Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Southall struck off

293 replies

ElenyaTuesday · 04/12/2007 16:55

See here

Southall

OP posts:
edam · 09/12/2007 20:01

details of GMC findings here

The summing up is at the bottom.

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 20:05

Well I'd love to see how David Southall would survive in the City. You can't hide your mistakes by accusing someone of MSBP, your P&L account is there for all to see, particularly your bosses. Or if you do manage to squirrel your losses away you destroy the bank, you know, like Nick Leeson.

This "oh they're so marvellous and they sacrifice everything to become doctors" is ridiculous, doctors are well-renumerated and it's still a highly respected profession, no matter how hard people like Southall and Meadow try to bring it into disrepute.

Judy1234 · 09/12/2007 20:07

Even that last post is libellous. You are not allowed to say things like that. He did not try to bring the profession into disrepute if you read the GMC findings, did he? That was not his aim. It might be an effect but he wasn't trying to achieve that. I'm just trying to protect mumsnet posters here and the site,. It's not hard to stay within the law but you do need to be careful unless you don't own a house or savings so have nothing to lose I suppose.

Kathyate6mincepies · 09/12/2007 20:07

I agree Elizabethh. Doctors are very well paid in this country (as indeed they should be).

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 20:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 20:20

Excuse me!

That was, 'Am I correct in believing that it's not libellous to write something like, 'I think he is a nasty man and I wish him the worst?''

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 20:21

My apologies, Xenia, I will ask MN to delete that post as it is mistyped.

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 20:22

I have worked with many doctors up to and including consultant level over a period of 20 years. There are a few I've come across as arrogant as S. but not many. Most even if arrogant are bloody hard-working clinicians who do their research meticulously as part of their daily practice to help further their field & keep up clinical standards.

Out of respect for MNHQ I shall refrain from any more comments that could be seen as libellous (thank you Xenia!)but that is not because I am scared to argue the point.

Fran Lyonn & many others are hounded by these expert witnesses & if it is a CP case then obviously all caution must be taken but unitl these cases are available for scrutiny in open court so that judgements can be challenged the likes of Southall & Meadow will be allowed to thrive.

Judy1234 · 09/12/2007 20:29

No. I know nothing about him. I've no opinion on him at all. I would have thought the one thing that is clear is he was trying to do his job and do his best for children. He might have got that wrong but I doubt there was any malice at all. But I'm not his defender nor his detractor. I just ended up over on this thread by accident.

I do have strong views on power over families however and the need to make the family courts more open and have more checks and balances in the system before children are taken away. I remember my father saying in some cases he'd known it was better the child stayed with the parents with mild child abuse evven than be put in a children's home (we all know the consequences in those, often abuse there and worst life results, low GCSEs) and you're apart from those you love. It's a controversial statement but I think he's right. Obviously it depends on the level of the abuse. Taking children away from parents is such a drastic thing. Sometimes of course it's necessary and poor social workers have to deal with those awful cases too where children are beaten, locked up, abused etc burnt, starved

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 20:30

I'll rephrase, Xenia:

"it's still a highly respected profession, despite the actions of people like Southall and Meadow which could easily bring it into disrepute. The GMC clearly felt the same as it struck them both off the medical register although Meadow was able to overturn the decision at the Court of Appeal."

Are you a libel lawyer Xenia? What is your expertise in this area?

Judy1234 · 09/12/2007 20:35

I have no views on Southall. He could be victim of a witch hunt and the GMC will be over turned and he'll be vindicated. We shall see but my view is certainly not as you just phrased it.

What we do need is a public debate and change to the law such that there is more openness in the family courts.

Something is not libellous if it's true - you can justify it. So if I said Lord Black was guilty of the offences he will be sentenced for tomorrow that is not libellous. If I went further and made other allegations (like his biographer who is apparently going to be sued) then it might well be.

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 20:37

Thanks for the clarification, Xenia.

Elizabetth · 09/12/2007 20:39

I think other factors like the context it is said in i.e a small internet board and the fact that it was slightly tongue in cheek would also make a difference. Also it is a fact that their actions could bring the profession into disrepute, the GMC specifically said so in their ruling when they struck Southall off.

Like I asked, are you a libel lawyer because otherwise my feeling is you should stop appointing yourself board monitor Xenia. If there's something you object to in my posts feel free to report it to the moderators and I'm sure they will act in Mumsnet's best interests.

MrsGrinch · 09/12/2007 20:58

sophable - it you're still reading - I wonder what your take is on the secret files ? How does this sit with his intention of protecting the child when even other HCP's involved in the care of the child had no access to them? How could this be in their best interest?

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 21:18

ooooooooh. mrsgrinch. you know i am.

ok. he may be an arrogant git.

but i find that the position (on this thread) that supposes that he is evil really really odious.

it may be right that he be struck off. but from everything i've read, i would argue that his intentions were good (if arrogant). he is in the business of protecting children and even the gmc panel acknowledge that he has done that, and more, that he had made a huge contribution to child protection.

so. i still find the tone on here odious.

and bossybritches, i really really find it (literally) unbelievable that you think he is equivalent to mengele.

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 21:19

for me it really is a question of motivation.

even you edam...do you think his motives were malevolent? really?

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 21:21

The idea of secret files & keeping any relevant medical history from other docotrs treating a child is abhorant & COMPLETELY against common practice. The sharing of common knowledge/information about a patient could be crucial in planning treatments & totally dangerous if the wrong treament were made in good faith.

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 21:29

Mengele experimentated on children.

One of his tests was to withold oxygen from children, I believe, to see what happened.

That is all I will say.

If you find the tone on here odious then great- as the dear Cod says don't open the thread.

MrsGrinch · 09/12/2007 21:32

Knew you would be sophable

Yes evil is a strong word. Personally I'm struggling to find the 'good intentions' - maybe he started off with some but sadly for many families, they seem to have got lost along the way.

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 21:35

Well, he's appealing the GMC's decision, sophable.

My god, if I had done that to people, and then found out they were telling the truth, I'd feel so bad!

I'd be wracked with guilt for having falsely convicted those people and effectively ruined their lives.

But he doesn't. He's never apologised to those people.

What the hell is wrong with someone like that?

That's a bit whacked.

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 21:36

Yes, for some reason, I think his motives were less than altruous.

Kathyate6mincepies · 09/12/2007 21:36

I personally don't think his motivations were malevolent - I think he believed his research would be of benefit to future children, and I think he believed that in some cases he was protecting children from their parents. However, I do wonder whether he ever knowingly acted against the interests of a particular child (taking excessive risks with that child) on the grounds that it would progress his research.

However, I don't think it makes an awful lot of difference whether he meant well or not - plenty of horrendous crimes are committed by people who believe that they are making the world a better place.

expatinscotland · 09/12/2007 21:37

Soph, I know you like to believe the best in people.

bossybritches · 09/12/2007 21:40

Of course he won't apologise Expat.

In his eyes(and he is an EXPERT he keeps telling us mere mortals)he has not made a mistake, we just don't understand the importance of his work.

You are a kind & christian soul to call him "a bit whacked" you will clearly go to heaven whilst I will not!!

Heathcliffscathy · 09/12/2007 21:42

expat are you ok? i don't do hugs but if i did.... xx