Skip to main content

Legal "perfect storm" building for medical profession and social workers - Hemming writes to Attorney General; refers North Staffs hospital to informa

In the context of a "perfect storm" of a number of court and GMC cases campaigning MP John Hemming has written to the Attorney General raising the question of medical expert witnesses who have a conflict of interest providing evidence. He is also referring the University Hospital of North Staffordshire to the Information Commissioner.

John Hemming said, "there are some very important issues going through the courts at the moment. Many of these are, in fact, interlinked. Most of the people working in Social Services have good intentions, but there have been large numbers of appalling miscarriages of justice where families have been destroyed for no good reason.

"There are a number of cases going through the courts at the moment that will reopen the question as to whether the government has simply covered up the failure of the system. Margaret Hodge's review of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy only found one case which was found to be in error. However, the main proponents of the MSbP thesis and the thesis itself still face numerous challenges in court."

"The secrecy of the family courts has allowed much of this to happen. False allegations have been made by a small number of paediatricians and social workers. These have simply been taken at face value. It is much like the working of the Witchfinder General of Essex Matthew Hopkins who made a very good living in the 1600 falsely accusing women of being witches. Some hundreds were executed. The same process today has resulted in the destruction of large numbers of families and effective life sentences for innocent mothers. Professionals should not be allowed to hide false evidence behind the secrecy of the family courts."

One of the cases involves allegations of Salt Poisoning.
A 15 month old child died in hospital and his mother is being prosecuted for poisoning him with salt. John Hemming MP said, "this case is one of many where a baby dies and the mother is blamed, but the evidence for that is provided by the clinicians who would otherwise be responsible for the child. This is a sad situation and we are wrong as society to always look for someone to blame. Yes, if there is a positive act determined to end the life of the child then action should be taken. However, there is a clear conflict of interest when the people responsible for the health of the child are giving expert opinion to be taken as fact. The outcome of this case will be interesting. It correlates with a number of other alleged Salt Poisonings."

A second case relates to the GMC and Roy Meadow,,-6171779,00.html
John Hemming MP said, "here we have a very similar issue one relating to medical expert witness evidence. There has to be some ability to control the quality of medical opinion offered as evidence. Many women were prosecuted on the basis of "Meadow's law". Meadow's law was shown to be statistically flawed mumbo jumbo. It should not be the case that there can be no constraints on expert evidence that is basically rubbish."

A third case relates to allegations of MSbP in Scotland.
John Hemming MP said, "although this case relates to Scots law it is exactly the same issues as the other cases. The outcome of this case will have a bearing on issues in england."

A fourth case is in the English Family courts and has not been reported on.

A fifth case relates to the quasi-judicial proceedings against Professor David Southall
John Hemming MP said, "this GMC hearing which relates to the holding of secret medical research files by Professor Southall is also interlinked. Professor Southall was one of the key expert witnesses who provided medical opinion that destroyed families."

"There remain thousands of files that the patients are unaware of. I am referring the University Hospital of North Staffordshire to the Information Commissioner for their failure to act to tell people that these files exist."


Notes for Editors
The following Early Day Motions relating to these issues have been tabled

That this House notes that over a large number of years Professor Southall has performed risky, interventionist, non-therapeutic, experiments on babies and young children that have been demonstrated to have caused medical difficulties for some of the babies and young children; further notes that project E5 involved over sedating babies, misleading parents as to the discomfort and risk faced by their babies and giving carbon monoxide to babies with respiratory problems; further notes that this has been reported to the General Medical Council; and calls for the General Medical Council to explain why no action has been taken.

That this House notes that according to the report written by Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work of Professor David Southall in the report written for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies'; believes that such comments are important comments that require proper consideration; is surprised that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research.


That this House notes that guidance from the Department for Education and Skills, entitled Safeguarding Children in Whom Illness is Induced or Fabricated by Carers with Parenting Responsibilities, says that `when a "possible" explanation for the signs and symptoms of illness is that "they may have been fabricated or induced by a carer", and as a consequence the "child's health or development is or is likely to be impaired", a referral should be made to the social services department'; further notes that the effect of the above is to require parents alleged to have induced illness in their children to prove their innocence, rather than to require those accusing parents of inducing illness in their children to prove the guilt of parents; and calls for a review of this guidance.


That this House notes that taking fewer children into care would facilitate the provision for better services for those who have been taken into care; further notes that many children have been taken into care in error in the past; further notes that there is a conflict of interest between social services acting as a supportive service and social services acting as an enforcement-based service; and calls for the Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Skills to review the option of taking the enforcement role out of social services and into a specialist agency.


That this House notes that Professor David Southall has maintained Special Case files including details of research he has managed on many thousands of babies over a number of years; further notes that it is the view of the Chief Medical Officer that copies of such information should be given to the patients who range throughout England and Wales from Birmingham, through Barnsley to Banbury and Bristol; regrets that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust has not as yet done so; and calls for the UHNS Trust to act to rectify this situation.


john said…
There is one error in the above in that it is McNeish not McLeish, but under the 1688 Bill of Rights Article 9 I need to quote precisely.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…