These failures reflect badly on the medical profession

Tuesday 09 May 2000 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Important lessons emerge from the tragedy of the Staffordshire hospital experiment that went so horribly wrong, in which many premature babies tragically died.

The Griffiths inquiry, whose conclusions were published yesterday, rightly notes that there should be much better monitoring of medical research projects. Under the current system, projects can be approved, almost on the nod, by committees that scarcely have time to focus on the projects that they are being asked to approve. Crucially, there is little control of a project once it is under way. David Southall, professor of paediatrics at Keele University, and Martin Samuels, a consultant paediatrician at North Staffordshire Hospital Trust - who were suspended last December over separate allegations about alleged harassment of parents with regard to child protection - were allowed to do almost whatever they wanted, with no questions asked.

Above all, it is crucial that parents should give informed consent for any experiments that take place. The key word is "informed", for it is clear that there was no such consent. The parents of premature babies, already stressed because of what they had gone through, were offered no real opportunity to consider whether or not they wished the new form of ventilator - still in its experimental stages - to be used. Many parents who signed consent forms had no idea of what they had said yes to, or that they had been asked to make any choice at all. Worst of all, some consent forms may have been forged.

In other words, we are back to the doctor-as-God question, which has been at the heart of so many medical problems of recent years. Intelligent advice is clearly worthwhile. Patients will often need help in making up their minds. But doctors still too often treat their patients not just as ignorant (which is true enough: we remain uninformed until somebody chooses to inform us), but also as mindless.

There is too much eagerness, also, for the medical establishment to wash its hands of all the problems that occur. Once again, the inquiry that issued its damning conclusions yesterday - accompanied by separate investigations by the General Medical Council and the police - was set up only after unhappy parents took the problems to their local MP, who raised the issues. The North Staffordshire Hospital should have taken a more active role in pursuing the complaints. Its failure reflects badly on the medical profession itself.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in