Of course, no one suffered a memory lapse that seems to have occurred many years after 1992. Our question is this, is the " memory lapse" defence a desperate attempt to mitigate the accusations the Henshalls have made in all the media outlets for many many years - ie that the consent forms were forged. Of course, they were never forged. The article and defence shows that no one believes this Memory Lapse story listed as a " get out clause" "once caught red handed". Infact the GMC Committee at the time did not believe it either. If it indeed a lie, then we should seriously question the level of NHS funds and doctors subscriptions invested in relatives of dubious credibility. If these accusations of forgery were ever made in a statement of truth..... it is interesting what Penny Mellor would say.
After the Prowse case, the GMC should have questioned the credibility of the Henshalls. They didn't question this.
From the BBC Article.
"Parents would have been reluctant to accept the advice of doctors they believed to be guilty of forgery.
The allegation of forgery was "entirely false", the committee said.
Lawyers acting for Mrs Henshall complained that the finding implied that Mrs Henshall had lied.
They said it "coloured" the committee's ruling to the extent that the whole decision should be overturned.
But on Thursday, Mr Justice Keith refused Mrs Henshall permission to challenge the decision.
He held that the finding did not reflect on Mrs Henshall's honesty or credibility.
The committee, which had heard evidence that she might have suffered from a memory lapse because she signed under the after-effects of anaesthetic, was simply saying that she had indeed signed the consent form.
The judge also rejected a plea that the reference to the falsity of the forgery claim should be deleted from the record of the committee's decision because it could prejudice a medical negligence damages claim being brought against the hospital on behalf of her disabled child.
Mr Justice Keith said the forgery issue had no bearing on the pending damages claim, which concerned the quality of the research and care provided by the hospital.
After the Prowse case, the GMC should have questioned the credibility of the Henshalls. They didn't question this.
From the BBC Article.
"Parents would have been reluctant to accept the advice of doctors they believed to be guilty of forgery.
The allegation of forgery was "entirely false", the committee said.
Lawyers acting for Mrs Henshall complained that the finding implied that Mrs Henshall had lied.
They said it "coloured" the committee's ruling to the extent that the whole decision should be overturned.
But on Thursday, Mr Justice Keith refused Mrs Henshall permission to challenge the decision.
He held that the finding did not reflect on Mrs Henshall's honesty or credibility.
The committee, which had heard evidence that she might have suffered from a memory lapse because she signed under the after-effects of anaesthetic, was simply saying that she had indeed signed the consent form.
The judge also rejected a plea that the reference to the falsity of the forgery claim should be deleted from the record of the committee's decision because it could prejudice a medical negligence damages claim being brought against the hospital on behalf of her disabled child.
Mr Justice Keith said the forgery issue had no bearing on the pending damages claim, which concerned the quality of the research and care provided by the hospital.
No comments:
Post a Comment