Chapter 9: The local and national media
Further media coverage: 2009–10
Local and national media coverage of the hospital intensified in the course of 2009 as the inquests began and the GMC pursued the question of Dr Barton’s fitness to practise. Media comment became more critical of the hospital and the investigative processes and more in tune with the dissatisfaction expressed by bereaved relatives of patients at the hospital. This would prove to be a transition to a period of growing demand for some form of independent inquiry.
The inquests into the ten deaths began on 18 March 2009 and received local and national coverage in the press and on television. This included coverage by BBC South Today, which was to go on to receive an award from the Royal Television Society.
On 15 March 2009, the Independent on Sunday published a comprehensive account of the events that led to the inquests and a timeline. An article by Nina Lakhani focused on the GMC and its decision-making process when dealing with Dr Barton:
“The Government has so far rejected relatives’ calls for a public inquiry into the deaths, despite stinging criticisms about the way they were handled by the police and the General Medical Council (GMC). Three police investigations have failed to shed light on why the patients died. The GMC, in particular, has been lambasted by the relatives for its failure to act promptly and decisively.
… The GMC has attracted bitter criticism for the way it has handled this case, particularly the length of time it took them to take action. Dr Jane Barton, the only doctor investigated in relation to the case, was ordered last July to stop prescribing morphine, many years after the matter was drawn to the GMC’s attention.
At least one relative of the dead wrote to the GMC in 2002, expressing her concerns about Dr Barton and asking the GMC to investigate. In reply on 11 June 2002, the GMC said: ‘We do not consider that the actions of Dr Barton raise any issue which could be regarded so serious as to justify formal proceedings which may result in the restriction or removal of her registration.’ Yet two months after the inquest was announced last year, Dr Barton’s practice was restricted by the GMC. A fitness to practice hearing will begin after the inquest.
In GMC correspondence seen by The Independent on Sunday, it admits it was aware of the case in 2000, but repeated attempts by GMC lawyers between 2000 and 2004 to persuade the Interim Orders Committee to take action against Dr Barton were unsuccessful. The committee was not convinced of the need to restrict Dr Barton’s practice until the inquest was announced.
… Ann Alexander, the solicitor who represented families in the Harold Shipman inquiry and advised a number of relatives in the Gosport deaths, said: ‘The GMC has made few improvements since the publication of the Shipman inquiry. I do not understand why they failed to impose restrictions on the doctor until 2008. The GMC must remember that its role is to protect patients and not doctors.’
According to the GMC, its actions were held back while other investigations took place, but says the necessary steps to investigate the case fully are being taken. A GMC spokeswoman said: ‘This is a difficult and complex case which has been investigated by various agencies. Criminal investigations always take precedence over any GMC procedures. It was necessary [for us] to wait for the outcome of the various investigations.’” (PCO001063, p3)
On 19 March, the Press Association ran a story on how one patient’s son was treated, under the headline “Hospital gave death news coldly, son claims”. The report read:
“Elsie Lavender, a widow from Gosport, suffered a stroke in early 1996 and was initially treated at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar before being transferred to the GWMH on February 22, 1996.
The 83-year-old suffered from diabetes for 50 years and, as well as the stroke, she suffered a head injury in a fall down the stairs at her home.
Her son Alan Lavender told the inquest that he understood that his mother was transferred to Daedalus stroke rehabilitation ward at GWMH for rehabilitative care. But he added he was shocked when Dr Jane Barton told him in a ‘callous’ manner that his mother ‘had come to the hospital to die’.” (OSM100818, p1)
ITN flagged up the inquiry and BBC South ran regular reports. For example, ITV News Meridian ran a number of reports on the inquests. The press coverage brought out a number of the issues. These included the nurses’ dossier and reference to Robert Wilson’s last words to his son, “Help me son, they’re killing me" (IDP100065, pp18–19).
The coverage of the outcome of the inquests focused on the families’ demands for a public inquiry. The Press Association headline was “Relatives demand public inquiry into hospital deaths”, with an accompanying article, “Hospital labelled death ward".
The Independent reported that the inquest had firmly criticised the hospital. Under the headline “Morphine overdoses blamed for hospital patients’ deaths”, the newspaper’s health editor described it as an “unprecedented inquest” (GMC101233, p202).
The Press Association reported:
“Dr Jane Barton, who works as a GP, said in a statement: ‘I have always acted with care, concern and compassion towards my patients. I am pleased the jury recognised that in all of these cases, drugs were only given for therapeutic purposes.’” (OSM100964, p1)
The Press Association further reported:
“Richard Samuel, director of performance and standards for NHS Hampshire which has inherited control of GWMH, said: ‘It is a matter of regret to the NHS that three verdicts indicate that in the mid/late 1990s the medication administered to these (five) patients has been found to have contributed to their deaths.
NHS Hampshire will be now be contacting these families but I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to the families concerned on behalf of the NHS for any treatment or care which has been found to have contributed to the deaths of their loved ones.’
He added that systems at the hospital had been overhauled to meet the ‘highest standards’.
‘Since the late 1990s the systems and policies in place at Gosport War Memorial Hospital have undergone a complete overhaul.
I can assure the families and local people that all the issues highlighted by these inquests have been addressed and the care at Gosport War Memorial Hospital today is of the highest standard.’
In a statement, Hampshire police said it was not considering re-opening its investigations.
A spokesman said: ‘It is our genuine hope that the extensive nature of the investigations conducted, the findings of the Crown Prosecution Service and now that of HM Coroner provide those involved with some resolution if not comfort for the loss of loved ones.’” (OSM100964, p1)
On 5 April, Nina Lakhani ran a story in the Independent on Sunday entitled “Gosport deaths ‘not important enough’ to justify public inquiry”. The article referred to “The Betrayed” and the newspaper called for an independent public inquiry. The Independent on Sunday suggested that the coroner and an unnamed senior police officer had put pressure on the Department of Health to hold a public inquiry two years previously:
“Officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health refused petitions from a coroner and a senior police officer for a public inquiry in August 2007, according to confidential emails seen by The Independent on Sunday.
But the DoH claimed yesterday that a public inquiry into the deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital was refused on the grounds that it would duplicate work done, or under way, by the police and health regulators – a claim rejected by relatives and lawyers.
Several emails from the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire coroner reveal his concern at the Government’s decision to refuse a public inquiry into all 92 deaths and instead authorise inquests into just 10.
… In an email last November to a relative of one of the dead, the coroner, David Horsley, wrote: ‘Hampshire Police, Hampshire County Council and I all tried to persuade the Government to hold a public inquiry into the deaths but there was no interest whatsoever. Neither was the Government prepared to assist with any additional funding for the inquests.’
In another email, Mr Horsley said: ‘We did try very hard in the public inquiry direction but without any success, despite a face-to-face meeting at the Ministry of Justice in London. The reason for the refusal was that there were no matters of national importance involved.
Prior to that, I tried to pursue with the CPS why no prosecutions were being undertaken. I understand the CPS decided not to prosecute on the advice of leading counsel. I did ask the CPS for sight of counsel’s advice on a number of occasions but they declined to let me see it.’” (GMC000112, pp1–3)
The article also described how the Coroner had refused to allow some detailed medical evidence at the hearing, and referred to demands for an inquiry:
“John White, a solicitor from law firm Blake Lapthorn, is urging the other 82 families to come forward. He said: ‘Until the authorities really understand and acknowledge what went on in Gosport, the families are bound to be left with feelings of injustice, anger and mistrust. Public inquiries were held in the cases of Shipman, Beverley Allitt, Alder Hey and Bristol, which all happened around the time of Gosport. Why then does Gosport not merit a public inquiry?’” (GMC000112, p4)
On 15 May, the Independent reported that Dr Barton would now face a disciplinary hearing: “Doctor to face hearing over patient deaths; GP could be struck off register over prescription of ‘excessive’ drug doses” (MRE001476, p1).
On 24 May, Nina Lakhani reviewed the deaths at the hospital in a 2,438-word feature for the Independent on Sunday, under the headline “Help me son, they’re killing me”. The article traced the story back to 1991, when nurses first alerted hospital staff to their concerns, and linked the events at the hospital with other NHS cases:
“The deaths at Gosport happened around the time of several scandals involving NHS doctors and nurses. In 1993, Nurse Beverly Allitt was convicted of murdering four children at a Lincolnshire hospital. At least three babies died in the Bristol baby scandal between 1991 and 1995, and more than 2,000 organs were illegally harvested at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital between 1988 and 1995. The GP Harold Shipman was convicted of 15 murders in 2000 but a public inquiry found evidence to say he killed at least 250 patients.” (IDP100065, pp18–19; PCO001062, p5)
Nina Lakhani’s article suggested that there may have been a cover-up, possibly for political reasons:
“The consensus among the bereaved families who have spoken out is that there has been a cover-up about what happened at Gosport. They are unhappy with the way their complaints have been dismissed, delayed or inadequately investigated. Relatives believe the deaths were downplayed because another NHS scandal would cause public outrage and may have had political consequences.” (IDP100065, p19; PCO001062, p5)
The same article highlighted the failure to publish the findings of Professor Baker:
“No one - apart from the Government and the GMC - has set eyes on a crucial study by Professor Richard Baker into whether the death rate at Gosport was abnormally high. Other highly critical medical opinions were withheld from the jury by the coroner at the inquests. And the Government rejected pleas from the coroner to hold a public inquiry into all of the deaths rather than inquests into just a few. The children of Arthur Cunningham, Stanley Carby, Robert Wilson and Norma Windsor, who died between 1998 and 2000, have all been advised by the authorities to ‘move on’ and accept that their parents were old and sick - but none is prepared to. They feel let down: by the NHS, police, Crown Prosecution Service, GMC, coroner and the Government. They believe the public deserves the truth and that justice must be done, for their parents, but also for everyone else who has, or will have, an elderly relative in hospital. Because if things go wrong, horribly wrong, the truth should not be hidden - no matter how much it hurts.” (IDP100065, p19; PCO001062, p5)
As Chapter 6 describes, the GMC’s fitness to practise hearing began on 8 June. The coverage was detailed and graphic. The Press Association reported “Elderly Patients left in Drug-Induced Comas, Hearing Told” and “Accused Doctor Prescribed Drugs to ‘Keep Patient Quiet’”.
On 9 June, Metro ran an article titled “Doctor: I drugged patients” (GMC000498, p3). A 1,255-word Press Association article was headed “Mother fell unconscious after painkillers, daughter tells panel”. The British Medical Journal reported on 13 June that “GP admits prescribing painkillers to patients in ‘too wide a range’” (GMC000220, p2).
On 8 July, The Telegraph reported the expert advice of Professor Gary Ford under the headline “Doctor shortened patient’s life with drug cocktail, says expert; accused of hastening death of elderly patient in hospital”:
“‘When you increase a dose of opiates there’s the risk of developing significant adverse effects – respiratory depression or reduced conscious level,’ Prof Ford said.
‘I can’t see how it is consistent with good medical practice. I can’t see how it is in the best interests of the patient to have the opiates prescribed. This man is dying, there is little doubt about that, but the treatment he is receiving as a dying man should still be appropriate to his need.’” (GMC000078, p2; GMC000079, pp1–2)
The completion of the GMC’s fitness to practise hearings was accompanied by extensive coverage in the media, including in the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. The Press Association’s headline was “Doctor facing disciplinary action over drugs prescriptions”. As Chapter 6 explains, the GMC sanctions proceedings began in January 2010.
Media coverage anticipated the outcome of the sanctions proceedings and growing pressure for some form of public inquiry.
On 17 January 2010, under the headline “Doctor linked to 92 patients’ deaths faces being struck off”, The Sunday Telegraph reported:
“A DOCTOR at the centre of a police investigation into the deaths of nearly 100 elderly patients faces being struck off the medical register for prescribing excessive doses of painkillers … Should Dr Barton now be struck off, campaigning families will use it as leverage to press for a public inquiry into events at the hospital during the 1990s.” (GMC000100, p2; GMC000101, p1)
On 20 January, the Press Assciation reported that “Doctor ‘overprescribed’ drugs for elderly patients”. The article continued: “A doctor who prescribed ‘potentially hazardous’ levels of drugs to elderly patients should be struck off, the General Medical Council heard today”.
On 24 January, the Independent on Sunday reported:
“MPs will demand this week a public inquiry into the suspicious deaths of scores of elderly patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. An early-day motion calling for an independent inquiry ‘with equivalent powers to the Shipman inquiry’ into the treatment of patients at the Hampshire hospital between 1989 and 2000 was tabled by Liberal Democrat health spokesman, Norman Lamb, on Friday; MPs can register support for the motion from tomorrow. It comes days before the fate of Jane Barton, the doctor at centre of the allegations, is decided at a General Medical Council hearing.” (OSM100957, p1)
As Chapter 6 explains, the Fitness to Practise Panel gave its determination on sanction on 29 January. Anticipating the outcome, ITN reported: “A doctor faces being struck off by the General Medical Council for prescribing ‘potentially hazardous’ levels of drugs.”
When the outcome became known, the media focused on the anger of relatives that Dr Barton had not been struck off. The Press Association reported “Anger as drug errors doctor free to practice” and continued:
“Families reacted with disgust today after a doctor who put their elderly relatives at risk of death by prescribing ‘potentially hazardous’ levels of drugs escaped being struck off.
Dr Jane Barton was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by a Fitness to Practise Panel at the General Medical Council (GMC) after a series of failings in her care of 12 patients at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in Hampshire between January 1996 and November 1999.
The panel found she made a catalogue of failings in her treatment of the patients, who later died, including issuing drugs which were ‘excessive, inappropriate and potentially hazardous’.
Panel chairman Andrew Reid said: ‘The panel has found proved that there have been instances when Dr Barton’s acts and omissions have put patients at increased risk of premature death.’
But relatives of the elderly patients left the hearing in disgust on learning that the doctor will be allowed to continue working if she abides by certain conditions.
Iain Wilson, from Gosport, whose 74-year-old father, Robert Wilson, was one of the patients, shouted at the panel: ‘You should hang your head in shame.
You haven’t done anything at all to protect the public.’”
The Press Association further reported Dr Barton’s statement:
“‘I am disappointed by the decision of the GMC panel but appreciate that in imposing conditions, they recognised the great difficulties and unreasonable pressure under which I had to work.
Anyone following this case carefully will know that I was faced with an excessive and increasing burden in trying to care for patients at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital.
I did the best I could for my patients in the circumstances until finally I had no alternative but to resign.’
She maintained that ‘given the situation, my general practice and procedure were perfectly reasonable’ and said none of the consultants ever expressed concern about her working practices.
She continued: ‘Throughout my career I have tried to do my very best for all my patients and have had only their interests and wellbeing at heart.’”
Other national media coverage included reports in The Guardian and the Daily Mirror. The Daily Express headline was “Outrage at let-off for doctor linked to 12 drug cocktail deaths” (GMC000104, p2). The Independent covered the story under the headline “Outcry as doctor escapes ban after inquiry into ‘death wards’” (GMC000104, p2).
The outcome was also covered in regional newspapers, including The Yorkshire Post. The Newcastle Journal reported “Families’ Fury Over GMC Doctor Ruling”.
The Independent on Sunday returned to the subject on 31 January. Nina Lakhani reported a fresh challenge to the Government over the GMC’s decision not to strike off Dr Barton. Under the headline “Outraged families will ask the High Court to rule on the General Medical Council’s refusal to strike off Dr Jane Barton”, the article referred to the action families intended to take (IDP100003, p7).
The Independent on Sunday article quoted Mr Lamb:
“Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, who last week tabled an Early Day Motion calling for an independent public inquiry into the Gosport deaths, said last night: ‘The failure of the system to deal with the Dr Barton case speedily has helped her to convince the panel she is safe to practice and should stay on; it beggars belief that she has been permitted to do so. There is real concern about the inconsistency of decisions made at these hearings, which completely undermines faith in the system’s ability to protect patients.’” (IDP100003, p9)
The Independent on Sunday article also quoted Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who had supported the Early Day Motion: “Part of the reason we are calling for a public inquiry is that it would send out a message to all health workers and services that NHS patients should get the best possible care regardless of age” (IDP100003, p9).
The Independent on Sunday article pointed out that the local MP, Sir Peter (Mr Viggers had been knighted in 2008) had repeatedly rejected calls for a public inquiry (IDP100003, p9). Chapter 10 covers the role played by Sir Peter.
Further media coverage reported the reaction to Dr Barton’s resignation as a GP. On 30 March, the Press Association stated “Doctor at centre of deaths probe retires” and continued:
“Mike PORTER, Head of Practice at Forton Medical Centre, said ‘We are sorry to see her go, she was very well supported by the doctors and the staff here.
As far as I am aware, Jane has retired and that is it. When GPs retire they have the option to come back to work at the same practice but she has not asked us to come back.’
Families of some of those who died at the hospital reacted with disgust at the GMC ruling which is currently being reviewed by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) which monitors the work of health regulatory bodies.” (GMC000034, pp1–2)
A few days later, on 4 April, the Independent on Sunday reported Sir Peter’s decision not to stand for Parliament again:
“Gosport MP and garden-proud Peter Viggers whose expense claims included £1,645 for a floating duck house for his pond, more than £3,000 for gardening over three years and £500 for manure. His failure to make representations for the families seeking answers about the deaths of elderly patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital has impeded their long fight for justice.” (IDP100065, p7)
Further limited media coverage in 2010 focused on the decision of the CPS not to bring criminal charges against Dr Barton, following the inquests and the GMC proceedings.
On 18 August, the Press Association reported the reaction of Hampshire Constabulary and of the families:
“Assistant Chief Constable David Pryde said: ‘This has been an incredibly complex and challenging investigation for all involved, given that many of the patients who died in hospital were manifestly unwell and suffering some of the more severe problems in geriatric medicine.
We understand that this may not be the outcome families were hoping for, but I would like to reassure them and the general public that every investigative opportunity has been fully explored.
Hampshire Constabulary has committed significant resources into this investigation to ensure that a complete and impartial inquiry was conducted.’
Ann Reeves, 56, daughter of Elsie Devine, one of the patients who died at the hospital, said she would campaign for a judicial review of the CPS decision and is considering a private prosecution against Dr Barton.
She said: ‘This decision is totally inconceivable. It’s been 11 years. I’m angry and disgusted. I’m devastated for my mother and the way she lost her life.
We are not in shock; we are very, very angry and trying to take it all in.
We are looking at getting a judicial review and if not we are going to get her into a criminal court with a private prosecution.’” (GMC000027, p2)
On 19 August, The Telegraph briefly reported the story (GMC000026, p2).
On 2 September, the Press Association covered a protest march of 30 people, led by Mrs Reeves, to hand in a petition at 10 Downing Street (GMC000038, p1).