written apology.
The psychiatrist, who from my enquiries I calculated was earning £65000 p.a., was spared the lesson of his malicious action, the Trust settling the claim on his behalf with public money. At times I worked 12-hour days paying more tax the harder I worked. Perversely, the Trust used taxpayers’ money to defend their employee and taxpayer’s money for compensation! The psychiatrist probably had another long and restful holiday abroad!
Turning again to the draft mental health bill. My case illustrates the potential for error, be it malicious or a genuine mistake. The Royal College admits that 40% of psychiatric diagnoses are wrong but that estimate could be on the low side. Justified arguments against the Bill have been put forward and rightly so. I feel however that a fundamental one may be missing. If I admit to feelings of revulsion for mental health personnel it will surprise no one that I read an American publication called "Pyschiatric Fraud" which examines the world-wide atrocities of psychiatry. In one edition there is an eye witness account of psychiatrists deciding what elements of human behaviour be incorporated into diagnostic manuals, DSM and ICD. In a room thick with cigar smoke and jocularity of the social occasion, psychiatrists depend on a show of hands to decide on the judgements they will make of patients yet to consult them.
The Bill might get through. If it does, users, carers, campaigners and members of the public who sympathise, should not consider all is lost. I believe the Royal College oppose the Bill not only for reasons stated but because they know their members are already unpopular with users and carers. MH litigation has increased with the UK’s adoption of the Human Rights Act. Let us hope this is a continuing trend. Across the country there is currently a 15% deficit in psychiatric posts indicating the discipline is not a popular choice. If the Bill is passed prospective users and perhaps many existing users will avoid psychiatrists like the plague. It will be the sweetest poetic justice if users, carers and a wary public put psychiatrists out of work!
Saturday 24th May 2003 – Mind Street Collection in Wokingham town centre.
Saturday 14th June 2003– Alexander Rose Day street collection in Wokingham town centre.
Friday 27th June 2003 – Agatha Christie quiz evening at Station House 7pm to 10pm, admission £5.00 includes cheese and wine.
Read Back issues of the Separatist
If you have any contributions of suggestions for a future issue of our newsletter, "The Separatist" you can e-mail them to mailbox@wokinghammentalhealth.org.uk or send them to our address which can be found on the Contact page.
|
Registered charity number 1043426 |