A part of the mental health blogosphere (especially folks in the UK) appear to be up in arms that the British Psychological Society (BPS) is secretly trying to railroad Lisa Blakemore-Brown, a psychologist in the UK who’s caused some upset by making claims about vaccines and other topics that are controversial. In reaction to these claims, the BPS has launched a “fitness to practice” investigation. (An edited transcript of her BPS hearing may be found here. It should be noted that because this isn’t a complete transcript, whoever edited it may very well be leaving out material relevant to this discussion.) More here.
A lot of people writing appear to be upset because they are incensed that the organization is conducting a hearing in private. But before you rant about such a thing, I guess it helps to understand some of the reasons organizations hold hearings in private, especially when they deal with very personal matters. For instance, the BPS equivalent in the U.S., the APA, also holds its professional disciplinary hearings in private, as does virtually every professional group in the U.S.
To give you an example, the APA opens approx. 50-60 cases a year against psychologist members, and has anywhere from 100-200 cases open in any given year. Most cases involve a loss of licensure, often due to something like sexual misconduct with an adult. Cases are confidential, as are the hearings held in such cases. The only information the APA publishes is the aggregate data on such cases, as well as members who’ve left the organization or were terminated.
It was be a very strange thing indeed if such a hearing was a public affair, since these professional organizations are not a part of the government:
With over 40,000 members, The British Psychological Society (BPS) is the representative body for psychologists and psychology in the UK. As a learned and professional organisation governed by Royal Charter our principle duties are to the country — in simple terms the Society is charged by the Crown with overseeing, in the public interest, psychology and psychologists. For further information please visit the ‘The Society’ area of this site.
The BPS is a registered charity in the U.K. and while they make a lot of noise about their duty to Queen and Country, the fact is they are not a part of the government — they are a professional organization first and foremost, created to forward the profession of psychology in the U.K. They are not required to hold hearings in public. (Here’s a fun exchange between the BPS and someone who wanted to ‘sit in’ on the hearings.)
(Maybe such hearings should be public, as a general policy issue, but that’s another argument for another time.)
An organization like the BPS is designed to promote psychology (and psychologists) within British society. Professionals are upheld to Ethics and a Code of Conduct. Failure to abide by their ethical principles or code of conduct could result in a termination of membership. Every member knows this and this is one of the benefits of membership — that the professionals who join uphold themselves to a clearly delineated code. (Non members may also hold themselves to such a code, but there’s no recriminations of they don’t abide by it either.)
Now, I’m against a witch-hunt as much as the next person. But being against a witch-hunt must also mean that you understand all of the facts of the case and both sides of the argument. You must have access to a good deal of the material that others are using to make a judgment about something. Talking to one side about these issues isn’t really being an objective observer, is it?
I don’t know the facts of the case (nor have I read the documentation the BPS committee did), so I don’t feel qualified to pass any sort of judgment on Blakemore-Brown. From reading many of the blog entries surrounding this hearing, one would be led to believe this is clearly a “witch hunt” and Blakemore-Brown said and did nothing that would be cause for concern to others. She was apparently raising legitimate concerns about research and correlations she observed in data and such, and feels there is an effort to quash her voice (and her concerns).
Others have followed this case more closely than I and you’re welcomed to delve into it further.
One note about bringing concerns to the public… Generally, psychologists — who are trained as researchers and clinicians — know the regular avenue for expressing concerns about research data or findings. They do so through traditional outlets (journals, letters to the journal about a specific study, a new research study that shows the link via accepted statistical procedures, an online journal like PLoS, or an online response to a journal article, such as through BPS’s own journal, books, etc.) And Blakemore-Brown did go down one of these routes — publishing a book 6 years ago that lays out her concerns about the connections between Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, and ADHD.
A book review that appeared in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry noted:
The book attempts to integrate a number of clinical issues relating primarily to differential diagnosis and intervention around autistic spectrum disorders, dyspraxia and ADHD. The current author asserts that overall, it is difficult to ascertain who the potential reader of this book might be, as the clinical and research information is somewhat scattergun in selection and presentation. The author wonders whether parents would be any the wiser after reading through it. Another troubling aspect that the author points out is Blakemore-Brown’s use of case material to illustrate her arguments. It is argued that even without the previous criticisms of the book, the inclusion of such material in an unedited format would seem to mitigate against recommendation of this book.
These concerns are pretty typical for books written by clinicians (and often reviewed by researchers) that want to help people understand their point of view about a particular psychological issue. The book review notes that Blakemore-Brown’s research selection to make her point is selective and potentially biased, and that she uses single case studies, rather than empirical data, to illustrate her arguments. This is exactly what most clinicians do, since they are exposed to working with clients on a daily basis, not research.
The point? I’m not sure, only to say that if you’ve tried to make yourself heard on an issue, and you haven’t had the success you would’ve liked, people either give up or take it to the next level. For better or worse, Blakemore-Brown apparently decided to take it to the next level. As a clinician, she choose “publicity” over a different course (such as working with researchers to better establish the links she sees). Either course may be beneficial, in that now that others are aware of her efforts and arguments, researchers may take up the question in a more scientific study of these issues.
45 comments
It seems fairly evident to me that hearings of all sorts that are designed (or in practice do) discredit individuals or stop debate should be held in public — particularly if the person against whom they are brought so wishes.
This is one of the most basic principles of a democratic society.
Erron
I agree, edited transcripts don’t tell the whole story-there was no consiracy to silence the alleged “whistle blower” in relation to MSbP as our Attorney General made quite clear yesterday-the wrongs will be righted, however when approaching senior government figures to assist you, you have to be lucid and present documentary evidence of fact in support of claims, not ramblings about conspiracies. I would now like to see the entire transcript please, given that my name is being bandied around the internet in relation to this case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/20/nsouthall120.xml
BTW there are two criminal cases in the USA in which Southall was the lead prosecution witness.
Brenda Snyder
Susan Hocevar
I would be grateful if this information was circulated.
Thank you
For the record, my first ‘route’ to raise issues of concern affecting the public was to write diplomatic letters to key people in 1996.
When this failed , a year on, I wrote a letter of concern to my professional journal, The Psychologist, produced by the British Psychological Society. I also asked them to start an Inquiry. This was published in September 1997. There was no Inquiry and in fact I was not afforded the right to reply to a response from McClure, Sibert and Davies who had written papers with Professor Sir Roy Meadow.
I was then asked by other professionals to write other articles and give lectures on the issues.
The book was not completed until 2002 and was not pivotal to the issues which concerned me, though they are mentioned in the book.
There are also many positive appraisals of the book as well as the negative one chosen by this blogger.
It was not my choice or action to take this information to the public at this stage, given the pressures placed one me by the British Psychological Society, but now that it has happened I have to defend my position.
My previous post seems have been lost but has been largely superceded by LBB’s own. I wonder if John Grohol would consider himself in a better position to form a judgement if he knew even less (which is the logic of what he is saying). For at least 800 years the formula ‘justice shall be done, and justice shall be seen to be done’ seems to have held good in the more respectable courts. I see no reason to take different view now.
I would like to state that the BPS has two different types of hearings. They are as follows:-
Conduct Hearing – which is a public hearing
Fitness to Practise – which is a private hearing.
Two complaints had been made against Ms Blakemore-Brown and both of these were relating to her professional conduct. Originally it was understood that this case was to be held as a ‘Conduct Hearing’.
I was a witness for Ms Blakemore-Brown, I attended the July Hearing for two days and heard the BPS evidence .
The following emerged during the evidence I heard personally :-
It was stated by the BPS that this hearing was carried out in private because it involved sensitive issues and it was in Ms Blakemore-Browns best interest to have a private hearing, however Ms Blakemore-Brown was not informed about the change from a Conduct Hearing to Fitness to Practise Hearing until after she had been asked by the BPS to send in a great deal of research and material on vaccines and the third world. This was then used against her as evidence of her disorganised thinking and her sending in irrelevant evidence. It also emerged that evidence was found in the file that was not sent in by Ms Blakemore-Brown relating to this hearing and was there by ‘mistake’.
At no time did Dr Trevor Friedman the psychiatrist on the transcripts ever meet or assess Ms Blakemore-Brown, yet he was able to diagnose her as paranoid through just reading the large amount of material supplied by her, which we already knew she was encouraged to send in and there by ‘mistake’.
Emails given as evidence by one of the complainants were not the original emails, as they had no headers. Some of these were emails Ms Blakemore-Brown did not send and there were others, which had clearly been tampered with.
The BPS had not carried out any investigation to ascertain whether Ms Blakemore-Browns computer had been hacked and at no time were computer experts brought in.
Ms Blakemore-Browns case was riddled with inconstancies. In my own opinion the BPS evidence was as inaccurate as the evidence they were trying to use against her.
To me the BPS seemed very incompetent. At no time were they able to back up what they were saying. I heard evidence of lost correspondance, missing emails, telephone conversations not logged or recorded.
My view is what I witnessed was a little like a scene from ‘Monty Python’. Quite frankly it needed to be seen to be believed.
It is very frightening that psychiatrists can diagnose psychiatric disorders without meeting the client and their views and opinions can be taken this seriously, thus totally destroying a professionals lifetimes work.
Christina England
John said:
“I wonder if John Grohol would consider himself in a better position to form a judgement if he knew even less (which is the logic of what he is saying). For at least 800 years the formula ‘justice shall be done, and justice shall be seen to be done’ seems to have held good in the more respectable courts. I see no reason to take different view now.”
Quite.
One must question the motives of the good John Grohol, particularly after reading some of his other postings (if he will allow a similar brand of non-specific innuendo).
I was particularly taken by the selective choice of a (somewhat negative) book review given the many others out there.
Here is one
http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?id=1319&type=book&cn=28
Melany Pellop
It is indeed wrong and ethically questionable for a mental health professional to offer a diagnosis or even a diagnostic opinion regarding a person they have never interviewed personally. I agree with you there.
As for public hearings versus private hearings… When we become members of a professional association, one of the tenets of membership is that we agree with their rules and procedures. If we don’t agree with them, we shouldn’t become members. In fact, in the U.S. nearly half of the psychologists practicing are NOT members of the American Psychological Association, which means the APA has no authority or power over them. This is a choice every individual has. Frankly it’s probably one of the reasons so many U.S. psychologists are not members of the APA — they don’t want to deal with the potential future hassles of an organization like this.
If I become a member, and then become disatisfied or unhappy with the organization, I can either try and change it or leave it. Organizations, being what they are (large and bureaucratic) resist change. A quick study in IO psychology will testify to that. So if you take on a large organization for one of its practices you disagree with, you’d better have a lot of energy, resources and patience, because that is what it will eventually take.
I had a friend who worked at the APA and was in a fairly high level position. Even he lamented how difficult it was to get things done, to effect change, etc. The APA has no authority or ability to conduct research; it can only encourage others to do so through a number of incentives.
So the public/private hearing issue is just one of those things of our modern society that has been in place for decades. If enough people disagree with that policy, the membership will eventually have it changed. That’s good for people who want the choice, as Blakemore-Brown does (and personally, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be up to the person being accused).
Perhaps it’s because nobody has really laid out what inquiry Blakemore-Brown wanted to start that I feel a little in the dark about the beginnings of this whole story. She has controversial views and wants a reaction from the Powers that Be? That seems to be a little naive, and so I feel like there’s a significant component missing from people’s brief summaries of the issues that caused the BPS hearing in the first place. All I hear about are her “controversial views,” but many, many professionals hold such controversial views, and don’t get fitness to practice hearings, so it would seem there’s some additional piece here that isn’t clear.
The charge is quite clearly stated on the first page of the transcript (which you claim to have read)
http://www.furiousseasons.com/documents/blakemore.pdf
The charge is one of paranoia.
The psychiatric part of the transcript is complete. Anyone can read it. Let’s stick to the issue at hand.
Incidentally there is no rule of confidentiality within the BPS in their procedures – and if there was one this would be a gross abuse of human rights and against the law – Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (apart obvious issues of patient confidentiality and state security). Confidentiality here is merely an attempt to avoid serious embarassment to people who have tried to guide scientific/ethical/policy discussion through bullying.
Aubrey Blumsohn
Thanks for the additional book review link. My find of the book review I noted was in doing a search of PsycINFO (the research database in psychology) to examine Blakemore-Brown’s research on these topics. That was the only citation I could find mentioning her work in this area. Typically if you want to argue research issues, it’s traditionally done in journal articles.
‘As for public hearings versus private hearings… When we become members of a professional association, one of the tenets of membership is that we agree with their rules and procedures. If we don’t agree with them, we shouldn’t become members.’
Please may I comment here?
Ms Blakemore-Brown withdrew her membership from the BPS more than two years ago.
In the UK the professionals do not chose which hearing they would like. I am sure Ms Blakemore-Brown would want this all to be in public, then at least the truth would be out in the open.
Christina England
Penny Mellor could also publish her evidence which was exclusively written in nature for public scrutiny if she wishes. This would help to clarify matters, given the British Psychological Society refuse to do so. I note that innuendo against LBB in her posting. Let’s have some facts.
I would point out to John Grohol that there is no precedent for the BPS to hold secret hearings, and it is pointless talking about US precedents which are designed to protect the reputations of society member, not destroy them. I do not also know whether LBB could be described as naieve. I do know that that is not what she is charged with. He is being naieve if he believes you can publish freely criticising MSbP diagnosis. I am not sure why he wants to write in a damaging way about LBB when he admits to knowing little about it.
Just to add: it worries me no end that Penny should be involved in important judicial matters just because of the way she conducts herself, as illustrated above. Is this really damning of LBB or damning of Penny? Anyone who thinks this may be untypical can visit the MAMA website http://www.msbp.com where Penny holds forth and read for themselves.
Regrettably, most if not all of what is said in this blog is just wrong.
The BPS have had their decisions overturned on a number of occasions principally on the basis of illegal and irregular procedures. For example, Blakemore-Brown has a legal right to a public hearing [1] but the BPS refuse to allow that claiming they are protecting her. This was even though she wanted a public hearing and waived confidentiality? The BPS insisted on it. That does not seem appropriate and is contrary to a fundamental principle of law that justice should be done and manifestly be seen to be done. It has not in the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown. People rightly ask, what is the BPS hiding? Why do they also refuse publication of the transcripts of the case? Why have they failed to provide written reasons for the decision. Why are they dragging their heels over this case?
Like the case of Dr Rita Pal, claiming someone is mentally ill because they have soundly based views which are contrary to what the Department of Health want the world to believe, is behaviour straight out of the old Soviet Union where it was common.
One might rightly now ask does BPS stand for the British Psychology Soviet?
Clifford G. Miller
[1] Fitness to Practice – Joanna Glynn QC & David Gomez – Thomsom Sweet & Maxwell – March 2005
There are many critics of the Munchenhausen by proxy diagnosis, but it remains a rare diagnosis and condition.
I’m not the only one writing about this issue without the necessary background information… Like other bloggers, I am writing about a person’s case that brings up interesting issues and questions. For instance, see Dr Aubrey Blumsohn’s notes:
This is a part of the debate. Railroading is evil and it should be stopped. But knowing all of the facts of the case and the history behind the issues is equally as important. The claims she is making should be fully understood by those engaging in the debate as well.
I fully support any individual’s right to publish and be heard on any topic they have an interest in. The Internet allows us to do just that — and look how interesting it can be!
So why did the BPS hold a hearing last year about Blakemore-Brown’s fitness to practice if she was no longer a member for over a year or two?
It looks as if the the BPS were so keen to silence Blakemore-Brown that when she lapsed her membership they introduced a new rule saying that members facing disciplinary action may not leave the society until the matter is resolved. I believe I am right in saying that she had left the society before any disciplinary movements were made known to her. The had no real jurisdiction but there was potential harm to her career if she did not offer a defence.
Another unfortunate aspect in which John Grohol is mistaken is that MSBP has become something of a government industry in the UK in which there are few controls and many public servants with no relevant qualifications involved:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/qualityprotects/info/publications/childprot.shtml
LBB has been at the centre of a parliamentary attempt to investigate what is going on. For reasons that Penny Mellor has yet explain she and her group opposed the formation of this initiative. The pilot document is available for consultation:
http://www.mensaid.com/documents/consensus/consensus-2005-07-19.pdf
This is complex but highly organised piece of work to which Lisa a major contributer. People will judge correctly reading this that Lisa is not naieve, inompetent, paranoid or rambling, but there is a very unpleasant poltical battle going on. Exactly where Penny Mellor stands in this is not clear.
If there is nothing to hide post the entire transcript.
I note the several matters above to which Penny does not respond.
It will be known that Aubrey Blumsohn and I have wished to publish the entire transcript but we have been restrained from doing so by the threat of legal action. So far we have not published any of it though an extract has appeared on a US website.
If Penny does not approve of the secrecy why did she take part in the proceedings? This is just the sort of thing that she ought to be against, pronouncing from day to day about justice as she does. If she is against secret family courts, why was she not against this one? The reality surely is, however, that she took part believing that none of it would ever come to light.
It is my judgement, and that of Aubrey, that LBB has everything to gain and the BPS everything to lose from the publication. We have been calling for it from day one one of the campaign. It is for the BPS to answer over publication, not us.
There is another bizarre aspect to Mellor’s original post here. She seems to be saying that the failure to make progress on this issue over the last decade was nothing to do with government suppression and bullying, but some personal failing on the part of LBB. On the other hand Mellor herself appears to be buddies with the Attorney-General now so everything is going to be alright.
What on earth is going on?
Penny Mellor raises the issue of Southall which from last nights TV show is dear to her heart.
It is part of the madness of this all that Professional Bodies such as the British Psychological Society and the General Medical Council get involved in both coverup of some, and excessive punishment of others.
Rita Pal raised the issue of Gemeral Medical Council coverup in her own case, and in others such as Eastell on her website. The GMC and the BPS seem to be more a tool for social control than professional regulation and proper practise.
Mellor wants to have her cake and eat it. She wants regulators to punish and “strike off” all psychiatrists and psychologists who don’t support her view (Scientology award noted) but is happy for regulators to punish Andrew Wakefield for doing what a lot of other scientists do all the time without the slightest punishment. Mellor herself is immune to criticism for her actions because she is not a professional.
A puzzled person
A rather long comment – but this 2004 Newspaper article will help place some of the suppression in context. Discrediting folk is always useful if you want to stop debate:
25 Jan 2004: The Observer – Page 1 – (1194 words)
Ministers told child harm theory was flawed:
By: Jamie Doward Social Affairs Editor, Additional reporting Emily Dent
MINISTERS were warned that the controversial scientific theory Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) was responsible for serious miscarriages of justice as far back as 1996, according to documents seen by The Observer
Our investigation has uncovered a systematic failure on the part of the health authorities, social services and scientific advisers to question the validity of Professor Sir Roy Meadow’s theory, which claims that some parents harm their children to draw attention to themselves.
The theory has been at the centre of huge controversy after hundreds of children were taken into care over fears that their parents were capable of harming them. It was also at the heart of the debate over cot deaths but has recently been discredited after a series of high-profile court cases, which drew on Meadow’s theory, were overturned.
Critics of MSBP acknowledge parents harm their children. But, as leading sceptic Lord Clement-Jones, puts it, there is a need to ask ‘whether MSBP really is a scientifically or medically established condition… MSBP by its very nature can become a self-fulfilling prophecy’.
Anti-MSBP campaigners claim thousands of parents may have been wrongly separated from their children as a result of the theory, which has been described in parliament as creating ‘the equivalent of the stigma of witchcraft in the Middle Ages’.
An Observer investigation has uncovered a catalogue of errors surrounding MSBP including:
* The failure by both Tony Blair and Jack Straw to investigate the claims of a leading child psychologist and former government adviser who wrote to them warning that she was aware of several cases in which parents had been wrongly separated from their children because of MSBP.
* The failure of a government inquiry into fabricated child illnesses to interview sceptics of Meadow’s theory. The inquiry published a guide to MSBP for local health authorities that has subsequently been described as ‘deeply flawed’.
* The publication of a report into fabricated child illnesses by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) which failed to address scientific concerns over MSBP.
* The ongoing failure of the General Medical Council to conclude its investigation into another leading proponent of MSBP, Professor David Southall. In January 2002 the GMC announced it would hold a hearing into allegations that Southall made a series of false accusations of child abuse against parents. A spokeswoman for the GMC said: ‘The investiga tion into Professor Southall is ongoing.’
The revelations come as the fallout from the Meadow affair is set to go global. Thousands of families around the world who have had their children taken into care are to demand their cases be re-examined.
The demands follow last week’s revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is to undertake an urgent review of more than 250 criminal cases where a parent had killed a child and in which MSBP was cited.
The move was a response to the overturning of three cases where the mother was wrongly accused of killing her children and in which Meadow’s work was used. But the scope of Meadow’s theory of MSBP, which he first advanced in 1977, extends much further than criminal murder trials involving infanticide.
The Government is preparing to ask local authorities to comb their records to highlight all civil family law cases which have involved MSBP.
It is thought that the number of parents who have had their children taken into care after the civil courts ruled that ‘on balance’ they had harmed their children, or were capable of harming them, will run to 5,000 in the UK alone.
Because the cases were heard in a civil rather than a criminal court, the judge did not have to be convinced that there was evidence of harm ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and could instead rely on the scientific claims made by paediatricians. This has prompted unease among politicians.
The Countess of Mar declared in the House of Lords last month: ‘There are many thousands of women who have been accused of, or labelled as having Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, without clinical or legal assessment. They have no recourse to the courts and, each time they protest, they are told that they are in denial and that it is a sign of having Munchausen Syn drome By Proxy.’
Mar concluded: ‘This is an equivalent of the stigma of witchcraft in the Middle Ages there is no trial, and one is guilty until one can prove that one is not guilty, and one has no way in which to prove that one is not guilty.’
Concerns over the validity of MSBP were raised in 1995 in the scientific journal Archives of Disease in Childhood . ‘Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy is a term I suggest we use with caution…. It is important not to harm the child by falsely accusing his mother of MSBP, thereby breaking up the family,’ warned one academic, Dr Colin Morley. In the same journal, even Meadow concedes that the theory has ‘led to confusion for the medical, social work and legal professions’.
Lisa Blakemore -Brown, a child psychologist and expert on autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, who, as chairwoman of an organisation called Promoting Parenting Skills acted as an adviser to the Home Office, wrote to then shadow secretary Jack Straw in 1996 warning that MSBP had resulted in a mother being wrongly separated from her children.
Between 1996 and 2002 Blakemore -Brown also raised her concerns in a series of letters to, among others, Tony Blair, health secretaries Frank Dobson, Alun Milburn and Health Minister Jacqui Smith. In each case she received a reply observing only that her concern had ‘been noted’. She also wrote to the Psychologist magazine, warning: ‘I cannot establish a robust scientific base and am aware of a number of cases in which mothers have had children removed on the basis of this diagnosis to discover later that their children had real illnesses or disorders which were missed when the notion of MSBP loomed large.’
A spokesman for the Department of Health said MSBP was a ‘matter for the Department for Skills and Education’. The DfSE declined to give a response other than to state: ‘We will consider the steps now announced by the Attorney General before making further comment.’
But critics of MSBP are concerned that the Government’s record suggests little action will be taken. The Observer has established that a government inquiry into MSBP in 2001 failed to interview experts who had expressed scepticism about the syndrome, or examine their research which cast serious doubts on whether it held up as a scientific theory.
The committee chairing the inquiry subsequently published a report into fabricated child illnesses which Earl Howe describes as ‘deeply flawed – principally because it fails almost wholly to acknowledge that the topic is highly controversial and that erroneous diagnosis is a real risk.’
The Observer has been in contact with anti-MSPB groups around the world including America, New Zealand and Australia.
‘I know of at least 70 cases in Australia, many of which I have been involved in professionally, where I have come to the conclusion that the parent wasn’t guilty,’ said Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, a medical sociologist and advocate for parents whose children have been taken from them.
Additional reporting by Emily Dent
Children need to know their fathers
Mary Riddell, page 28
Ms Lisa Blakemore-Browm is renowned world-wide for her outstanding work on MSBP, Asperger’s Syndrome and Autism. Following her visit to Australia about 3 years, ago MSBP is no longer recognized as a valid diagnosis in the Courts in Queensland. I’m sure England will soon follow.
I understand the British Psychological Society is investigating her for paranoia. I suggest they look closer to home.
Michael Innis FRCPA; FRCPath
Is commenting not being allowed here? I would like to comment on this distressing case and the reporting of it.
The Munchausen business has much wider implications for the British Government and the medical and legal establishment than the Shipman scandal. It is possible that they conceived two strategies for dealing with Lisa back in 1998: one was perhaps the BPS, and the other – just perhaps – was Penny. Although things have not quite gone according to plan with BPS could it be that the Government are now sitting down with Penny because Lisa has been stitched up? Peter Goldsmith has been Attorney General since June 2001. Now we have Penny suggesting that there has been progress because Lisa is out of the way. Does anybody know anything about the Blair government which would lead them to believe they were above such things?
“Now we have Penny suggesting that there has been progress because Lisa is out of the way.”
???? No actually John the progress was made through dilligent collection of forensic evidence. The point I was making is the announcement of the AG in no way fits in with your conspiracy theories about Lisa being removed in order to bury everything. She didnt have the evidence that has been presented to government.
“It will be known that Aubrey Blumsohn and I have wished to publish the entire transcript but we have been restrained from doing so by the threat of legal action. So far we have not published any of it though an extract has appeared on a US website”
Oh dear faux pas on the law-all or any part of the transcript being published was a contempt-now I happen to know that there is little chance of being hauled up for contempt of court in this case, the reasons being that
a) The subject herself wanted the detail made public-ergo the secrecy breached her human rights (there you go I’m actually helping you here)
b) Because you cannot haul up anyone for contempt if the information is posted on a foreign website outside of the juridstiction of England, Northern Ireland or Wales. A fact Lisa knows, because she knows that I have always used that particular ruse on the MAMA board and never been got, she knows full well she can post everything up she’s being disengenuous.
So let’s have the whole transcript-not good enough only posting what suits.
Right no more from me-sorry too busy, however I wasn’t going to allow the ambiguity to continue-I look forward to appearing at her appeal armed with evidence to prove to a criminal standard of proof, that I in no way was “hounding” LBB.
Oh and you guys need to back to 1993 and do some proper homework, if you’re going to back a horse you should at least check the pedigree.
One of the most repulsive aspects of this tale is that while Ms Penny Mellor – who has no profession and no ethical obligations – has as she says published all sorts of information on the world wide web, wild and unfounded allegations of have been levelled at Lisa of breaching patient confidentiality every time she opens her mouth. If, indeed, there had been aything of substance to this you could be sure that BPS would have gone on this and not all the other junk. So, while we believe there will eventually be a publication it will have to be very carefully redacted so that no such accusations can be made.
Secondly – and this is interesting – Mellor seems to assume that there will be something there of use. If someone whom she believes has the information has been telling her this they are taking a rosy view but also breeching their own confidentiality. But I can assure her that the entire substance of the first three days relates to flaws in the BPS procedure. The rest of it is much like what has already been published (wall to wall).
I also wonder if she would care to comment on this email to Christine O’Rourke, Secretary to BPS Fitness to Practice panel, which was copied to me on 29 January:-
Dear Ms O’Rourke
Please can you explain to me as a matter of
urgency why a certain Ms Penny Mellor sent the
E-mail below on 6 January 2007.
It seems to me that this particular Fitness to
Practice procedure investigating the mental health
of Ms Lisa Blakemore Brown may involve a criminal
element and a conspiracy to cause harm.
I am inclined to report this matter to the police
but I will await your further response.
Yours Sincerely
XXXXX
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: “[email protected]”
To: XXXXX
Sent: Saturday, 6 January, 2007 2:44:25 PM
Subject: Re: Jessie J
PS I got LBB struck off I’ll explain later. P
Ms Mellor
I fear your own arrogance will become your worst enemy.
Please will you confirm for us whether your appeal against the criminal conviction succeeded.
Best Wishes
SW
Further to my last posting, please would you clarify the following
1. How many CSEs do you have? Please outline your qualifications so those in the US are aware of the calibre of your abilities.
2. You have eight children. Do they have different fathers?
3. The MP who has assisted you seems to be a serial womaniser.
4. Please outline what scientific qualifications you do have?
5. Regarding Professor Southall, in all your years of campaigning you have actually achieved very little. The CNEP study you allegedly assisted in stands discredited by the study in Nottingham. One could postulate or even speculate on you being a serial complainer
( with the assistance of others of course)
6. Is it not true that Lord Goldsmith recently admitted in the Telegraph to being unfaithful to his wife? http://www.manchester.com/National_News/Lord_Goldsmith_admits_past_affair-18064602.html
7. Tell us all – why we should believe you over Professor Southall?
On occasion realising your own limitations in this land of love and war may be a blessing in disguise or perhaps one day you may well be the laughing stock of the scientific community.
SW
Ms Mellor
‘dilligent collection of forensic evidence.’
Oh really?
‘She didnt have the evidence that has been presented to government.’
If you are speaking about the SC files or the inside knowledge of them, no she didnt .
Anyone wishing to know why Ms Blakemore-Brown did not, a quick glance at http://www.msbp.com this will help.
‘ Because you cannot haul up anyone for contempt if the information is posted on a foreign website outside of the juridstiction of England, Northern Ireland or Wales. A fact Lisa knows, because she knows that I have always used that particular ruse on the MAMA board and never been got, she knows full well she can post everything up she’s being disengenuous’
Ms Blakemore-Brown may well know this fact, even though Ms Mellor, she has not been a member of MAMA for about 4 years or more. However, whether she knew this or not did not really matter in the slightest, as she did not put ANY of the transcripts, on any site, in any country.
‘I look forward to appearing at her appeal armed with evidence to prove to a criminal standard of proof, that I in no way was “hounding†LBB.’
‘CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF’ More than likely.
Christina England
So much for “dilligent collection of forensic evidence” Penny. Are you a qualified forensic investigator? Even the BPS couldn’t use the information you provided in their desperate attempts to find some way – any way – of discrediting Blakemore Brown.
I quote
“I was not impressed with the information from Penny Mellor. It appears to be a move in a quarrelsome , jealous campaign”..”I would not be happy with taking any action in the Mellor complaint”
Recognise where that comes from Penny?
I also see several correspondences (some public) where you claim you have managed with the help of Scientologists and some Swedish hackers to get “loads of MSbP clinicians struck off”. Can you name these clinicians and reassure us that you didn’t fabricate any evidence.
And what did happen in 1993? Was that before or after your prison sentence.
Sassi
I have read the psychiatric transcript and the charges. This is simple and disgraceful bullying, and I have no idea why the author of this blog entry has CHOSEN to complicate the story with irrelevancy.
Mr Redhead
I have to agree with you here indeed Ms Blakemore-Brown has been a victim of some very powerful bullies.
Ms Blakemore-Browns case is very complex and is not simply about a ‘flame war’ on the Internet which unfortunately is what this blog is beginning to look like. No one knows what Ms Mellor’s agenda is or why she has picked Ms Blakemore-Brown as another of her victims although one could hazard a guess.
Ms Blakemore-Brown has been speaking out on vaccines and vaccine damage and although this case appeared to come from two complaints it was very clearly about far bigger issues.My own opinion as a witness is that this was a case designed for the purpose of quietening Ms Blakemore-Brown and what better way is there to quieten someone than to have them found ‘unfit to practise’ on mental health grounds?
Christina England
Mr. Redhead, as others have noted, this is a far more complicated case than simple “bullying” as you discerned from an edited, partial transcript.
Indeed, the BPS doesn’t seem to be acting in the public’s best interests here, but in trying to silence someone who has been very vocal with their point of view.
We hear many supporters and detractors of Blakemore-Brown. I’d be interested in also hearing from others not so close to the case, observers like myself, and what their take is on it.
I’m an observer. I am shocked.
You keep saying the transcript is “edited” (it is obviously not complete containing only the psychiatric testimony). Who else apart from yourself has suggested it is “edited”? – not the same thing at all.
In contrast to C England this does not appear to me to be complicated. A psychologist is accused of being paranoid based on her belief principally that a patient support group coached a patient to make a complaint (which has never been progressed) and that this was done with the assistance of a pharmaceutical company and the BPS itself.
That is it in a nutshell. Complicated??? I think not. Where is the complication exactly?
I note the extensive advertising on this website.
Mark
Just to say that two doctors have been banned from this website.
1. Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
2. Dr Rita Pal
The reasons given by Dr G for not featuring the comments of the other doctors is rather interesting.
SW
One other comment
Mr Grohal says
“We hear many supporters and detractors of Blakemore-Brown. I’d be interested in also hearing from others not so close to the case, observers like myself, and what their take is on it.”
What detractor(s) – there is only one I have seen here – Ms Penny Mellor – with her unsubstantiated innuendo (and I understand her various aliases).
What is the substance of the said “detraction”.
This is a very simple issue. Can a professional body take action against a member (or even a non-member) asserting “paranoia” without investigating the facts. The BPS (as a psychological organization) appears to think it can do so.
The British Paranormal Society perhaps??
Mark
SW, that’s simply untrue. As I have indicated to Rita Pal (who emailed me privately), we do not “ban” any comments. Comments await moderation approval if the person has never posted to our blog before as a spam fighting measure. All comments that were received have been published. We are not responsible for comments that may be lost due to a connectivity or a technical issue. I’m not sure what’s “interesting” about this — they are more than welcomed to post here.
Yes, Mr. Redhead, this site has advertising, as does nearly every commercial website online today. That’s the business model and how we’ve been doing business here for 12 years. Read the editorial policy if you’re unclear about our position on this issue.
You’re also simplifying the case against Blakemore-Brown to the point of nonsense. If that’s all there was to it, nobody would’ve wasted a moment’s effort with this issue. Professional organizations, federal agencies (in the States), and pharmaceutical companies receive hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of complaints every year regarding medications or medication side effects. You don’t see efforts to go after all the professionals and doctors who help these individuals make complaints. Maybe parts of the UK are in some alternative reality…?
Thank you for clarifying Mr Grohol.
I take from your last post that we can look forward to reading Dr Rita Pals comments? She usually is very interesting to read and puts over some very good points.
If her post has been lost, I take it she can re-post along with the other Dr who is trying to comment?
As I posted earlier both the complaints that went in about Ms Blakemore-Brown were concerning her professional conduct.
One was from Ms Mellor and the other from a family.
However one would expect with two complaints on Conduct Issues this would be a simple Conduct Hearing, but no, this was a case spanning over no less than three hearings amounting to 6 days to try to prove that Ms Blakemore-Brown was paranoid. The cost must have been enormous with experts who had never met her coming from all over the country.
Why were the BPS so keen to quieten Ms Blakemore-Brown?
Mr Redhead
‘The British Paranormal Society perhaps??’
Love it!!
Yes, anyone is welcomed to post here, as I have said previously. If one is going to write a very long comment here, we strongly suggest they save a copy of it to their own computer as well.
Mark Redhead has seen through this very well. The BPS actually HID crucial facts about the two complainants and the complaints. They denied ever getting an email or having a half hour conversation with a professional who was the first to tell me that coaching of a person had been going on by ADDISS before I had ever met the complainant or her family. The BPS 2 year silence about this simple matter of truth was compounded by setting down in emails and in a signed statement in 2006 that this colleague never contacted the BPS.
The emails, copied in to Christine O Rourke and Lorraine Peart and ultimately to me, which is how I knew about them, were produced at the Hearing in July, as was the witness herself. Yet still even in January of this year the BSP continued to use this reference to coaching as an example of my ‘paranoia.
Incidentally Dr Friedman enabled the BPS to move to Fitness to Practise by saying that what I had written indicated paranoia, even though he had never met me. He was written to on April 1st 2005, spoken to ‘I told him what we wanted him to do’ on the 4th April, and on the 15th before he had time to even read the bundle put together by the BPS, he advised a Panel on the issue of paranoia and the BPS began their action to use such procedures before he had even written his report which arived at the offics of the BPS on June 1st 2005. He made fundamental errors of fact which proved to me he had not read the bundle properly.
In 2006 I went to see a Psychiatrist. In four reports and after reading the bundle and seeing my medical records he has said there is nothing wrong with me. He did say I had crusading zeal – but that didn’t make me ill.
Yet despite all the manipulations etc of the BPS, and the evidence from the only Psychiatrist to have seen me, the Panel ignored all that on 31st January 2007 and said that my practise ‘is or is likely to be affected by health matters’.
They have still not provided any written reasons for their decision.
Dear All,
I was interested to read this article.
I wish to make a few points
1. The transcript was read by me as well 🙂 and I have the full copies as have many other people. The section published was not edited.
2. The Human Rights Act 1998 is something has been enshrined into UK Law. As such Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is paramount. The US equivalent is the right to freedom of expression.
3. Mental Illness should never be used for someone who is sane. Lisa Blakemore Brown is sane and there is no evidence of mental illness. The stigma of the shroud of mental illness is such that one’s credibility is destroyed. Blakemore’s GP states she is normal. She therefore cannot claim illness benefit yet the BPS state she has some undefined mental illness. Blakemore is outspoken, on occasion headstrong and extremely logical. Why on earth should a person like her be ostracised in this way. She is either mentally ill or not. There is no in between debate.
4. The data discussed within the BPS hearing is Blakemore’s data. As such and by her own request, she wished others to be there with her. She also asked for a public hearing. The BPS wrote to me stating that the hearing was held in private to protect Blakemore’s privacy. I believe they had no reasons or argument as to why it should not be held in public.
5. The evidence basis for this case is at best flimsy. It is based on a number of emails cut and pasted ( not even the originals) provided by on Penny Mellor. Penny of course was in a criminal court sometime ago – found guilty and accused of being a ” dangerous eccentric” by the judge. I will allow the reader to lead to their own conclusions.
For everyone’s information – I do not for one minute believe that I as a sane doctor should have been subjected to a “discreet” inquiry by the General Medical Council’s screeners. This was admitted in their memorandum. I am of course no one but a whistleblower with two reports under her belt for raising concerns about the mistreatment of the elderly population in this country. I am also the first person to have beaten our medical regulatory body in a civil case hearing when no less than 26 lawyers told me it was impossible. I am the one who read the law books and did it.
I say this because most will find it interesting that the medical assessors from the GMC are also the assessors of the BPS. Those who are astute will understand the behavioural similarities.
I will say this again – I do not appreciate the tone of the article above which in general accepts the abuse of mental illness. People who have mental illness suffer enough without it being used as method of silencing those who will be controversial and outspoken.
Regards
RP
The legal advisers to the BPS are also the same as those who advise the GMC -Field Fisher Waterhouse.
In my view, should Lisa challenge the BPS, she would find that the courts would take a dim view of the manner in which they have conducted themselves.
John – you can make head and tail of this case. Perhaps you chose not to believe that your colleagues across the pond are capable of acting in this manner.
You may wish to read this
http://www.nhsexposed.com/healthworkers/doctors/gmc/pal_v_general_medical_council.shtml
Its my challenge against my regulatory body. Their evidence for mental illness at the time was
1. My website http://www.nhs-exposed.com ( by the way now voted by the Times as the best 50 websites)
2. The fact I like reading Stephen King books
3. The fact that I criticised the GMC in the year 2000 stating they were unfit to regulate the medical profession in this country. I believe Dame Janet of the Shipman Inquiry now states the same.
If you wish to view the actual documentation where they admit to digging around in my background without my knowledge, feast your eyes on http://www.nhsexposed.com/healthworkers/doctors/gmc/witchhunt1.shtml
I do not expect you to empathise with this John. I simply would like you to open your eyes to what is happening across the pond.
I have two reports backing me up – this and one from 1999 http://www.nhsexposed.com/patients/hospitals/nstaffs/city-general-hospital-report.shtml
Lisa’s story is parallel to mine. The difference is Lisa has a army of people following her and supporting her – I had no one. Why is this? This is because every lawyer and person I turned to assumed I was mentally ill because the GMC had speculated upon this. Of course, I am the one who had to carry a note from my doctor saying I had never been mentally ill to defeat the questions raised by simple rumours.
This of course is the damaging effect of being smeared with the mental health lable. The fact is Lisa is not mentally ill – there is no reason for the BPS to hunt her down in this way. This has nothing to do with a personal emotive stance. It has to do with what we as professionals know to be wrong in light of the evidence.
RP
In the UK at present we have three prominent professionals, all being brought before their Governing Bodies for various different reasons.The amazing thing linking all three is their stance on vaccines and vaccine damage.
They are Dr Andrew Wakefield – GMC
Dr Jayne Donogan- GMC
Psychologist and Expert in Autism
Lisa Blakemore-Brown – BPS
This is not about Professional Misconduct
This is not about Mental Illness
This IS ABOUT Governments,Drug Companies and a great deal of Money.
I believe the two complaints were a smoke screen.
Ms Blakemore-Brown is not mentally ill but is being made an example for speaking out.
Christina England
Rita
What you did was heroic and it is appalling that no-one supported you. I am ashamed of being a professional these days. 87 elderly people died and everyone turned a blind eye and then called you paranoid for speaking out about it. When will their families be heard in this oppressive climate?
I have to say I have not felt supported for many years but have accepted that this is the world and society we live in now. I did a response on the bmj.com entitled Cruel Brittania which I should perhaps find to post here.
I am grateful for the support I am now getting, without a doubt. Its been a very difficult 11 years of being vilified and ostracised.
Professionals have been made impotent and it has required those with ‘crusading zeal’ to stand up and speak out.
We have been pilloried for this but must continue and engage others with integrity to prevent political manipulation of our professional positions, especially when the politicans themselves have already been manipulated by Big Pharma. Who is going to enlighten the politicians when money – as Christina mentions – is their God.
Perhaps we could start a debate here:
? Big Pharma + Big Governments = Big Trouble ?
Ons second thoughts, perhaps this is not the best site to say that on to start the debate …
It’s clear to me there’s little desire to have an actual objective discussion about this issue, instead the bullying and ad hominem attacks continue against me and our writeup of this story (apparently because it dared to question what was really going on here).
Yes, we see the irony here. Do you?
Lesson learned, thanks folks.
Comments are closed.