- Messages
- 165
Hi taniaaust,
Thanks and your letter will be included.
Sorry if I have been a little quiet here recently. I have been helping with the production of the defence papers and also with other letters and counter-complaints.
Hopefully all will be revealed soon. I hope you understand that most of the stuff being produced at the moment has to remain confidential for the time being.
I want to thank you for your continuing support - it is helping us a lot.
I attach below a copy of the most recent post to the support myhill website:
===========================================================================================================================================
Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS, Upper Weston, Llangunllo, Knighton, Powys, Wales, UK LD7 1SL
Tel: 01547550331 Fax: 01547550339 E-mail: office@doctormyhill.co.uk Website: www.drmyhill.co.uk
22nd August 2010
Dear All
It has been clear to me that the cases the GMC have been holding against me are not based on
fact. At my IOP Hearing on 29 April 2010 I demonstrated that the Partners practise had told
untruths to the GMC but the GMC did not seem to mind about that. They have made no attempt
to correct these lies. I think I now know why.
The apparent sequence of events that resulted in me facing an IOP were detailed in the Expert
Witness report that I received 3 days before my Hearing. It contained a whole series of
inaccuracies which I did not have time to explore and correct before my Hearing. So in a Data
Protection Act search subsequently I asked for the letter of instruction from the GMC legal
team to the Expert Witness. This was with-held from me by the Information Access Team. So I
asked again. This letter appeared in my office last week with a second letter containing two
apologies from the GMC Information Access Officer Julian Graves.
“I apologise for the length of time it has taken me to respond to you on this matter”
“Having reviewed the original disclosure I can confirm that there are a number of documents
that should have been provided to you in response to your subject access request. I am sorry
we did not do so”
Actually there were a further 79 pages that the GMC had with held.
Contained within that bundle was indeed the letter of instruction from a member of the GMC legal team
to the Expert Witness. The following are verbatim extracts from that letter, with typos:
“In this letter I set out some instructions for you to provide your opinion on whether the doctor’s actions
and treatment fell short of what could be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Anaesthetic
and if so in what ways and to what extent” (sic).
“........if the facts alleged against Dr Myhill are proved, his fitness to practise is impaired to a degree
that would justify action on his registration.......
So the GMC believe I am a male consultant anaesthetic and this briefing was sent not just to the Expert
Witness but also to the IOP. Apparently I was judged that day on being a “male consultant anaesthetic”.
This is another example of how the GMC have broken their own procedures – the prosecution team and
the adjudication team were briefed by the same person. The GMC have assured me in the past that these
two teams are completely separate – it appears they are not. Indeed in correspondence they all refer to
each other by first name terms.
An IOP hearing is not called to establish the facts of a case, but rather simply to impose ‘temporary’
sanctions designed to protect the public on the suspicion of wrongdoing. The inaccuracies and factual
untruths in this letter of instruction of the 18th March 2010 has resulted in severe consequences both for
myself and many of my patients because not one of the Case Examiner, Expert Witness Professor
Bouloux, GMC prosecutor Gary Summers or the IOP took the time to check the (inaccurate) source
material. There was, therefore, an unbroken chain of consequences from the inaccuracies coming from
the GMC legal department through to the severe sanctions placed on my medical practice by the IOP.
I have pointed out all the inaccuracies, in detail together with many other concerns, to Mr Neil Marshall
GMC Assistant Registrar over the course of six letters. He has not indicated any concern with any of the
issues raised, nor has he taken any action.
The GMC have to review my case before the end of October 2010. This will either take the form of a
further IOP Hearing or a full Fitness to Practise Hearing. I shall be conducting my own defence, but I
have had wonderful help from patients who have employed their considerable skills in bringing my case
together.
We are preparing all the lines of argument, fully referenced, which show the inaccuracies upheld by the
GMC, how they have broken their own procedures and acted, we believe, illegally.
We have collected together all the 800 letters received before the April IOP, the 4127 signatures and
comments from the on line petition and the 2,300 facebook members and entries together with the
many letters received subsequently and put them on a large database. I have been accused of not
following NICE Guidelines. So this database will form the basis of patient “counter examples”, ie
examples of people who have not been helped by NICE Guidelines but have been helped by the
information in my website or following consultation with me.
This data base is being put together by a student Robert Segrott and I am grateful to the many people
who have, unsolicited, sent me donations to cover the cost of employing Robert and all the other
unforeseen expenses.
Thank you all so very much for the unwavering support I have received. If I have an evening when I
feel a bit down I just have to spend a few minutes on Facebook or the on-line petition or go through
some of the magnificent letters that you have all sent to the GMC to feel immediately cheered up and
fired up to continue the fight!
Best wishes to you all
Sarah
(A female, General Practitioner)
============================================================================================================================================
There were more inaccuracies in the letter of instruction which were of a nature other than 'mere' factually incorrectness regarding Sarah's gender and area of practice. These further errors are in some ways more significant as they concerned the facts that the case were decided upon.
Best to all,
Thanks and your letter will be included.
Sorry if I have been a little quiet here recently. I have been helping with the production of the defence papers and also with other letters and counter-complaints.
Hopefully all will be revealed soon. I hope you understand that most of the stuff being produced at the moment has to remain confidential for the time being.
I want to thank you for your continuing support - it is helping us a lot.
I attach below a copy of the most recent post to the support myhill website:
===========================================================================================================================================
Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS, Upper Weston, Llangunllo, Knighton, Powys, Wales, UK LD7 1SL
Tel: 01547550331 Fax: 01547550339 E-mail: office@doctormyhill.co.uk Website: www.drmyhill.co.uk
22nd August 2010
Dear All
It has been clear to me that the cases the GMC have been holding against me are not based on
fact. At my IOP Hearing on 29 April 2010 I demonstrated that the Partners practise had told
untruths to the GMC but the GMC did not seem to mind about that. They have made no attempt
to correct these lies. I think I now know why.
The apparent sequence of events that resulted in me facing an IOP were detailed in the Expert
Witness report that I received 3 days before my Hearing. It contained a whole series of
inaccuracies which I did not have time to explore and correct before my Hearing. So in a Data
Protection Act search subsequently I asked for the letter of instruction from the GMC legal
team to the Expert Witness. This was with-held from me by the Information Access Team. So I
asked again. This letter appeared in my office last week with a second letter containing two
apologies from the GMC Information Access Officer Julian Graves.
“I apologise for the length of time it has taken me to respond to you on this matter”
“Having reviewed the original disclosure I can confirm that there are a number of documents
that should have been provided to you in response to your subject access request. I am sorry
we did not do so”
Actually there were a further 79 pages that the GMC had with held.
Contained within that bundle was indeed the letter of instruction from a member of the GMC legal team
to the Expert Witness. The following are verbatim extracts from that letter, with typos:
“In this letter I set out some instructions for you to provide your opinion on whether the doctor’s actions
and treatment fell short of what could be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Anaesthetic
and if so in what ways and to what extent” (sic).
“........if the facts alleged against Dr Myhill are proved, his fitness to practise is impaired to a degree
that would justify action on his registration.......
So the GMC believe I am a male consultant anaesthetic and this briefing was sent not just to the Expert
Witness but also to the IOP. Apparently I was judged that day on being a “male consultant anaesthetic”.
This is another example of how the GMC have broken their own procedures – the prosecution team and
the adjudication team were briefed by the same person. The GMC have assured me in the past that these
two teams are completely separate – it appears they are not. Indeed in correspondence they all refer to
each other by first name terms.
An IOP hearing is not called to establish the facts of a case, but rather simply to impose ‘temporary’
sanctions designed to protect the public on the suspicion of wrongdoing. The inaccuracies and factual
untruths in this letter of instruction of the 18th March 2010 has resulted in severe consequences both for
myself and many of my patients because not one of the Case Examiner, Expert Witness Professor
Bouloux, GMC prosecutor Gary Summers or the IOP took the time to check the (inaccurate) source
material. There was, therefore, an unbroken chain of consequences from the inaccuracies coming from
the GMC legal department through to the severe sanctions placed on my medical practice by the IOP.
I have pointed out all the inaccuracies, in detail together with many other concerns, to Mr Neil Marshall
GMC Assistant Registrar over the course of six letters. He has not indicated any concern with any of the
issues raised, nor has he taken any action.
The GMC have to review my case before the end of October 2010. This will either take the form of a
further IOP Hearing or a full Fitness to Practise Hearing. I shall be conducting my own defence, but I
have had wonderful help from patients who have employed their considerable skills in bringing my case
together.
We are preparing all the lines of argument, fully referenced, which show the inaccuracies upheld by the
GMC, how they have broken their own procedures and acted, we believe, illegally.
We have collected together all the 800 letters received before the April IOP, the 4127 signatures and
comments from the on line petition and the 2,300 facebook members and entries together with the
many letters received subsequently and put them on a large database. I have been accused of not
following NICE Guidelines. So this database will form the basis of patient “counter examples”, ie
examples of people who have not been helped by NICE Guidelines but have been helped by the
information in my website or following consultation with me.
This data base is being put together by a student Robert Segrott and I am grateful to the many people
who have, unsolicited, sent me donations to cover the cost of employing Robert and all the other
unforeseen expenses.
Thank you all so very much for the unwavering support I have received. If I have an evening when I
feel a bit down I just have to spend a few minutes on Facebook or the on-line petition or go through
some of the magnificent letters that you have all sent to the GMC to feel immediately cheered up and
fired up to continue the fight!
Best wishes to you all
Sarah
(A female, General Practitioner)
============================================================================================================================================
There were more inaccuracies in the letter of instruction which were of a nature other than 'mere' factually incorrectness regarding Sarah's gender and area of practice. These further errors are in some ways more significant as they concerned the facts that the case were decided upon.
Best to all,
