From Gil Blackwood,
former consultant psychiatrist.
I WAS disturbed to read your paper’s report of the inquest into Mike Ritson’s death.

I note that the medical director attempted to whitewash any concern over the clinical care of this patient by referring to the conclusions of an assessor’s report.

This report was prepared well over a year before Mr Ritson’s death. Furthermore, the assessor’s report was later rejected as lacking objectivity and impartiality.

The assessor’s independence had been compromised, before he started his task, as he had been given misleading information by a member of the Health Service management.

This was accepted by the chairman at a disciplinary meeting to review a ‘finding’ of bullying against me, brought partly for my raising concerns about the clinical care of Mr Ritson.

The complaint against me was dropped. However, regrettably, no independent assessment of Mr Ritson’s clinical care followed.

Unfortunately, it is not an unusual course of action for the Health Service management to duck and weave rather than properly investigate concerns.

A truly independe nt investigation is of obvious benefit to patients and relatives, who feel that they may
have suffered harm, and to Health staff, who may have been unfairly blamed.

I write this letter to clarify what was, in my opinion based on your report, incomplete information given at the inquest. I think that an independent review of the clinical care in this case would be fair to Mike Ritson’s family and to the Health staff involved.
St Helier.