The malpractice of Ian Paterson, a breast surgeon operating in the English West Midlands, has led to him serving a 20 year prison sentence for 'wounding with intent'. He undertook 'needless surgery' on hundreds of women, with the coroner, and West Mindlands police, looking into the deaths of at least 23 patients. Paterson is a rogue doctor; but there have been many others - Harold Shipman, an English doctor working in Greater Manchester, comes immediately to mind, someone who killed over 200 of his patients.
Do these, and similar rogue doctors, represent a serious argument against the practice of pharmaceutical medicine? As a supporter of natural medicine, should I be using their activities to attack the conventional medical profession?
No! I believe that this would be inappropriate. There are 'rogues' in every profession, in every walk of life. Such doctors use their position and expertise to maim and kill their patients; but most doctors are not motivated in this way. They genuinely want to help their patients.
"The suffering described; the callousness; the wickedness; the failure on the part of individuals and institutions as well as Paterson himself - these are vividly described in what patients told us. The scale of what happened, the length of time this malpractice went on; the terrible legacy for so many families; it is difficult to exaggerate the damage done, including to trust in medical organisations."
These are the words of the independent inquiry into Paterson's activities, so the suffering he caused cannot be discounted. But even so rogue doctors are not grounds for the wholescale abandonment of conventional, drug-based medicine.
So is the problem that these doctors operate within a medical system that is inherently dangerous for patients, a medical system that can cause serious patient harm?
Yes. This is undeniably true. Pharmaceutical medicine is the only form of medicine based on the use of treatments that are known to harm and damage patients, which can cause disease, and ultimately death. Indeed, the conventional medical establishment often states that unless a drug DOES have such an impact on the body, it cannot and will not work. Pharmaceutical medicine does not respect the precautionary principle, or the Hypocratic oath of "first do not harm".
We should always remember that doctors cannot afford to pay for their own indemnity insurance premiums because they operate a system of medicine that is inherently dangerous, and patients damaged by medical treatment need to be compensated.
What all this means is that Paterson, and other rogue doctors, should be punished; but not used as scapegoats for a medical system that is routinely causing harm to thousands of patients every day. Conventional medicine is a danger to patients even with Shipman dead, and Paterson in prison.
Even so, this is not the main lesson that can, and should be learnt from the medical career of Ian Paterson. The real lesson is alluded to in the conclusions of the independent inquiry into his malpractice which described the environment in which he was allowed to work.
"There was a culture of avoidance and denial, an alarming loss of corporate memory and an offloading of responsibility at every level. This capacity for wilful blindness is illustrated by the way in which Paterson's behaviour and aberrant clinical practice was excused or even favoured. Many simply avoided or worked round him. Some could have known, while others should have known, and a few must have known."
The NHS cover-up of Paterson spanned many years, just as it had done with the activities of Shipman. Paterson began working at Solihull's Spire hospital in 1999, and was appointed at Solihull Hospital (part of the local NHS Trust) in 2000. The General Medical Council did not investigate his practise for the next 11 years, even though 'concerns' were raised as early as 2003. The inquiry found that hospital management had "missed several opportunities to stop him".
This is the real lesson to be learnt (but probably won't be). Pharmaceutical medicine does not operate openly and transparently, within the NHS, and within national health services around the world. Indeed it is difficult to see how the conventional medical establishment can EVER open itself to scrutiny - and survive.
So cover-ups like this one over Ian Paterson, and the secrecy within which conventional medicine always shrouds itself, is an important and necessary feature of its survival, and that this is unlikely to change.
Do these, and similar rogue doctors, represent a serious argument against the practice of pharmaceutical medicine? As a supporter of natural medicine, should I be using their activities to attack the conventional medical profession?
No! I believe that this would be inappropriate. There are 'rogues' in every profession, in every walk of life. Such doctors use their position and expertise to maim and kill their patients; but most doctors are not motivated in this way. They genuinely want to help their patients.
"The suffering described; the callousness; the wickedness; the failure on the part of individuals and institutions as well as Paterson himself - these are vividly described in what patients told us. The scale of what happened, the length of time this malpractice went on; the terrible legacy for so many families; it is difficult to exaggerate the damage done, including to trust in medical organisations."
These are the words of the independent inquiry into Paterson's activities, so the suffering he caused cannot be discounted. But even so rogue doctors are not grounds for the wholescale abandonment of conventional, drug-based medicine.
So is the problem that these doctors operate within a medical system that is inherently dangerous for patients, a medical system that can cause serious patient harm?
Yes. This is undeniably true. Pharmaceutical medicine is the only form of medicine based on the use of treatments that are known to harm and damage patients, which can cause disease, and ultimately death. Indeed, the conventional medical establishment often states that unless a drug DOES have such an impact on the body, it cannot and will not work. Pharmaceutical medicine does not respect the precautionary principle, or the Hypocratic oath of "first do not harm".
We should always remember that doctors cannot afford to pay for their own indemnity insurance premiums because they operate a system of medicine that is inherently dangerous, and patients damaged by medical treatment need to be compensated.
What all this means is that Paterson, and other rogue doctors, should be punished; but not used as scapegoats for a medical system that is routinely causing harm to thousands of patients every day. Conventional medicine is a danger to patients even with Shipman dead, and Paterson in prison.
Even so, this is not the main lesson that can, and should be learnt from the medical career of Ian Paterson. The real lesson is alluded to in the conclusions of the independent inquiry into his malpractice which described the environment in which he was allowed to work.
"There was a culture of avoidance and denial, an alarming loss of corporate memory and an offloading of responsibility at every level. This capacity for wilful blindness is illustrated by the way in which Paterson's behaviour and aberrant clinical practice was excused or even favoured. Many simply avoided or worked round him. Some could have known, while others should have known, and a few must have known."
The NHS cover-up of Paterson spanned many years, just as it had done with the activities of Shipman. Paterson began working at Solihull's Spire hospital in 1999, and was appointed at Solihull Hospital (part of the local NHS Trust) in 2000. The General Medical Council did not investigate his practise for the next 11 years, even though 'concerns' were raised as early as 2003. The inquiry found that hospital management had "missed several opportunities to stop him".
This is the real lesson to be learnt (but probably won't be). Pharmaceutical medicine does not operate openly and transparently, within the NHS, and within national health services around the world. Indeed it is difficult to see how the conventional medical establishment can EVER open itself to scrutiny - and survive.
- It would have to admit that its drugs and treatments routinely harmed patients, causing serious illness and chronic disease - just as a result of taking them.
- It would have to admit that it has always known that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have harmed patients and caused chronic disease.
- It would have to accept that the medical science, on which conventional medicine is supposed to be based, is deeply corrupt and totally unreliable.
- It would have to admit that drug 'side effects' are seriously under-reported, meaning they were 10 times, even 100 times, more harmful than they tell us.
- They would have to admit they did not know which drug or vaccine would cause which illness or disease - that taking them was akin to playing a game of 'Russian Roulette' with their health.
- They would have to admit that they do not apply the precautionary principle in treating patients, and ignored the principle of 'first do no harm'.
- They would have to admit that if patients want to stay healthy it would be better for them to avoid all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
So cover-ups like this one over Ian Paterson, and the secrecy within which conventional medicine always shrouds itself, is an important and necessary feature of its survival, and that this is unlikely to change.
