See also: • Cascading Oppression • Fractal Abuse • Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse • UAS
Children Services Abuse:
Dave's reply to the NHS Trust 07/11/2011
4 December 2011
Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Dave read the response from the NHS Trust several times.  It revealed a problem he had.  The problem was the good old benign oppressor.  The letter was very nice in places and made him feel as if he was being ungrateful if he thought badly about any of it.  A little bit of the Uncle Adolf syndrome creeping in.  It took him a month the get far enough away from this contradiction to compose this response.


80 Haslet Road – Biston - Sumshire – AZ1 1ZA
Telephone: 01234 567890 - Email: dave@inkomi.co.uk
Scott West
Trust Headquarters
Chainton County Hospital
Hailgood Road
Chainton
AZ1 1ZA
7th November 2011


Your (Complaint) Ref: P12345
NHS no: 012 345 6789



Dear Scott West

Thank you for your letter dated 5 October 2011 and your expressed concerns.

Death by a thousand cuts!  Neither you nor I want a lengthy, complex and time consuming dissection and examination of every problem and the problems raised by the investigation into those problems.

However my life and that of my daughter have been ruined by the torrent of casual manipulation, deception, irresponsibility and even overt damage foisted on us from many official bodies and individuals.

I would like to make one point very clear.  I am grateful for all the good things that people have done.  I am grateful to you for your responsible and kind attention and communication.  I am very happy with the generous and sympathetic aspects of the response from Megan Ford.  I am extremely moved by, and pleased with, the skill, care, attention and good will we experienced at the hands of Biston hospital and most of the staff.

And then there are the bits that I am not happy with.  So, for example, I do not take kindly to statements from Megan like "I have spoken to the nurses about your experience.  They are surprised and upset to hear that you feel that you were manipulated and lied to."  That is, unfortunately, manipulation in itself and it is divisive and unfair.  It is unfair to those nurses and unfair to me and my daughter.  Many of the nurses were kind and sympathetic and to represent my complaint to those nurses as if I were complaining about them is a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my comments.  Even with my appalling budget I bought them an expensive box of chocolates to show our appreciation of their kindness; It was not because I thought they were all manipulative liars.

Also, I get very frustrated at casual illogical statements.  Megan explains that their records show I called at 18:49 hrs and so my suggestion that an appointment was made for 02:20 hrs was probably a matter of poor communication (implying my error).  I did call at 18:49 hrs but I called again at about 02:00 hrs.  Their records should show that too!

Megan's letter is full of kindness and sympathy and that is good.  I am very happy that she has found certain issues which can be addressed such as the procedures and facilities for dealing with teenagers and young adults.  It is heartening to know that a gentle reminder of the importance of meticulous care when administering intravenous medication has been communicated.  These things are good and I would not represent them otherwise.

I do think the issue of "Patient refused treatment" needs resolving.  I have heard many people complain of being "accused" of refusing treatment and without an alternative this is a default blame trap.  Even "Patient declined treatment" would be kinder and less prone to misuse.

There are two issues that I feel have not been resolved and would I would appreciate further clarification and investigation.

1. Megan states "I was extremely concerned to hear that you feel staff were lying in order to administer intravenous pain killer medication.  I have investigated this matter and I am satisfied that the nursing staff were working in the best interests of your daughter by trying to achieve the treatment prescribed by the doctors."  Given the tacit


Page 1 of 2



acceptance that whatever method the nurse employed it is acceptable so long as they are attempting to achieve the doctor's directive can I respectfully ask for explicit confirmation in writing of the official policy of the NHS on this matter.  For example would I be correct in assuming that it is acceptable by NHS standards for a nurse to lie in order to inject a drug into someone's blood stream provided a doctor has offered that drug to the patient?

2. Megan writes "With regard to your daughter's referral to the Children's Services, both the nursing and medical staff identified that your daughter needed some support and that you had suggested that a counsellor may be helpful to her.  It was for this reason that a referral was made to the service."  This is simply not true.  This needs to be investigated further.  Sandy Shore terminated Helen's antibiotic because she was cross.  She had already lied to me and prevented me being with Helen whilst she was receiving her medication.  Sandy Shore then lost her temper with Helen claiming it was Helen who had refused treatment.  I was witness, albeit on the phone, to the communication.  The consequence was that the patient (a frightened and poorly 16 year old girl) was being held hostage with a life threatening condition on the grounds that there was nothing the hospital could do if she refused treatment.  It struck me that this was not a creative and helpful way to resolve the difficulty.  At that time I was not in any way concerned with how the situation had arisen I was only interested in how best to help Helen.  I made enquiries as to any help the hospital had available in situations where there is misunderstanding between staff and patients.  The nurses seemed to have no comprehension of what I was talking about.  So I elucidated with a string of possibilities including a mediator, a hospital counsellor, or maybe some support team.  But to no avail.  The nurses did not understand.  It is ridiculous that it was me who had to suggest oral antibiotics.  It is ridiculous that it took the surgeon's intervention to make the situation clear.  It is telling that there was no problem with Helen accepting antibiotics intravenously.  But for some reason Sandy Shore decided to "report" us to the Children Services.  I have an intuitive idea what was going on for her but that is not the point.  What she said to the Children Services in order to achieve her objective was a vindictive and pernicious pack of lies, innuendo and allusion.

Here is the list of statements that the Children Services claim were the "cause" of their "investigation".
"... he was laying on the bed with her on the ward."
"... there was inappropriate physical contact and attention from Helen's father."
"Helen ... undressed in front of her father."
"... he supported Helen's refusal of treatment."
"Helen stated ... she wasn't [pregnant] but wishes she was"
"she stated she was into witchcraft."

There is no way this could be construed as a sympathetic attempt to get friendly support for a 16 year old who was perhaps afraid of intravenous medication.  This conjures up the threatening possibility of a predatory paedophile on the gynaecological ward.  Given that no one will address the gratuitous harm that has been caused to both of us because of this disgusting misrepresentation I want the issue investigated further.  At the very least I want a full retraction from the people who made these statements and a full apology for the erroneous representation made.  I want it in writing and a copy supplied to the Children Services for their records and to the local MP, Simon Marcombe, since he has become embroiled in this ridiculous and unnecessary affair.  I also want compensation for the distress and harm that it has caused both of us.  The wasted time and costs to us also need to be redressed.

Yours sincerely




Dave Hook
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP




Page 2 of 2

Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Toxic Drums Share

© Sente Limited 2011