Dear General Medical Council,

On November 20th November 2012 Our ref: F12/5064/JM and with Public safety in our forefront regarding Dr Jane Barton we put a FOI to the GMC to confirm if they were following up with the authorities in other countries. The GMC response to my request was that "Dr Barton’s name has been included within these circulars on three separate occasions during 2010 and 2011".

We are still extremely concerned regarding Dr Jane Barton as the GMC failed to act and strike this doctor off the medical register, having been found guilty of multiple findings of serious
professional misconduct. This being Dr Jane Barton administering
high doses of Diamorphine and other controlled drugs at the Gosport
War Memorial Hospital to patients that were not dying nor in pain.

Mr Dickson stated at the PHSC Inquiry when asked the question by
the committee.."do the GMC notify other countries when a doctor is
at risk as they can disappear abroad and be a threat to others.. Mr
Dickson answered Yes, we make every effort to do so".

Therefore, since Dr Jane Barton took Voluntary Erasure and then
retirement please can the GMC confirm again that Dr Jane Barton has not worked since 2011?

(a) how many circulars has been sent out since with her name included?
(b)what counties are including on the circulars?

Regards
Ann Reeves

FOI, General Medical Council

Dear Ms Reeves

Your information request – F15/7170/EH


Thank you for your email dated 25 June 2015 asking for information we hold about Dr Jane Barton.

How we will consider your request

We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come back to you as soon as we can.

Who to contact

Elizabeth Hiley will be handling your request. If you have any questions you can call her on 0161 923 6314 or email her at [email address].

Yours sincerely

Mrs Mariam Ifzal
Information Assistant
[email address]
0161 923 6420

General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW

show quoted sections

Elizabeth Hiley (0161 923 6314), General Medical Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mrs Reeves

Please find attached our response to your request below.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Hiley
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council

Telephone: 0161 923 6314
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for this information.

Yours sincerely,

Ann Reeves

FOI, General Medical Council

Thank you for getting in touch.

 

We’ll get back to you as soon as we can with a further acknowledgement.
You’ll usually hear from us within 24 hours, but it might take a little
longer during busy periods.

 

In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website.

 

 

Thank you

 

Information access team

General Medical Council

Email: [GMC request email]

Telephone: 0161 923 6365

 

Working with doctors Working for patients

The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.

show quoted sections

Emma D left an annotation ()

Have just noticed that labour leadership candidate JeremyCorbyn actually sponsored the 2009 Early Day Motion in which Lamb and 55 other libdem MPs promised you a full judge led public inquiry http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2009-10/691 - do hope you rattle him by all means necessary to get him to honour his pledge , and to push for one into its predecessor , liverpoolcare pathway version 11 AND all those lcp murders of state funded dementia patients in bupa care homes from 2007 onwards that neuberger said 'we have no information on use in care homes'.

Emma D left an annotation ()

Noticed the gmc said barton has not worked since - you should ask them to confirm that there was no attempt on her part to re register under another name and carry on working ...they struck off a very similar sounding person shortly after they struck her off, who was working in the same area bartons brother worked in... Reg No 1523515 Carol Jane Barton - who was working as a haematologist from 19 Aug 1996 but graduated from cambridge BChir 1972 University of Cambridge
MB 1973 University of Cambridge - which was almost identical to Jane Ann Barton [BM BCh 1972 Oxford University] - could be???

Emma D left an annotation ()

and PS, the GMCs efforts to ensure the public are safe is not that thorough.

eg. ''Dr'' Colin Brewer voluntarily erased himself after killing patients, but has een the sole person used for 'mental capacity' reports for people going to dignitas from england AND in Oregon too (via Compassion and Choices, the sister organisation of the hideous government nudge unit ''dignity in dying'....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-... Maybe Jane Barton works for them too????? She wasnt that bothered with dementia patients either was she?

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Ir should be noted that the EDM sponsored by Norman Lamb was when he was Shadow Minister - He did not promise a Public Inquiry - that was out of his hands . There were a number of other MPs for other political parties who also signed the EDM.
When the new government came in at the election shortly afterwards all previous EDMs are swiped clean - which is the usual parliamentary procedure.
As I was the person who through a local Eastbourne contact managed to be invited to meet Mr. Lamb years ago , and had the invitation extended to include three other families and their solicitor, (I have had several meetings since ), I would offer the following advice to families and followers of What do they know :
Do not believe all you read in the newspapers and do not heed all you are told by families who know little of political procedures,law, drugs, medicine etc. Concentrate on your own case and ask yourself the question why progress was so tardy under a coalition Government or indeed even before - Mr. Blair et al were aware of my concerns.
Dr. Barton was not struck off by the GMC - she voluntarily resigned. Do get your facts correct before you rush off into publication.
Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

"Barton" like "Mackenzie" is a very common name. The Liverpool Care Pathway was not introduced in 1989.
Gillian M Mackenzie

Emma D left an annotation ()

1 Mr Lamb may not have promised the poster of the last comment personally a judge led public inquiry, but they clearly were not party to all exchanges he had with other 800 + affected parties.
2 Fully aware that LiverpoolCarePathway was not published until 2003 thanks - but as it formed the only govt. preventative response to GWMH and failed, it is highly relevant to interested parties.
3. Cannot understand why some of the cases were kept separate from others for years for sound legal reasons have suddenly been mixed together by this inquiry - a Judge would never have allowed that to happen. I can fully understand why many don't want to get involved and hand over any evidence to this inquiry.
4. The EDM was signed by several members of the then Labour govt- it was actually sponsored by a Labour MP.
5 I am fully aware of Parliamentary procedures wrt EDMs, but it is odd that Lamb asked the House for one , and did not order one when he was in a position to.
Also aware that an incoming Govt. is under no obligation to honour Inquiries ordered by outgoing ministers either - including this one into the GWMH. Is it still active? Nothing published on govt. website since Dec 2014 -

Emma D left an annotation ()

Actual EarlyDayMotion reads:
" That this House supports the calls for a public inquiry made by the families of the more than 90 elderly patients who died in extraordinary and unexplained circumstances at Gosport War Memorial Hospital between 1990 and 2001; expresses its dismay that despite the fact that concerns were raised first in 1991, the issue still remains unresolved despite repeated investigations by the police, a highly critical report by the Commission for Health Improvement in 2002, 10 inquests and a disciplinary hearing by the General Medical Council; notes that serious questions have been raised by the families involved and in the media about the robustness of the inquiries by the police, General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council; further notes that the police refused to disclose evidence to the General Medical Council to facilitate consideration of whether steps should be taken to safeguard patients safety; calls on the Secretary of State for Health to work with the Secretary of State for Justice in convening an independent public inquiry, recognising that only a public examination with equivalent powers to the Shipman inquiry could satisfactorily consider the complex nature of the multiple deaths and satisfy the public interest in learning lessons about patient safety in such cases; believes that the establishment of an independent inquiry is consistent with the Government's commitment to putting the needs of victims and their relatives at the heart of the justice system; and further notes that the Portsmouth Coroner and relatives of the deceased have supported such a call."

See it says " only a public examination with equivalent powers to the Shipman inquiry could satisfactorily consider the complex nature of the multiple deaths and satisfy the public interest in learning lessons about patient safety in such cases" - this load of horsefeathers inquiry ordered by Lamb doesn't have those powers - no evidence can be summonsed on oath, and if people want to ignore requests for info, they can!

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Please note the Shipman Inquiry did not take place until after a conviction in the Criminal Court.
15 cases only can be heard in a Criminal Court.
An Inquiry does not have the power to pass sentence. It has not finally been decided whether there is a case to answer.

This present inquiry with limited powers came about through the good offices of Stephen Lloyd, who was not an MP at the time and Norman Lamb.

How many families raised complaints against Police Officers with the PCA and later the IPCC - all upheld. Approximately 7 ! Mine was the first upheld in 2001 and raised on the 20th November 1998. How many families raised complaints against the Health Authority - complaints were raised in writing before my mother died . How many families actually approached their MPs.

How many families are aware of the modern hosp[ice movement commenced in this country in 1967 and the introduction of palliative care, terminal care in this country and the special training of those involved. How many families knew whether their relative was in palliative care or terminal care or even asked. Did they query . How many families had any experience of working with dying patients in a hospital or hospice or even in a palliative care, terminal care setting.

Nobody should presume to know the the content of my meetings with Norman Lamb . Shadow Ministers of Health do not have the same powers as Ministers of Health or under a coalition government when it first came in. - it was some time before Mr. Lamb was in a position to do anything re. an inquiry until another Minister "moved over".

What exactly have the 800 families done or did at the time of bereavement or indeed when actually registering the death . Did they accept the death certificates when they had concerns irrespective of the
official "warning " given by Registrars.

There are only a handful , if that, who have fought or are fighting for justice personally on legal grounds not emotional. Ann Reeves has done a great deal through F.O.I. on her case - I took a different path .
People do die - unfortunately many people are unable to face that - it remains to be seen how many of the 800 are genuine cases. I would be interested to know where the figure comes from of 800 involved in the GWMH. I had more than a few telephone me when there was publicity over Shipman families receiving compensation .

PS. There were 11 inquests , mine was kept until last although agreed by Jack Straw in time for the other 10
hearings and heard by a different Coroner some years later. 12 cases were heard at the GMC hearing.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Easy to change a name by deed poll.

It can be done at a solicitors.

:::.

5.2 Deeds poll 2004 to date

Contact the Royal Courts of Justice for details of enrolments since the end of 2003.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-...

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

It could be that some people are confusing the Inquiry etc, into the introduction of the LCP - which has absolutely nothing to do with the Gosport Inquiry for the period 1989 - 2001. Unfortunately some families have confused the two and involved themselves in both causing more stress to Gosport families. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Presumably you are all aware of the new guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence which covers a checklist of dying for GPs etc. mentioned in The Times 29th. July 2015. I would also suggest families involved with dementia patients join the Alzheimer's Society and find out all they can about different types of dementia - drugs used and how and why patients die. Ensure that the correct tests have been carried out - not based on the loss of hearing aids or spectacles !!
For those still suffering from bereavement more than five years after the event , I would suggest counselling, possibly with Cruse- and last but not least, have the confidence to question Doctors before the event - you can do it !.
Gillian M Mackenzie

Emma D left an annotation ()

There is a claim that there is no connection between the LCP and events at GWMH, then rather patronisingly, the statement 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'...Indeed it is ....the connection between the LCP and GWMH arises from one of the States positive obligations under Art.2 HRA, as the LCP formed one of the protective measures the State designed to prevent a similar tragedy arising again, and failed in a spectacular manner.

The other protective measure (the ''Shipman Safeguards'') have been removed by the CQC without recourse to Parliament using secondary legislation ...there is now no need for small contractors to appoint a CDAO at all. Quite why Norman Lamb has deliberately mixed together cases a) for which the victims families have already accepted negligence damages (which wipes out any HRA claim they may have had) with those who weren't after money at all and have fought for justice alone all these years , and b) cases that were kept separate for sound legal reasons with those in which there was no possible justification for the drugs prescribed or administered, which weakened the case, is beyond me - perhaps its is an attempt to weaken the cases of the latter, and allow the entire thing to be dismissed as 'poor care' rather than murder. He is a legally qualified solicitor, he must know what he's done there.

As to the 'new guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence which covers a checklist of dying for GPs etc. mentioned in The Times ' ..it actually does nothing but rebrand the LCP. We can't risk jeopardising Norman's flagship project for assisted suicide, can we :)

And as for recommending 'Cruse' bereavement for counselling? Since Norman Lamb's wife is intimately connected with them, and received £140K to train on the out of date version of LCP which failed to include a consent process even after the Mental Capacity Act came into force, I don't personally feel they are an appropriately ''impartial'' organisation to recommend, even if Mr. Lamb does:)

These people are not suffering 'a bereavement', they are the families of murder victims, and I wonder what the motives for referring them to an organisation so intimately connected to the ex-Care Minister and those at the top of NHS palliative care workstream when the LCP was rolled out (who are responsible for the corporate manslaughter of far more victims than there were at GWMH) actually are.

Emma D left an annotation ()

As I pointed out before, an incoming Govt. is under no obligation to honour Inquiries ordered by outgoing ministers - that includes the one into the GWMH. Perhaps you should check to see it still ongoing ? Nothing has been published on the Govt. website since Dec 2014 -

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Good point Emma.

Ms McKenzie is demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding.

Relatives of NHS patients who die may be suitable for Cruse.

Those relatives of patients who due to negligence are faced with being called obsessive, ridiculous, wanting to complain and facing everything expensive lawyers can throw at them. Mostly without the money to employ lawyers of their own.

They suffer prolonged injustice. And the consequent loss of belief in any fairness in the system - Which is a mental gamechanger.

A few chats with well-meaning Cruse volunteers just doesn't begin hack it.

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

The Hillsborough type Inquiry into the Gosport War Memorial Hospital was announced and launched in July 2014 after several hold-ups outside the control of Mr. Lamb. The Inquiry is ongoing with the Chairman Bishop James Jones in the Chair. It has a first class Panel of leading experts. Considerable further coverage was given in the media on the 30th. July 2015

It has nothing to do with the LCP which was an attempt to introduce first class palliative care and end of life care into hospitals - unfortunately it would appear, I would allege, that this did not include first class training
or I would suggest personality assessment of those who would be involved. Some hospitals already had good quality palliative care and terminal care - The Royal Marsden for one, from personal experience in 1984 - 1986 and is ongoing. Hospices are in the same class.

Those personalities who have involved themselves with both the GWMH and the LCP have caused considerable confusion I would allege - the two are separate.

I was unaware that Mr. Lamb had any connections with Cruse which offers, or it did when I was involved, first class counselling - unfortunately not pre-bereavement counselling which should also be introduced in palliative and terminal care settings for patients and families - I live in hope of that being introduced.

Do read the annotations I have contributed before rushing off and jumping to conclusions. Until then I can understand your assumption that I am patronising .Gillian Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Cases in the public interest for Inquests etc. are funded by the LSC - in my case backed by the Coroner. I live on a State Pension and Pension credit having spent any savings previously in trying to get Justice for all and incidentally being widowed with two young children in 1986.

Gillian M Mackenzie

Ann Reeves left an annotation ()

Thank you Jt Oakley and Emma for your advice its all very informative. I note Jt your many PHSO requests and your tenacity, part from the other quangos we too have had shocking abuse from PHSO under Ann Abraham at that time, the paper work has been never ending, certainly not for the faint hearted.
We wait with interest during this 12th Inquiry if we rid this not fit for purpose organisation.. even though I gather its going to be reintroduce under another name... part of the course!

Best regard Ann

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Good luck Ann.

Emma D left an annotation ()

It has always struck us as odd in the extreme that the home of the inventors of the LiverpoolCarePathway (the MarieCurie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool) was advertised as the benchmark and 'Gold Standard' for Palliative Care in the UK, yet has thus far been the ONLY unit to have been found guilty of KILLING A NON TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT - Jack Jones - he only went in for pain relief after his cancer had been successfully treated with curative surgery - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-... - the quack involved was not struck off but instead put in charge of training at the Liverpool Deanery , and thence in charge of training for no less than 2 royal colleges.
Though few if any of the poor GWMH victims even needed 'palliative care', had been put in the hands of the palliative care 'experts' who are now at the top of this field in the UK', they would simply have been killed a lot quicker than they were - .

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Good point - have no idea why Marie Curie ( Liverpool Care Pathway ) adopted when 1967 guidelines, assessed Doctors and Nurses selection in place - and Cecily Saunders Institute in London - together with top hospitals i.e. Royal Marsden second to none in palliative and terminal care for patients and families. Several Doctors and Nurses are totally unsuitable for this type of care - sympathy is not empathy.

There is a difference in palliative care and terminal care.
Remission is not cure as far as cancer patients are concerned although it may be the first step to that statement being made years later.

Terminal care administered to some patients on arrival at Gosport who were not even palliative care patients - some were there for respite etc. were not on pain-killers - enough said. Total dismissal of discharge letters from referring hospitals etc. with advice re. drugs , painkillers if needed - Members of the Public should be made aware and the same sentiments apply to the following sentence.

The sooner compensation lawyers are not allowed to deal with possible criminal cases - the better. If a case for the criminal Court - compensation if applicable -or not, will be dealt with.

Article 2 - the Right to Life was ratified under the European Convention of Human Rights in 1953 - it has nothing to do with the ratification of the 1998 Act in 2000 and "lawyers " who consider that deaths in 1998 do not come under article 2 because the adjustments in the 1998 Act were not ratified until 2000 - should go back in history and do some revision. I realise that a good many of them were not born then - I was well and truly taking an interest in law - and that does not mean I have dementia.

Health Authorities who employ medical staff without the requisite qualifications to deal with the dying ( terminal) or even palliative patients have a lot to answer - likewise civil servants - some politically motivated who fob off queries. ( "I could not possibly comment " The author of "Yes Minister " obviously knew a thing or two !. As for MPs who do not listen or take action on behalf of their constituents - words fail me.

Police Officers who dismiss families with concerns and take no action even when complaints have been upheld by the PCA regarding my report to them in October 1998 - and on and on -and on - but I do think the Hillsborough type Inquiry into the GWMH under Bishop James Jones will go a long way to getting families concerns addressed in the long run , and in the right place - I just hope I am still alive to know it.
Gillian M Mackenzie Queries re. a LCP Inquiry is nothing to do with the Gosport Inquiry and the two should not be confused.

Emma D left an annotation ()

In case anyone is confusing two pieces of legislation:

The European Convention of Human Rights in 1953 is here: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tre... - whilst I agree it originally conferred the 'Right to LIfe' on citizens, by expressing the state's negative obligation (ie NOT to take a life except under limited circumstances) only the UKs Human Rights Act 1998 specified the two positive obligations of the state after a life has been taken, i.e. (i) the investigation (and its nature) that must be held AFTER a state agent has taken a life AND (ii) the obligation to put protective measures in place afterwards to prevent a recurrence.
Compare the wording of the two http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998...

As there were 1,000s of recurrences AFTER Shipman and GWMH, the state's protective measures (the LCP ) clearly failed, and if the state is suggesting that the LCP was not one of the protective measures, they clearly breached their Art.2 obligations by failing to put any in place.

FYI : there have been several versions of the LCP: v.11 recommended prescribing diamorphine prn to opioid naive patients in combination with Midazolam and Haloperidol in a syringe driver. And all left in the hands of untrained staff - ring any bells ? That was found to be 'reckless prescribing ' by the CHI Inquiry into Gosport and at Barton's FTP hearing .

It is obscene that the Department of Health recommended this pathway at all in 2004 - they basically endorsed what had already been found to be reckless prescribing and unsafe practice by their own regulators and the CHI years earlier!

Emma D left an annotation ()

Whilst I agree that compensation lawyers should not be able to deal with criminal cases, perhaps the greatest enemy of an effective legal remedy in the UK is the fact that HM Coroners walk all over the evidence in medical cases, then leave the poor Police carrying the blame when the evidence mysteriously disappears before they seal it.

For most people, the only legal route to accessing medical records of dead loved ones is via a compensation lawyer by saying they wish to pursue a claim against the estate (see Access to Medical Records Act 1990, S3, (1) (f) . . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990... ) - oddly enough, once you have accepted a claim for damages, you wipe out any HRA claim you may have had. So anyone involved in GWMH who may have already accepted compensation doesn't have any right to an Art.2 compliant inquiry - why Lamb ( a solicitor) is mixing them in with other cases I can only imagine!

The Coroners give hospital staff full details of the allegations against individual practitioners before the records are secured - again and again, they get forged before being handed over.

Someone at the DOH says the inventor of the LCP is actively involved in the GWMH inquiry -he was in charge of the LCP farce too, as were the NHS EOLC teams who were vicariously liable for Corporate Manslaughter -basically, they investigated and exonerated themselves.
What other country allow potential defendants to investigate themselves and claims it has an 'effective' legal remedy for deaths engaging Art.2? Wouldn't surprise me if Barton was doing the typing for this inquiry , and they'd already decided to blame the Police, rather than her!

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org