I thought you all may find this e-mail i got today interesting.robs court case has been reviewed by a government watchdog committee,and this is their opinion on the findings
Dear Mrs Read

We have now considered the decision of the GDC�s Professional Conduct Committee in accordance with our standard procedure under Section 29 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002.
I should point out that before we can exercise our discretion to refer a decision to Court under Section 29 we have to be satisfied that the decision is unduly lenient and that it is necessary to refer the decision for the protection of members of the public.
We have given this case detailed consideration in accordance with our usual process. We analysed the transcript of the hearing and the exhibits available to the Committee, as well as the information which you provided. We noted your concerns with considerable interest; in particular your comments about early diagnosis and the guidelines for referral of a non-healing ulcer,Mr Dhamecha�s statement regarding his perception of Robin�s ulcer at the October appointments, and the panel�s conclusions in relation to the evidence given by you and Mr Wheeler regarding the date Mr Wheeler saw Robin�s ulcer.
However, having taken account of all of the circumstances of the case, we have decided not to refer this decision to the High Court under Section 29, as we considered that the decision would not meet the test of undue lenience which has been set out by the Court. In this respect I would refer you to the Court of Appeal judgment on 20 October 2004 in the cases of Ruscillo and Truscott (ref [2004] EWCA Civ 1356). The test applied by the Court (and which therefore should be considered by CHRE) is whether the decision as to sanction was �one which a disciplinary tribunal, having regard to the relevant facts and to the object of the disciplinary proceedings, could reasonably have imposed�. We also need to consider whether �having regard to the material facts, the decision reached has due regard for the safety of the public and the
reputation of the profession�. Ultimately for the Court to allow an appeal by CHRE, it must decide that the decision as to sanction �is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the practitioner�s conduct and the interests of the public.�
When considering such decisions we have to bear in mind issues such as the practitioner�s previous record and references from colleagues and patients, although we note that you feel such issues were not relevant to the findings in this case; however the courts view this very differently and it would be highly unlikely for us to be successful in appealing a case where so many references and testimonials have been submitted and where there is no evidence of further failings in the registrant�s practice. We also have to place weight on the fact that, despite often very tragic outcomes in cases such as this, the incidents related solely to one patient and do not indicate a pattern of substandard practice which may suggest that patients would remain at risk if the practitioner were allowed to continue practising. This is important when taking into consideration that sanctions imposed at such hearings are not intended to be punitive but are imposed in order to protect the public, and as stated above, we do not consider the sanction in this case fails to do so. We realise, however, that these issues may do little to allay your concerns regarding Mr Dhamecha and the very sad death of your husband.

So...rob was a one off.Just his tough luck eh?

Hi Liz
Have left PM and voice message and will be in touch very soon.
I know a lot of people here were waiting to hear from you.
So sorry about the outcome but you have to know you have done so much by bringing this to the attention of a lot of people including the media.
More soon.
{{{{{{big hug}}}}}
Gabriele

Liz,

Unfortunately our legal systems sometimes are blind to the consequences of their decisions. While not perfect, rules and standards evolve over decades of issues and court opinions and after blindly applying those standards at both levels they felt as if the initial ruling and their appeal ruling met the standards they were legally bound to apply.

Do not get discouraged or let this dull your enthusiasm. I still wouldn't let up on your pursuit of justice and hopefully what you are doing now may alter future standards and therefore future rulings. The standards are set now and even this ruling can be used to justify a future ruling but public opinion can force the governing body to change the rules, upon which the standards are established.

Hi Liz et al,

...and I have been seriously thinking this week (yet again!) that I'll hop on my high horse and do something soon, as I'm having to endure torture (the dentist!) because of slack medical treatment initially (dental advice, dietician, pain management, someone to talk to, etc, etc). OCF was/is my salvation.

Four years ago I was recorded reading my stories for our national broadcaster, the ABC, but the stories weren't aired - I think they wanted me to cark it! I haven't given up and will do something again soon. I don't care about me, just others. Just need the strength to be a "whistleblower" (but not wanting to insult the various medicos who have helped me along the way, patching me up :-)).

Grumpy Tizz! ;-)

David

not only am i discouraged and my enthusiasm gone,but my heart for the fight is dead.Since the day Robin was taken i have fought for him.I have no fight left.Just a great empty void and a simmering hatred of the legal system and everything associated with oral cancer.

Liz- Don't let this eat you up anymore. You've done so much please don't let the ignorance of others influence your life anymore than it already has. It's time for happy thoughts of your life with Robin-no one can ever take that away.

Sue

As David stated, that's the reason the lady holding the scales is blindfolded. Same with the police. Their cars say "protect & serve" but their real mission is strictly to enforce the law.

If it helps to give you closure I suppose an appeal might be helpful but the courts decision and their legal logic are one of the reasons I didn't sue my dentist. There was no established pattern of recklessness.

I certainly, fully, empathize with you, having been a victim of lack of appropriate Dx or referal to an expert.

That was the appeal Gary.The matter is now officially just like robin.Dead and buried.

Liz

Im sorry the appeal wasnt what you wanted.

You are such a wonderful voice to bring awareness for Oral Cancer. Its the most unfortunate circumstances that has brought you down this road. The devastating loss that OC has caused you is so painful and harsh that its difficult for you to move on.

Please know that you have done everything you could for Robin and to see justice for his untimely death. Now you must find even more strength and try to rebuild your life. You will again find purpose in your life and slowly continue to heal.

As always, best of luck to you.

Liz, you did your best and it seems they want to agree with you on one side of their mouth and yet disagree with you on the other side. I for one am proud of the way you went after that <#$!%^*&^() , you fill in what you want to there and it will fit. Don't be a stranger.