Skip to main content

Sleep Studies

The story now moves to Cardiff. In 1989 Ben Hollisey-McLean was a 3 year old child who had, had breathing problems since birth. Dr David Southall became involved when his parents asked his Consultant at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) if a monitor they had seen on television being promoted by Dr Southall would be more suitalble for Ben than the apnea alarm they were currently using.

Ben and his parents saw Dr Southall in 1989 at the Royal Brompton Hospital in London. Ben underwent sleep studies and unbeknown to his parents a secret file was opened in relation to him (SC2026). Ben underwent further sleep studies at the Brompton Hospital in March 1990, on this occassion his parents were offered a monitor and a totally different treatment plan was suggested to the one they were following under the advise of Ben's only clinician of record at GOSH.

Ben's parents were confused and concerned in regards this new treatment plan among other things they felt that the "Regime"might affect his qualiy of life, by this time Ben was 4 and a half and in normal school and so they said they would like to discuss it with Ben's consultant at GOSH. On advice they turned down Dr Southall's "regime". Unbeknown to Ben's parents Dr Southall wrote a letter to various parties, this letter explained that if Ben's parents decided to follow his plan, he would be waiting and ready to implement it but then went on to make suggestions about the parents motives if they declined his offer. This letter was sent to a Consultant in the Heath Hospital Cardiff and as a result in June 1990 she called a Little meeting" which included Mid Glamorgan Social Services. (The parents were not informed that this meeting was taking place and neither was Ben's only clinician of record at GOSH)

It was decided in this meeting that Ben was in a loving caring home and there were no concerns. Ben's parents continued to follow the treatment plan of Ben's consultant at Great Ormond Street, at the same time voiceing to a number of people the concerns that they had in relation to the welfare of children who underwent Dr Southall's "Sleep studies" which they felt were for research purposes and could be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.

A year later during an outpatients appointment with Ben's Consultant at GOSH they were told that Dr Southall had intervened in his treatment plan and had "invoked Kensington and Chelsea Social Services," Dr Southall wanted Ben to undergo "his tests" Dr Southall had started child protection proceedings to ensure that Ben was put through his tests.

On July 18th 1991 Ben was subjected to the first "Sleep study" without his parents knowledge or consent and against their expressed wishes. Ben was allowed home everyday but had to go into hospital every night for 28 nights. After the tests he was taken from his parents due to an allegation of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy and was kept in hospital for almost 4 months after which time he was sent to a foster home.

Having proven that they were not at fault he was returned to his parents a year later, but by then Ben was no longer the little boy they had known and loved he had suffered irreversible brain damage. Ben was 6 years old.

His mother then started a 16 year campaign to get justice for her son. The GMC proceedings that were adjourned in 2006 (for about a year) are partly driven by her. She discovered that protocol 85.02 was the basis for the tests on her son. She also discovered that Ben had a Special Case file which was held by Dr Southall where medical information that should have been kept in his medical records was in fact kept separately and hidden


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…