Like Exhibits in a Zoo: Investigation into the Association of Jimmy Savile with Stoke Mandeville Hospital

It seems entertainer Jimmy Savile was one of the most prolific abusers the United Kingdom has ever had the misfortune to know. I say "it seems" because he unfortunately passed away before he could be bought to justice. However, the evidence we now have based on the statements of those he abused seems pretty overwhelming. To those readers who wish to improve their background knowledge of this twisted and sick personality and the historical context which enabled him, I would heartily recommend the following recently published biography: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plain-Sight-Life-Jimmy-Savile/dp/1782067434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425028465&sr=1-1&keywords=jimmy+saville

Though not scatological in any of its descriptions, the book does not pull any punches when it comes to exposing the details and the social, economic, historical and political circumstances in which his abusive activity took place.

I write this because yesterday saw the publication of the official report into Savile's activities at Stoke Mandeville hospital. It can be found at: http://www.speakingoutinvestigation.com/Downloads/Speaking%20out%20investigation/2902210_Investigation%20into%20the%20Association%20of%20Jimmy%20Savile%20with%20Stoke%20Mandeville%20Hospital.pdf

From the report it would seem that the British invited evil into the place where we tend to our most vulnerable and allowed it to run rampant there... All because we decided we did not wish to properly finance these services collectively and instead rely on the 'charity' of private individuals.

The words of 30 year-old victim 51 are particularly relevant:

Victim 51 recalls not wanting to rock the boat as she knew being at Stoke Mandeville was a privilege and she was worried she would be asked to
leave if she said bad things about Savile. She recalls Stoke Mandeville being very different from other hospitals, for example, the sheets were canary yellow and the reception looked more like “somebody’s psychedelic house” everyone was aware how lucky they were to be treated there.
Victim 51 recalls that Savile would often take groups of VIPs around the ward and that the patients did not like this feeling that they were exhibits in a zoo.

So some patients in our public service health system were receiving better treatment than others and were made painfully aware of this. The price they had to pay was their dignity, because like those aristocrats whose idea of a good time was to drop in to the old asylum of Bethlehem to see the sick, the insane and the delusional cavorting in their chains, as so powerfully portrayed by Hogarth, the well-off and powerful today still derive that same vicarious enjoyment from contemplating the misery of those less fortunate than themselves. Savile of course, the master enabler, knew precisely how to pander to these degraded and degrading impulses.

Hogarth, A Rake's Progress, painting number 8.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect to arise from this report is that in the course of the investigation three further abusers were detected, whose victims were the same vulnerable patients, were active within the hospital over the same period, one of whom was recently sent to prison for 11 years for abusing several children in his care. It is not yet known whether any of these doctors (yes, you read right, they were all, unlike Savile, medically qualified), had any links with Savile and what these might be.

This is abuse and corruption, this is what happens when charity takes the place of proper funding. We should learn from this, but I doubt we will. We should expect more of this as our health services are relentlessly privatised.

Tracey v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Others: A Patient's Right to be consulted

The rights of patients in the UK today are horrifyingly limited but at least the court recognised here that they should be consulted when their medical team presumes to take life or death decisions on their future healthcare.

Although, it could, and has, give rise to endless debate, the merits of whether or not to undertake CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was not the main issue in this case. The crux of the judgment is that Mrs Janet Tracey, who although very sick (she was badly injured in a car crash and had been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour), was fully aware and cognisant was not consulted or involved in the decision making process when a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order was placed in her file by her doctors. And, by the way, neither was any other member of her close family who were almost constantly at her bedside.

Doctors in the UK are treated like minor deities. They are a scarce resource, if not always well paid. Most of them, I know from personal experience, are approachable, humane and decent, some, however are arrogant and overbearing and not a few are woefully ignorant about ethics and the rights of those in their care. Needless to say the courts almost always bend over backwards to accommodate them. But in this case judge recognised that they may have gone too far:

There is nothing in the medical/nursing records which suggests any agreement to DNACPR by Mrs Tracey...  If Dr L. had such a conversation, it would have been of importance to note the same both on the DNACPR Notice and in the medical records. I am unable to accept that the absence of such a note is a result of no more than poor record keeping.

(emphasis mine) 

And, even more damningly:

I am unable to accept Dr L’s evidence that he spoke to Mrs Tracey about resuscitation prior to the implementation of the first DNACPR Notice.

So god 0, patient 1, then; perhaps this is a good beginning, the recognition that a doctor does not have the right to unilaterally take a decision on the patient's behalf if the patient or their family are capable, they must and should be involved in the decision making process.

Don't get me wrong, It is completely understandable that many people would rather delegate full decision making responsibility to their medical team, that is their choice. However, not all of us feel the same, and it should never be forgotten that in any civilized society the patient's decision as to their level of involvement must always be respected. 

In my view, further progress needs to be made we should be moving towards a position where the doctor needs to obtain the patient's consent to make such a decision in the first place, hopefully, Mrs Tracey's case is a first step in that direction.