Patient of webberlys commits suicide

What about the Professional Standards Authority, Popchyk? They are the regulators' regulator. They are also concerned about consistency across regulatory bodies.

www.professionalstandards.org.uk/home

They did say that I could contact the General Medical Council, but the GMC has already acted in suspending Webberley.

This complaint is about a pharmacist partnering with and promoting a GP who is suspended from practice. It is the pharmacist's conduct that needs to be investigated.

I have emailed them, asking them to reconsider their decision.

Will let you know the outcome.

is it possible to go straight to CQC with a complaint?

From the CQC article:
CQC – alongside the General Medical Council (GMC), the General Pharmaceutical Council, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency – reminded those running these websites that they must care for people in a safe and effective way, which includes following professional guidelines like any other provider. At the same time, CQC warned the public to act with caution when considering using these websites.

The MHRA and GPhC don't seem interested in this, so maybe the CQC and the GMC are the ones we should contact. Perhaps also Health Inspectorate Wales, the equivalent of the CQC in Wales, who successfully prosecuted Webberley for running an illegal clinic.

hiw.org.uk/healthcare-inspectorate-wales-prosecutes-online-gp

Thanks for the updates, Popchyk. I'll get in touch with the GPhC, as the MHRA didn't respond to me either. It might be worth asking who this should be referred to if it's outside their "regulatory jurisdiction".

A pharmacist using a doctor who is suspended from the GMC does not call into question the fitness to practice of the pharmacy professional, apparently.

This doesn't seem right. Surely a pharmacist has a professional duty to ensure that any doctor they recommend is properly qualified and not barred from practice.

I haven't read the whole thread, but is it possible to go straight to CQC with a complaint? They have previously suspended online providers, including Doctor Matt Ltd, also linked to the Webberleys

www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/cqc-continues-take-action-against-websites-selling-prescription-medicines

Just bumping this in the hope that @OldCrone sees my latest posts.

They did say:

"A record of your concern will be retained by the GPhC and may be considered if any further concerns are received about this pharmacy".

Would some others mind raising a concern about Clear Chemist and Helen Webberley with them?

The best thing would be to email them directly:

[email protected]

OhHoly,

I've already tried that, using the [email protected] email.

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) are the ones who said that they won't investigate.

I will ask them to review their decision.

@Popchyk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeneralPharmaceuticall_Council

They have a 'raising concerns' section on their website

www.pharmacyregulation.org

(Really great that you're pursuing this, I'm still haven't sent my BBC complaint or my emails on Changing Rooms.)

@OldCrone

Made a complaint about Clear Chemist's reference to their "online doctor" Helen Webberley, who is suspended from the GMC.

www.clearchemist.co.uk/doctor/talk-to-a-doctor

"Clear Chemist’s online doctor, Dr Webberley, can help you with all of your health concerns. There are a number of ways to contact her and she will aim to answer your queries as soon as she can. ‘Online GP Services LTD’ can prescribe or arrange treatment that can be sent to you through the post or arrange for you to pick it up from one of our pharmacies".

I used the medicine-seller-register.mhra.gov.uk/report/ link that OldCrone referred to in order to report a concern.

I did not hear back from them and so sent another complaint to the [email protected] email.

Just got a reply back saying that they didn't receive my previous complaints.

They then stated:

"We have formed the view that your concern pertains to a GP that has been suspended and is still listed as a doctor for Clear Chemist. As your concern does not call into question the fitness to practice of a pharmacy professional, unfortunately this falls outside of our regulatory jurisdiction".

A pharmacist using a doctor who is suspended from the GMC does not call into question the fitness to practice of the pharmacy professional, apparently.

That seems entirely wrong.

Anybody got any ideas on where to go next with this?

Senior medical professionals & Safeguarding experts whistle blew Duty of Care concerns about the treatment of gender identity questioning children.

These whistle blown concerns are a matter of public record & an inquiry is long overdue into the care of vulnerable young people by both NHS & private medical practice:

"The true histories of “highly disturbed or complex” child patients were not properly explored by Gids clinicians struggling with “huge and unmanageable caseloads” and afraid of being accused of transphobia if they questioned the “rehearsed” surface presentation. The report says the concerns voiced by staff are shared by Sonia Appleby, who is in charge of safeguarding at the trust."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3509817-Times-16-2-1-9-Staff-at-trans-clinic-fear-damage-to-children

Or "users".

That's what dealers call their customers, I hear.

If that's the level of care, customers rather than patients seems the appropriate term.

Yes. Context is everything.

It seems extremely heavy handed to have deleted on this basis, if that's why it was deleted.

We must understand what is happening to born females in this climate. Pronouns are, indeed, Rohypnol.

Two important points worth highlighting with regards the deleted post for context.

Transgender Trend's twitter comment which I quoted starts:

"We don't normally comment on suidide cases out of respect for the parents and family and because it's so devastating. But the mother in this case has spoken publicly and what she reveals is a disturbing catalogue of red flag warnings."

& from the end of extended article published subsequently & referenced above:

"Note: We will be accused of ‘misgendering.’ We have used the pronoun which refers to this young person’s sex because to use the pronoun ‘he’ would obscure the understanding of this story as the story of a female adolescent, which is part of the problem if we really want to understand why so many female adolescents are being referred to the Tavistock."

I hadnt seen the extended Transgender article when I posted the tweeted summary.

If I had, I would likely have linked to it instead & quoted a key short passage.

IMO the tweeted summary is also useful in that it distils down to the main critical points of potential Safeguarding & Duty of Care failures. (see also LangCleg's early post on this thread which does the same)
This is standard practice for those who work within Safeguarding frameworks. It can be very useful for people less familiar with such work to read a summary timeline.

The summary is on the Transgender Trend site. The part about Jayden is about half way through the article, starting with this paragraph. (Note to MNHQ: I am not 'misgendering' - this is a direct quote from another site. I'm sure you don't expect me to edit such quotes to conform to 'non-misgendering' rules - or do you?).

Behind these statistics are individual, vulnerable children. If one single case demonstrates the need for an inquiry, it is the tragic suicide of one such girl. The background of the case of Jess/Jayden Lowe is typical of the troubled cohort now coming forward to the Tavistock. Diagnosed with Aspergers and with a history of being “bullied mercilessly for being different” Jess was a lesbian who was clearly gender non-conforming from an early age. A family friend says: ‘We can’t understand how we didn’t see he was a boy a long time ago’.

Oh FFS.

It was a chronological summary of potential Safeguarding failings & 'red flags'
The details are specific & pertinant to the critical time points.

It was a summary & so the description was of a particular point in time when both were accurate.

Was it a direct quote from Transgender Trend? Surely we should be able to quote other articles without editing them in order to not break MN misgendering rules.

Ive asked for clarification.
Best to wait I think for that.

We have to be able to discuss systemic Safeguarding & Duty of Care failures which impact children in such profound ways.
This is a parenting website.

It referred to Jess rather than Jayden and used female pronouns

If that was the issue, the context has been ignored.
It was a summary & so the description was of a particular point in time when both were accurate.

No disrespect was intended by either TGT or me.

It referred to Jess rather than Jayden and used female pronouns

I was baffled about a deletion yesterday, where I was sympathetic to a 'trans child'. I reported my deleted post to ask why it had been deleted and was told that I'd 'misgendered' the child.

And if a thoughtful, respectful statement about a child (who by definition cannot have a GRC) committing suicide is deleted for that reason then truly the world has gone mad

Quite.

It referred to Jess rather than Jayden and used female pronouns

That’s all I can think of

And if a thoughtful, respectful statement about a child (who by definition cannot have a GRC) committing suicide is deleted for that reason then truly the world has gone mad

They don’t send emails if you break ‘talk’ guidelines, nor do you receive a strike. Emails only get sent if it’s a strike which is only if you break the specific trans guidelines, or they think you are repeating the same thing and don’t know the talk guidelines.