Mental Health Commission Refuses to Investigate Cover-Up of Medical Misconduct Despite ‘Smoking Gun’

by abbeylubber - none Wed Apr 14, 2010 22:40

A horrible tale and quite believeable in this dysfunctional country, but.... while there is plenty of suspicion generated by the circumstances as outlined, there is little real evidence of the type required to prove the alleged offences committed.

I wonder what reasons,if any, exist to ground the decision that no further action was necessary?

However, there are the bones of a good case but a real risk of failure from lack of hard evidence. How do you prove the validity of the entry sighted by the solicitor; who actually made the entry and can it be attributed unequivocally to any one member of the medical profession - especially when the whole issue of time and date of administration of the medication is vital - and likely to be contested or, as seems to be alleged, to be mis-stated or covered-up?

by An tSionainn Thu Apr 15, 2010 13:34 antsionainn at swanriver dot com dot au

After numerous FOI appeals, clarifications, and further appeals to the Office of the Information Commissioner we obtained the medical Kardex for that period which identified the Clozapine prescription that started on 7/10/07. We also have fax and email copies of all the correspondences and documents cited. The key evidence was presented in this form to MHC's Ray Mooney two weeks ago, who communicated same to the Inspector Pat Devitt and to the CEO Hugh Kane of the Mental Health Commission (we have Mr Mooney's signed letter indicting the CEO and Inspector were informed of the evidence we provided them). We would not have published the story without the means to substantiate it. If anyone is interested in publishing the story beyond IndyMedia, we would be happy to provide copies of substantiating documents.

This is only one chapter in the story of these abuses, which started with the patient's involuntary detention in 2003 under the old Mental Treatment Act 1945. The patient has already been released on order of the High Court when his detention under the old Act was found to be unlawful. The patient was then immediately re-detained under the new Act and, once again, ordered released by the High Court for injustices suffered undr HSE's maladministration. He was again immediately redetained on order of the registrar of the approved centre - something that should never happpen under the new Act.

There are previous cases of medical misconduct for which we also have FOI documented evidence, including a period of three weeks in 2003 when the patient was overdosed (15x the ordinary BNF dosage) with both of the anti-psychotics Clopixol and Depixol immediately prior to a Gardai interrogation. Despite requests from the next of kin, the registrar of the approved centre did not see that the patient was provided with legal counsel. The patient suffered permanent damage (somatic delusions) from the overdose, which created presumably false memories. These "delusions" are his memories of being injected improperly at night. In fact, this is exactly what happened during the three weeks! Even though these are memories of the past, HSE still claims they represent active "delusions" and use the patient's accounts of these memories as a pretext for the continued involuntarily detainment. Really, HSE - and now the Mental Health Commission - are practicing the darkest form of damage control.

by Conor Thu Apr 15, 2010 16:03

Wow, this is serious stuff.

Presuming everything here is correct, it is something that should be picked up by the mainstream.

Funnily enough, I met a man in his 40/50s less than a week ago in Dublin city centre. He was also a 'patient' and the things he told me about where he was kept made me teary-eyed. I also had a good friend years ago and his older brother was put in Portrane mental hospital. The shit that happened to him there still makes my skim crawl.

This is quite disturbing stuff and I dont doubt it for one second. These facilities are really bizarre because you can get locked up like a criminal, even if you have never committed a crime or harmed anyone.

by An tSionainn Sun Apr 25, 2010 03:47

We contacted MHC's Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum. Dereck Beattie and Lisa O'Farrell there are doing some wonderful work proposing a framework for public and service user involvment in health and social care regulation in Ireland.

The family hopes some of their experiences will be valuable to MHC's forum and can help shape future regulator policy that requires accountability and transparency from organisations such as HSE and the Mental Health Commission. Unfortunately they found these qualities to be distinctly lacking in these orgaisations.

One quote from the forum's report stood out in particular:

A further rationale for involving the public directly in the work of regulatory bodies is a need to counteract the risk of regulatory capture.

This can occur when the regulator becomes too close to the professionals or organisations being regulated, as described by Ashworth,

Boyne and Walker:

“In these circumstances, the capacity for independent judgement is undermined or lost, and information on performance is likely to be biased."

Such capture may be especially likely to occur when the staff on the two sides of the regulatory relationship are drawn from the same professional group, when ‘poachers turn gamekeepers’ (or vice versa), and if there is a long-term relationship between individuals in the regulatory and regulated organisations”..

As evident above, there are numerous reasons why involving the public and service users in the work of regulatory bodies is important, but the salient reason for doing so is so that Ireland can provide a world class public service. Wherever public services are considered excellent around the world, three characteristics are typically present, new professionalism, strategic leadership and citizen empowerment.

This very well states the current situation between HSE and the Mental Health Commission. In our recent meeting with Ray Mooney, the Director of Corporate Affairs for MHC we discussed this problem, and in particular brought to his attention the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of former CEO Brid Clarke, former Inspector Rhona Jennings, and current Inspector Pat Devitt for failing to investigate indictable offences against the Mental Health Act 2001 for which we had written corroborating testimony and documented factual evidence obtained through FOI.

In a recent fax, Mr Mooney stated that nothing needed to be investigated, despite the fact that is the responsibility of the Inspector to inspect violations of the MHA 2001 at approved centres and, if warranted, to initiate a process of revoking the registration of that approved centre. The process for how MHC arriving at this decision not to investigate was entirely opaque.

Mr Mooney's explanation to us was:

"The present position is that your brother's case has been reviewed on a number of occassions and no further action is deemed necessary at this time."

It is quite clear in this decision that MHC is prioritising the interests of HSE above those of service users whose rights have been violated by cover-ups of medical misconduct. MHC has accepted the false statements of registered Proprietor Kinsella., when he denied the occurrences of medical misconduct, even though a solicitor's statement to the Inspector verified such an occurrence in the medicatio records. Documented evidence obtained under FOI proves the proprietor's statements to the Inspector to be false. Such false statements constitute an indicatable offence under the Mental Health Act 2001. By not investigating, MHC has now become a partner in this cover-up.

It is all very well to establish a framework for involving service users and the public in health care regulation, but what is the point if the regulations that already exist are not enforced by the very organisations that are charged with that oversight? MCH's refusal to act - even when presented with proof of indictable offences - does not bode well for initiatives such as those proposed by the Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum. A sharp change in attitude by MHC is needed to align their actions with the forum's report's proposed reforms now.

by children_of_lir Sun Apr 25, 2010 05:02

It's clear that the Mental Health Commission 'has the back' of' HSE; and the Mental Health Commission's Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum is just Public Relations candyfloss, while warehoused mental health patients continue to suffer Mengelean human rights violations.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Minister for Health and Children Mary Harney TD to ensure the Mental Health Commission is independent. If it is not, then Minister Mary Harney should be sacked and a new Commission, CEO and Inspectorate appointed.

by antsionainn Sun May 02, 2010 04:34

One could imagine that the Mental Health Commission could easily accomplish the “Vision for Change” for Ireland’s mental health care simply by applying the law (MHA 2001) as it stands and revoking the registration of all of the approved centres that are found to be in violation of the Act. This would cause the closure of these centres and instantly liberate the funds necessary to establish community-based treatment in those catchment areas.

A smooth transition, however, would not be easily accomplished with such a radical approach. In some cases new community facilities would need to be purchased or leased. Additional staff to supplement community teams would need to be hired and trained– likely many of the staff from the closed centres would be candidates. Funds already insufficient for running the current system are not likely to cover the cost of preparation for transitioning community-based treatment. Neither is the current economic climate amenable to these expenditures.

So one asks how, if ever, a transition to the new vision would ever occur?

It’s no wonder there is institutional resistance to the ‘Vision for Change.’ So many prestigious careers and pinnacles of power depend on keeping things just as they are, with Ireland’s mental health system stuck in the Victorian era, if not the dark ages.

In the end, I can only imagine two factors that will encourage and speed a transition to accomplish the ‘Vision for Change.’

1) Widespread public reaction to the current level of spending by the Mental Health Commission (over Euro 17 million annually) which currently accomplishes absolutely nothing in justice or reform within the mental health system. Such reaction must demand that Minister Harney see to it that the millions annually spent on the Mental Health Commission actually obtain the intended reforms, not just pad the accounts of innumerable useless bureaucrats, Tribunal panels, barristers, and solicitors involved in administering the cumbersome Mental Health Act 2001.

2) A credible threat of EU sanctions against Ireland (possibly resulting from European Court of Human Rights cases) for failing to satisfy human rights standards (Article 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 from its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights). The EU is already under considerable stress from the Global Financial Crisis, with Ireland being one of the member states threatened to be cut off. Together with the (up until now) economic advantages, the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms espoused by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is one of the key elements in maintaining the cohesion of the European Union. Member states more economically viable may insist that Ireland more scrupulously uphold the articles and treaties to which Ireland is a signatory, and the Irish Judiciary may deem it in the interests of “general orderliness” to accept a less conservative and paternalistic attitude toward the care and treatment of those detained contrary to the Articles.

Like political and ecological activists, those in Ireland who express a world view disagreeing with the narrow minded and materialist interpretations of the current psychiatric establishment deserve the support of those of us who support human rights, and the right of each person to think their own thoughts and form their own opinions. Without mental freedom, what freedom do we have?

At the end of the day, those who champion freedom are all threatened by the asylum as gulag.

 

by W. Finnerty. Sun May 02, 2010 10:11

I note with interest the following piece (from Sun May 02, 2010 04:34):

"Like political and ecological activists, those in Ireland who express a world view disagreeing with the narrow minded and materialist interpretations of the current psychiatric establishment deserve the support of those of us who support human rights, and the right of each person to think their own thoughts and form their own opinions. Without mental freedom, what freedom do we have?"

Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that there is generally very little support -- of real substance -- for human rights ANYWHERE in the Republic of Ireland at the present time, though there is no shortage at all of course of empty, "Big Drum" types of very loud verbal approval for it, and several bogus (as I have come to see them) "human rights" organisations which (in practice) appear to do nothing at all other than provide "window dressing" type "illusions of respect for human rights" on behalf of the government, and who are probably (I suspect) all funded by the government, in one way or another, for exactly that purpose.

Last Friday I received an e-mail from one of our TDs which seemed to me to provide much in the way of irrefutable evidence of the difficulties I have related in the paragraph just above, and my reply (also by e-mail) to the TD in question (Sean Sherlock) can be viewed at the following Internet address:

http://www.humanrightsireland.com/HermanVanRompuy/30April2010/Email.htm

Also, and as can easily be verified via the Internet address provided just above, the lack of GENUINE support for human rights among politicians, the medical profession (including GPs, consultant psychiatrists and clinical psychologists), lawyers, social workers, police, clergy, main-stream-media personalities and organisations (and so on), extends well beyond the Republic of Ireland, and it does so to an extent which (I suspect) many normal citizens -- i.e. the many people who feel no need and who consequently have no wish to be members or supporters of arrogant and cruel "ruling elites" of one kind or another (while fraudulently pretending to be "public servants") -- would, upon serious investigation, find the whole overall situation regarding the general lack of commitment for the support of human rights, very close to being totally unbelievable."

The "window dressing" and the associated hoodwinking and cover-ups appear to be all working very well for the government: far too well perhaps, when measured in terms of the negative impact they are having on the general health and well-being of our Nation?

Perhaps the first thing which needs to be done, if genuine respect for human rights is to ever to become a reality for the population at large, is to EXPOSE all of the government "window dressing" for the cheap and nasty (and socially destructive) "con trick" that it is (in reality).

My hope is that my e-mail of last Friday (referred to above) to Sean Sherlock TD might go some way towards doing just that.

 

---

Fishy Human Rights Organisations
by children_of_lir Sun May 02, 2010 17:19

"At the end of the day, those who champion freedom are all threatened by the asylum as gulag."

Psychiatry as a tool of the State threatens each and every one of us (as documented in Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago). The psychiatric establishment has unbridled powers. The Mental Health Act 2001 is flawed in its implementation. This Act was meant to protect or ensure human rights, but is used to deny them.

I read W Finnerty's commendable and informative posting here and came back to respond to it after spending time reading his website and note that the post has been withdrawn. I agree with all his comments. Why was his post removed from this thread?  Is there a technical problem?

Some extracts below from W Finnerty's post:

"Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that there is generally very little support -- of real substance -- for human rights ANYWHERE in the Republic of Ireland at the present time, though there is no shortage at all of course of empty 'Big Drum' types of very loud verbal approval for it, and several bogus (as I have come to see them) 'human rights' organisations which (in practice) appear to do nothing at all other than provide 'window dressing' type 'illusions of respect for human rights' on behalf of the government, and who are probably (I suspect) all funded by the government, in one way or another, for exactly that purpose."

"The 'window dressing' and the associated hoodwinking and cover-ups appear to be all working very well for the government: far too well perhaps, when measured in terms of the negative impact they are having on the general health and well-being of our Nation?"

"Perhaps the first thing which needs to be done, if genuine respect for human rights is to ever to become a reality for the population at large, is to EXPOSE all of the government 'window dressing' for the cheap and nasty (and socially destructive) 'con trick' that it is (in reality)."

 

---

To "children_of_lir"
by W. Finnerty. Mon May 03, 2010 11:56

Thank you for your comments.

For anybody interested, a full "backup" copy of the post of mine you have referred to (at Sun May 02, 2010 17:19) can be viewed at the following page on one of my web sites:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/IndyMediaIreland/2May2010/Post.htm#comment267913

Thank you also for your open, clear, and direct efforts to try and support human rights. I think it helps to be clear, because "If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable".

For reasons that mostly baffle me, it seems that many politicians (and many of their supporters) are convinced that if only they could get the "economy" right, then everything else would automatically come right.

Correctly or otherwise, it has long been my view is that if only they (and we) could get the "human rights" business right, then everything else (including the economy) would gently fall into place, in a natural and peaceful way: and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, probably stay that way -- without all of the seemingly never-ending "boom and bust" cycles (and sky-rocketing indebtedness to the global banking cartel) that "present arrangements" have now imprisoned us in.

The main problem at the moment (it seems to me) is that global attitudes relating to the "economy", and to "human rights" issues, are a bit like the "oil and water" situation; they do not mix.

Though I'm not sure why this is, I suspect it may have something to do with the following observation, which I understand is of ancient "French Celtic" origin:

"There is enough of everything in the world to meet all the needs of humanity, but not its greed."

Maybe this observation is something which all economists -- and politicians, and human rights activists -- might usefully keep at the forefront of their minds?

 

---

1948: United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
by W. Finnerty Mon May 03, 2010 19:19

Article 12:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Article 19:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Related Link: http://secint50.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
 

---

Why do Indymedia (Ireland) believe they have the right to violate human rights?
by W. Finnerty Mon May 03, 2010 20:31

"Why was his post removed from this thread?"

Related Link: http://www.humanrightsireland.com/IndyMediaIreland/2May2010/Post.htm#comment267996

 

---

Potential Class Action
by children_of_lir Thu May 06, 2010 14:18

If medication has been given to patients improperly at risk to their health, and this practice has not been recognised by or addressed by the Mental Health Commission, this might constitute an ongoing health risk to other patients who might be affected at the Cavan/Monaghan Mental Health Centres. The MHC has a code of practice suggesting “best practice” by doctors, which include addressing complaints quickly and professionally, however this complaint was apparently never addressed at all. There may be grounds for a class action for other patients at other centres who have similarly had their complaints of medical misconduct disregarded.

 

---

Stuck
by Despairing Thu May 06, 2010 17:10

The sad (and sick) reality of the Republic of Ireland at the present time is that the "ruling elites" can commit crime (of all kinds and sizes) with impunity, and that nobody seems to know how (in practice) to "decommission" this deeply unhealthy and obnoxious social arrangement of theirs: even though there is an abundance of "law" in place for just such purposes.

Obviously, the Republic of Ireland legal profession now desperately needs to be PURGED of all the accumulating political and corporate corruption it has foolishly and irresponsibly been absorbing and embracing over the years.

Unfortunately, nobody here seems to have any idea of how -- in practice -- to successfully go about cleaning up our legal profession either.

To compound matters, most (close to all possibly) Republic of Ireland citizens appear to be either unaware of, in denial over, or feigning ignorance of, the MASSIVE problem which we actually have with our legal profession: even though -- for example -- our judges have in recent years very publicly jailed at least eight people (that I know of) who have tried to peacefully object to the "great (and unconstitutional and consequently unlawful) giveaway" of our oil and gas reserves, which have been valued at 5.4 trillion Euros.

Though it is the case that a number of small street protests have been tried, so far they appear to have produced just the odd "flash in the pan", and a few short-lived "false dawns" for some perhaps -- which is not by any means the fault of the street protestors concerned as far as I know, and much more likely to be the fault of all those who are so far completely failing to lawfully and peacefully protest in public: in the face of what they should sensibly be viewing as exceptionally serious and dangerous developments deep within our own society?