Dear Sir Graeme,
The Fitness to Practice case brought by the GMC against Dr Skinner has
highlighted a number of serious flaws in the structures and practices
of the GMC. Failure to address these weaknesses has resulted in patients
being subjected to unnecessary suffering. It is clear that family practitioners
and endocrinologists work in a climate of fear. Doctors are afraid to
challenge conventional thinking in case they prejudice their career or
suffer the same harassment as Dr Skinner and others. Endocrinologists
are afraid to challenge the thinking of their esteemed peers in case they
prejudice their merit awards, which can run into tens of thousands of
pounds. Proper academic debate is stifled. It is the atmosphere created
by the medical establishment which has led to the failure to re-examine
the role of blood tests in diagnosing hypothyroidism with such tragic
consequences.
During the Hearing a total of 17 patients from across the country attended
to provide glowing testimonials to Dr Skinner during which they disclosed
their full medical history. Their evidence represented a catalogue of
misdiagnosis and mistreatment by the NHS. It is difficult to convey the
full impact of this misdiagnosis on both the patients and their families.
One young lad lost the 10 most formative years of his life. He was confined
indoors; unable to walk downstairs; unable to attend school for years
and unable to make friends. Enquiry was even made as to whether or not
he was the subject of child abuse by his family. The distress, which this
caused, was appalling. During the whole of this period the NHS failed
their patient and his family as a result of blind reliance on blood tests!
Patient after patient after patient provided similar testimony with equally
tragic stories, which moved several at the Hearing to tears. Again and
again the failure of the NHS was due to an over-reliance on blood tests.
Patients were told they were suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome,
ME, depression and virtually anything except hypothyroidism. They suffered
appallingly during years of costly investigations into conditions from
which they did not suffer. Professor Weetman indeed suggested that Dr
Skinner should have referred patients for a truly bewildering number of
prospective conditions during which of course their unnecessary suffering
would have been allowed to continue. During the Hearing, the Panel disclosed
an obsession about blood tests without seemingly understanding the importance
of treating patients rather than blood tests.
Having put the wrong doctor ‘in the dock’ the GMC must surely
now address a number of very serious issues:
1. Why was this case brought against Dr Skinner? Is it because he challenged
established thinking in a somewhat uncompromising manner borne of frustration
at hearing the tragic stories of so many patients? Why did Patient B provide
a testimonial to Dr Skinner during which she testified that when her GP
telephoned to discuss her complaint against Dr Skinner she advised the
GP on more than one occasion that she had made no complaint? Have certain
endocrinologists sought to bring this case in order to protect their own
reputation?
2. Why did the GMC’s expert witness, Professor Weetman, provide testimony which appeared to be both biased and factually incorrect? His views were so extreme they were even contradicted by the GMC’s second expert witness, Dr Lynn. Much of Professor Weetman’s testimony related to sub-clinical hypothyroidism, which was not relevant to the case. His testimony should now be reviewed and questions should be asked!
3. Will funding for research into hypothyroidism now be approved? Dr Skinner and others have long been calling for this, but during the Hearing Professor Weetman dismissed it as unnecessary. In the light of the experience of so many patients this attitude appears to be breathtakingly arrogant. Does Professor Weetman have influence over the projects to which funding is allocated? If so, his entrenched views are likely to remain unchallenged which is against the interest of patients. Equally, does he edit papers on hypothyroidism, which are submitted for publication? Again, his entrenched views will go unchallenged.
4. Why has Dr Skinner’s treatment been successful
where the NHS has failed for so many years? Professor Weetman largely
put it down to a ‘placebo effect’. This provides the ludicrous
prospect of a doctor dispensing placebos to scores of patients up and
down the country with the effect lasting for many years. Possible future
side effects [such as osteoporosis and heart fibrillation] were constantly
highlighted without realising that patients would prefer to run that [unproven]
risk rather than return to their former quality of life. The Panel had
no understanding of that quality of life until they heard the testimonials!!
The related case against Dr Sarah Myhill has been dropped. The Hearing
into Dr Skinner’s case not only declined to suspend him but described
Dr Skinner as a ‘caring and compassionate doctor’. Surely
this amounts to an implicit recognition that doctors should not regard
the reference levels for blood tests as being sacrosanct and should not
be afraid to prescribe thyroxin and other treatments where required? This
message needs to be clearly relayed to practitioners up and down the country.
Every one of the 17 case histories should be re-examined in order that
lessons can be learned and appropriate apologies made to the patients.
Misdiagnosis and mistreatment is continuing to day and unless you take
action to address the above issues you will be complicit in still more
unnecessary suffering.
Yours sincerely,
Murray Ogston