Janice, over at Seroxat User Group, met with Texture, today:
Drug group campaigner to meet PM
I've only one comment to make, regarding the first bullet point, in the link, above:
"To know why - four years since it started - the investigation into GlaxoSmithKline is still ongoing. The MHRA, (the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, the body that regulates medicines), is investigating an allegation that GSK withheld information on Seroxat having a higher suicide risk for under 18s. GSK denies this, saying Seroxat was never licensed for children.
Erm, JP, what's that got to do with the price of eggs? If the drug was never licensed for use by minors, then it wasn't for wont of trying on the part of GSK, was it? You had licences refused for paediatric users in both the US and the UK, didn't you - despite Marty's best efforts?
"Improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer"
Matt
Related link:
Seroxat User Group
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Senate Report Alleges GSK Intimidation Over Avandia Concerns
I have a couple of stories, which are doing the rounds, just now. The first concerns the ongoing saga of GSK's smearing/intimidation of John Buse, apropos the Avandia business (is "scandal" too strong a word?):
Senate Report Alleges GSK Intimidation Over Avandia Claims
Perhaps it's worth quoting a couple of little snippets from this Report:
The effect of silencing this criticism is, in our opinion, extremely serious. At a July 30, 2007, safety panel on Avandia, FDA scientists presented an analysis estimating that Avandia caused approximately 83,000 excess heart attacks since coming on the market. Had GSK considered Avandia’s increased cardiovascular risk more seriously when the issue was first raised in 1999 by Dr. Buse, instead of trying to smother an independent medical opinion, some of these heart attacks may have been avoided.
And then:
Even more troubling, documents reveal that plans to silence Dr. Buse involved discussions by executives at the highest levels of GSK, including then and current CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier. Also, GSK prepared and required Dr. Buse to sign a letter claiming that he was no longer worried about cardiovascular risks associated with Avandia.
And so on, and so on, and so on...
"Improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer"
Matt
Related Link:
Seroxat Sufferers
Senate Report Alleges GSK Intimidation Over Avandia Claims
Perhaps it's worth quoting a couple of little snippets from this Report:
The effect of silencing this criticism is, in our opinion, extremely serious. At a July 30, 2007, safety panel on Avandia, FDA scientists presented an analysis estimating that Avandia caused approximately 83,000 excess heart attacks since coming on the market. Had GSK considered Avandia’s increased cardiovascular risk more seriously when the issue was first raised in 1999 by Dr. Buse, instead of trying to smother an independent medical opinion, some of these heart attacks may have been avoided.
And then:
Even more troubling, documents reveal that plans to silence Dr. Buse involved discussions by executives at the highest levels of GSK, including then and current CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier. Also, GSK prepared and required Dr. Buse to sign a letter claiming that he was no longer worried about cardiovascular risks associated with Avandia.
And so on, and so on, and so on...
"Improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer"
Matt
Related Link:
Seroxat Sufferers
Anti-psychotic drug marketed improperly, AG lawsuit says
The second story concerns a civil action previously discussed on these pages, and brought by the Arkansas AG. Three companies are being pursued, but the Complaint that was filed deals with Janssen Pharmaceutica and its drug, Risperdal. The essence of the complaint is that the drug was marketed unlawfully (ie, promotion of off-label use), and that side effect data were suppressed:
Anti-psychotic drug marketed improperly, AG lawsuit says
Full details of the Complaint may be found at Furious Seasons - due deference to Phil Dawdy, for making this available:
McDaniel v Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., and Others
"Progress through innovation"
Matt
Related Links:
Pharmalot
Anti-psychotic drug marketed improperly, AG lawsuit says
Full details of the Complaint may be found at Furious Seasons - due deference to Phil Dawdy, for making this available:
McDaniel v Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., and Others
"Progress through innovation"
Matt
Related Links:
Pharmalot
Friday, 16 November 2007
Treat your depression with this simple multichoice
I'm not sure what the CU CBT script looks like, so I thought I'd come up with one of my own. I've tried to make the questions generic enough to cope with any answer from the previous one. Although numbered 1-5, number 5 is intended to loop round and feed into 1, again. When you've got bored of the loop, stop answering the questions.
1. Why are you doing this disempowering behaviour?
2. And how does that benefit you (particularly if you answered "don't know" to the previous question)?
3. Are you able to think of something else, which would achieve the objective that you identified in 2., above?
4. If you are able to think of "something else," does it look like an attractive option, as perceived by you? If it does, then perhaps you should try that?
5. If it doesn't look like an attractive option, in that you can foresee difficulties implementing it, are you able to modify it? If not, or you're not able to think of an alternative, go back to 1.
Feedback is important. If this doesn't work for you, let me know where it fell down.
If you do try it, I suggest you re-write the questions, substituting the pronouns with the particular issue, thus:
1. Why are you doing this disempowering behaviour?
Don't know.
2. And how does "not knowing" benefit you?
Don't know.
3. Are you able to think of something else, which would allow you to "not know"?
Don't know.
4. If you are able to think of "something else," which would allow you to not know, does it look like an attractive option, as perceived by you? If it does, then perhaps you should try that?
Don't know.
5. If not knowing doesn't look like an attractive option, in that you can foresee difficulties implementing it, are you able to modify not knowing? If not, or you're not able to think of an alternative, go back to 1.
Don't know.
1. Why are you doing this disempowering behaviour?
2. And how does that benefit you (particularly if you answered "don't know" to the previous question)?
3. Are you able to think of something else, which would achieve the objective that you identified in 2., above?
4. If you are able to think of "something else," does it look like an attractive option, as perceived by you? If it does, then perhaps you should try that?
5. If it doesn't look like an attractive option, in that you can foresee difficulties implementing it, are you able to modify it? If not, or you're not able to think of an alternative, go back to 1.
Feedback is important. If this doesn't work for you, let me know where it fell down.
If you do try it, I suggest you re-write the questions, substituting the pronouns with the particular issue, thus:
1. Why are you doing this disempowering behaviour?
Don't know.
2. And how does "not knowing" benefit you?
Don't know.
3. Are you able to think of something else, which would allow you to "not know"?
Don't know.
4. If you are able to think of "something else," which would allow you to not know, does it look like an attractive option, as perceived by you? If it does, then perhaps you should try that?
Don't know.
5. If not knowing doesn't look like an attractive option, in that you can foresee difficulties implementing it, are you able to modify not knowing? If not, or you're not able to think of an alternative, go back to 1.
Don't know.
Go online to beat depression
In my reality, this story falls into the category of "dog bites man," but in a country where 80-odd per cent of depressives routinely get prescribed drugs, I suppose it's revolutionary. I'll see if I can find the paper:
"Research conducted by The City University in London has revealed that patients with depression can experience considerable relief by having one hour per day of therapy online. Furthermore over 3 out of every 5 patients are able to cease treatment after only eight sessions."
(Source: Go online to beat depression)
Not that this will devastate antidepressant sales if it catches on, or anything. Because that would be awful.
Related link
City releases research into computerised cognitive behavioural therapy
"Research conducted by The City University in London has revealed that patients with depression can experience considerable relief by having one hour per day of therapy online. Furthermore over 3 out of every 5 patients are able to cease treatment after only eight sessions."
(Source: Go online to beat depression)
Not that this will devastate antidepressant sales if it catches on, or anything. Because that would be awful.
Related link
City releases research into computerised cognitive behavioural therapy
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Dear [redacted],
That's very kind. Thank you.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***************************
Subject: RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:29:40 +0000
From: [redacted]@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
To: [redacted]@hotmail.co.uk
CC: foi-enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk
Dear Mr Holford,
Thank you for your email.
Per the ICO's email of 12 November I have attached the following documents:
- FOI requests and responses relating to matters 07/040, 07/066, 07/088, 07/104, 07/105, 07/118, 07/130, 07/131, 07/140 and 07/142
- Requests made on 29 & 31 May and 3 June and the Agency's response of 8 June (these requests were not allocated FOI reference numbers)
- Your request for a review
- A copy of my review dated 12 September 2007
Kind regards,
[redacted]
***************************
From: Matthew Holford
Sent: 12 November 2007 19:03
To: [redacted]
Cc: foi-enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Dear [redacted],
Kindly forward a copy of your file on your investigation into my complaint concerning the MHRA's regulatory activities for [redacted]'s attention, please, as the Office appears to have strict lines of demarcation, when it comes to investigating concerns over flim-flam, fraud and cover-up. Please feel free to reply by saying that you have no obligation to assist the Office, or me.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***************************
From: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To: [redacted]@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000
12th November 2007
Case Reference Number FS50180689
Dear Mr Holford
Thank you for your correspondence dated 7 November 2007 in relation to your complaint about the MHRA.
As the regulator of the legislation, our remit is to determine a public authority’s compliance and we can only act where information supplied to us shows evidence of a breach. The Information Commissioner does not request information from public authorities on behalf of individuals.
Therefore, as stated in our correspondence dated 7 November 2007, before we can progress complaints about the refusal to release information we need to be provided with copies of the following:
· Your initial request for information
· The public authority’s initial response
· Your request for a review (where appropriate)
· The public authority‘s review of their decision (where appropriate)
We require these documents as:
it provides us with a full set of unedited evidence in support of the complaint
it is necessary to provide a copy of the initial request to the public authority when we first notify them of having received a complaint
Your case will remain closed until we receive the documents we have requested. You should only send documents that are directly relevant to your complaint. If you send too many or irrelevant documents, we may return the documents to you and ask you to sort out and return only the relevant ones.
Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter in all further correspondence regarding this matter.
Yours sincerely
[redacted]
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office
The Information Commissioner's Office is the UK's independent authority set up to promote access to official information and to protect personal information
That's very kind. Thank you.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***************************
Subject: RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:29:40 +0000
From: [redacted]@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
To: [redacted]@hotmail.co.uk
CC: foi-enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk
Dear Mr Holford,
Thank you for your email.
Per the ICO's email of 12 November I have attached the following documents:
- FOI requests and responses relating to matters 07/040, 07/066, 07/088, 07/104, 07/105, 07/118, 07/130, 07/131, 07/140 and 07/142
- Requests made on 29 & 31 May and 3 June and the Agency's response of 8 June (these requests were not allocated FOI reference numbers)
- Your request for a review
- A copy of my review dated 12 September 2007
Kind regards,
[redacted]
***************************
From: Matthew Holford
Sent: 12 November 2007 19:03
To: [redacted]
Cc: foi-enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk; [redacted]@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Dear [redacted],
Kindly forward a copy of your file on your investigation into my complaint concerning the MHRA's regulatory activities for [redacted]'s attention, please, as the Office appears to have strict lines of demarcation, when it comes to investigating concerns over flim-flam, fraud and cover-up. Please feel free to reply by saying that you have no obligation to assist the Office, or me.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
***************************
From: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To: [redacted]@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:23:17 +0000
12th November 2007
Case Reference Number FS50180689
Dear Mr Holford
Thank you for your correspondence dated 7 November 2007 in relation to your complaint about the MHRA.
As the regulator of the legislation, our remit is to determine a public authority’s compliance and we can only act where information supplied to us shows evidence of a breach. The Information Commissioner does not request information from public authorities on behalf of individuals.
Therefore, as stated in our correspondence dated 7 November 2007, before we can progress complaints about the refusal to release information we need to be provided with copies of the following:
· Your initial request for information
· The public authority’s initial response
· Your request for a review (where appropriate)
· The public authority‘s review of their decision (where appropriate)
We require these documents as:
it provides us with a full set of unedited evidence in support of the complaint
it is necessary to provide a copy of the initial request to the public authority when we first notify them of having received a complaint
Your case will remain closed until we receive the documents we have requested. You should only send documents that are directly relevant to your complaint. If you send too many or irrelevant documents, we may return the documents to you and ask you to sort out and return only the relevant ones.
Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter in all further correspondence regarding this matter.
Yours sincerely
[redacted]
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office
The Information Commissioner's Office is the UK's independent authority set up to promote access to official information and to protect personal information
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Bad Behavior Does Not Doom Pupils, Studies Say
Phil Dawdy, over at Furious Seasons, has this story running, just now, which is what alerted me to it. There was something on the Beeb, a couple of days ago; less detailed, but I think it was the same studies that were being discussed:
Bad Behaviour Does Not Doom Pupils, Studies Say
The first couple of bricks to fall out of the ADHD wall? Who knows, eh, who knows?
Matt
Bad Behaviour Does Not Doom Pupils, Studies Say
The first couple of bricks to fall out of the ADHD wall? Who knows, eh, who knows?
Matt
Sunday, 11 November 2007
Albourne Partners Limited
Albourne Partners Limited is my ex-employer. I was fired a couple of years ago, because, according to them I was no longer willing to comply with the Albourne Partners Limited's Rules. I was threatened with legal action, in the event that I spilled the beans about the Albourne Partners' activities, because under my contract of employment (which I maintain that Albourne Partners Limited repudiated, by its conduct), it is claimed that I am not permitted to speak ill of the cunts, even after leaving. So I won't, I'll just tell you what happened. What happened was that I complained.
I complained about the fact that I was given compliance responsibility, but no authority. I complained about the fact that I was stonewalled, whenever I asked for information, which would permit me to do my job. I complained about the fact that my computer systems didn't work, and that nobody appeared to be interested in fixing them. And I complained that Albourne Partners Limited had engaged a client without question, which it is my view should have been referred to NCIS (merged a couple of years back with a bunch of other investigative and intelligence units to form SOCA), and I was told by the MD not to raise similar matters with the Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
It was going to have Coldplay play at one of its corporate jollies, a couple of years back. I wonder if Chris Martin, ethical chap that he is, would approve? The Queen was kind enough to give Albourne Partners Limited her Award for Export Excellence, or somesuch. I wonder if she knows how it conducts itself towards employees, whom it regards as surplus to requirements? Do you think I should tell her? As such, this is my appraisal of its performance:
Matt
I complained about the fact that I was given compliance responsibility, but no authority. I complained about the fact that I was stonewalled, whenever I asked for information, which would permit me to do my job. I complained about the fact that my computer systems didn't work, and that nobody appeared to be interested in fixing them. And I complained that Albourne Partners Limited had engaged a client without question, which it is my view should have been referred to NCIS (merged a couple of years back with a bunch of other investigative and intelligence units to form SOCA), and I was told by the MD not to raise similar matters with the Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
It was going to have Coldplay play at one of its corporate jollies, a couple of years back. I wonder if Chris Martin, ethical chap that he is, would approve? The Queen was kind enough to give Albourne Partners Limited her Award for Export Excellence, or somesuch. I wonder if she knows how it conducts itself towards employees, whom it regards as surplus to requirements? Do you think I should tell her? As such, this is my appraisal of its performance:
Matt
Finland gunman suicide note found
Just another tale of a school shooting. The only thing that appears to set it apart from the rest is that it took place in Finland, rather than the US. Apparently the "shooter" supported radical groups, and whatnot, and there's a big gun-owning community in Finland, much as there is in the US. A loner, apparently disaffected, Auvinen proceeded to kill six fellow students and two members of staff:
Finland gunman suicide note found
So, what? Well, AHRP was kind enough to point out what. It seems that the english-speaking press (and not just the Beeb) decided not to discuss all the available angles. It seems that Auvinen was on SSRIs:
Press censorship over SSRI case
Now, we shouldn't be too quick to assume that this is a matter of collusion with the Worshipful Company, although one might suggest that the only other explanation is incompetence on the part of the media, what with the association between aggressive/homicidal behaviour and SSRI useage being well-documented, and even acknowledged by the manufacturers, to a limited degree.
Mind you, what with everything else we know about the Worshipful Company, it's difficult not to let your mind wander in that direction. Perhaps the Fourth Estate will remedy its oversight over the course of the next couple of days...
Matt
Finland gunman suicide note found
So, what? Well, AHRP was kind enough to point out what. It seems that the english-speaking press (and not just the Beeb) decided not to discuss all the available angles. It seems that Auvinen was on SSRIs:
Press censorship over SSRI case
Now, we shouldn't be too quick to assume that this is a matter of collusion with the Worshipful Company, although one might suggest that the only other explanation is incompetence on the part of the media, what with the association between aggressive/homicidal behaviour and SSRI useage being well-documented, and even acknowledged by the manufacturers, to a limited degree.
Mind you, what with everything else we know about the Worshipful Company, it's difficult not to let your mind wander in that direction. Perhaps the Fourth Estate will remedy its oversight over the course of the next couple of days...
Matt
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
RE: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689] - CASE CLOSED
I've lost my dictionary: what does "embarassing" mean? And what does "inadequate" mean? And could you just remind me what "piss-poor" means, while you're at it, please? Copied to Vara, Fletcher and Johnson:
Dear H Jarman,
I imagine that the ICO's sweeping powers of investigation will permit it to request these documents of the MHRA - I suspect it will be in possession of an impressive file, by now. Sean Fletcher is the individual that you need to speak to, should it please you to do so. In all events, you have my permission, under whichever piece of legislation, to request this information of it.
Incidentally, whilst the Worshipful Company appears to be regarded as powerful/influential/whatever, that means very little to me: a flim-flam man is a flim-flam man, as far as I'm concerned.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
*************************************
From: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:33:29 +0000
7th November 2007
Case Reference Number FS50180689
Dear Mr Holford
Information request to MHRA.
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 October 2007 in which you complain about MHRA.
So we can progress your complaint we need you to provide copies of the following:
· Your initial request for information to MHRA
· MHRA’s initial response
· Your request for a review
· MHRA‘s review of the decision
Your case has now been closed as there is no further action we are able to take without the documents we have requested. We require these documents as:
· it provides us with a full set of unedited evidence in support of the complaint
· it is necessary to provide a copy of the initial request to the public authority when we first notify them of having received a complaint
Once we receive the information we have requested your complaint can be reopened.
Please quote the reference number from the top of this letter in any further correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
H Jarman
FoI Case Reception Unit
The information Commissioner’s Office
Dear H Jarman,
I imagine that the ICO's sweeping powers of investigation will permit it to request these documents of the MHRA - I suspect it will be in possession of an impressive file, by now. Sean Fletcher is the individual that you need to speak to, should it please you to do so. In all events, you have my permission, under whichever piece of legislation, to request this information of it.
Incidentally, whilst the Worshipful Company appears to be regarded as powerful/influential/whatever, that means very little to me: a flim-flam man is a flim-flam man, as far as I'm concerned.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
*************************************
From: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: ICO response[Ref. FS50180689]
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:33:29 +0000
7th November 2007
Case Reference Number FS50180689
Dear Mr Holford
Information request to MHRA.
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 October 2007 in which you complain about MHRA.
So we can progress your complaint we need you to provide copies of the following:
· Your initial request for information to MHRA
· MHRA’s initial response
· Your request for a review
· MHRA‘s review of the decision
Your case has now been closed as there is no further action we are able to take without the documents we have requested. We require these documents as:
· it provides us with a full set of unedited evidence in support of the complaint
· it is necessary to provide a copy of the initial request to the public authority when we first notify them of having received a complaint
Once we receive the information we have requested your complaint can be reopened.
Please quote the reference number from the top of this letter in any further correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
H Jarman
FoI Case Reception Unit
The information Commissioner’s Office
Sunday, 4 November 2007
FW: Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor
Have you ever wondered to what extent the medical profession is in bed with the psychopaths in the Establishment (the medical profession is, after all, part of the Establishment)? No? Well, I have. In fact, I often wonder who else the Establishment is in bed with, but that's for another time, I imagine.
Just imagine, if you were Mr Establishment, and you needed to know how to fuck around with a person's mind, for example? Let's say that you didn't have any clear idea of the purpose to which you would put the information, but you thought it might be useful, anyway? Never a good idea to fuck around with something, the nature of which is unclear to one, but since when did those in power have any "good" ideas? Anyway:
Dear Sir or Madam,
My colleagues and I are currently engaged in a lively discussion concerning the legal and ethical probity of medical practitioners lending their tacit approval to activities that, I think it is reasonable to state, amount to torture, (outside the rarefied (and interested) atmosphere of certain offices, that is), by attending these sessions. We came to the conclusion that the position was unclear, with professionals from both legal and medical camps playing games of semantics with coded language, by some accounts, and certainly to our eyes.
As such we determined to clarify the position, at least in the UK. What is the GMC's position on its members (ie, any and all medical professionals who subscribe to the GMC's Code of Ethics), attending these sessions? What would be the GMC's advice to a member concerning that member's legal/ethical position, were (s)he to attend a torture session? What would be the GMC's position with respect to a medical professional who attended a torture session, who was confronted with that fact, and denied its truth? What is the GMC's position with respect to its members (as defined, above), lying to it/the public, on a more general level? Does the GMC distinguish between lies to the public and lies to the GMC?
Your clarification on these various points is massively appreciated, as always, and I look forward to your detailed response in early course.
Very best regards
Matthew Holford
*********************************************
From: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
To: [redacted]@btinternet.com
Subject: Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:59:46 +0000
Hey,
I was just wondering what the profession's position was on doctors attending this sort of ritual?
Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor
"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral."
I know that doctors in the UK have been advised not to attend forced internal cavity searches, because of their legal position (they couldn't be guaranteed immunity from prosecution), although I don't remember, now, whether there was an ethical angle to this... I know what the official position is: some bollox about "seeking to prevent greater harm," or something, which sounds frighteningly like "I was following orders," to me, but still.
Matt
Just imagine, if you were Mr Establishment, and you needed to know how to fuck around with a person's mind, for example? Let's say that you didn't have any clear idea of the purpose to which you would put the information, but you thought it might be useful, anyway? Never a good idea to fuck around with something, the nature of which is unclear to one, but since when did those in power have any "good" ideas? Anyway:
Dear Sir or Madam,
My colleagues and I are currently engaged in a lively discussion concerning the legal and ethical probity of medical practitioners lending their tacit approval to activities that, I think it is reasonable to state, amount to torture, (outside the rarefied (and interested) atmosphere of certain offices, that is), by attending these sessions. We came to the conclusion that the position was unclear, with professionals from both legal and medical camps playing games of semantics with coded language, by some accounts, and certainly to our eyes.
As such we determined to clarify the position, at least in the UK. What is the GMC's position on its members (ie, any and all medical professionals who subscribe to the GMC's Code of Ethics), attending these sessions? What would be the GMC's advice to a member concerning that member's legal/ethical position, were (s)he to attend a torture session? What would be the GMC's position with respect to a medical professional who attended a torture session, who was confronted with that fact, and denied its truth? What is the GMC's position with respect to its members (as defined, above), lying to it/the public, on a more general level? Does the GMC distinguish between lies to the public and lies to the GMC?
Your clarification on these various points is massively appreciated, as always, and I look forward to your detailed response in early course.
Very best regards
Matthew Holford
*********************************************
From: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
To: [redacted]@btinternet.com
Subject: Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:59:46 +0000
Hey,
I was just wondering what the profession's position was on doctors attending this sort of ritual?
Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor
"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral."
I know that doctors in the UK have been advised not to attend forced internal cavity searches, because of their legal position (they couldn't be guaranteed immunity from prosecution), although I don't remember, now, whether there was an ethical angle to this... I know what the official position is: some bollox about "seeking to prevent greater harm," or something, which sounds frighteningly like "I was following orders," to me, but still.
Matt
Thursday, 1 November 2007
GSK planning a second round of lay-offs?
Bob Fiddaman's got a tale of woe (GSK's employees', apparently), just now. I'll link you through, and you can read it for yourself. Suffice is to say that I've got little sympathy for any of those concerned. I 'mailed the article through to the One of the Four, so that he could appreciate what a bunch of cunts I think he and his type are:
GSK planning a second round of lay-offs?
Matt
GSK planning a second round of lay-offs?
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
