Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
1978
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    9/184 (page 7)
    subsequently retired from service; my officer did not therefore interview him. But I have seen the papers held by the Regional Authority and my officer spoke to the district general administrator (DGA) of the Area Health Authority, who was concerned with the complaint at district level. 13. The complaint was made in the first instance on 4 October 1975 by the mother, who wrote to the hospital asking who had given the doctor permission to carry out mass x-rays on her children. The DGA sent her a preliminary reply on 17 October saying that his initial impression was that it was not usual for consent to be required for x-ray procedures which were part of ‘the diagnostic investigations carried out by a practitioner in the detection and treatment of patients referred to them’. And in a later reply of 10 November he said that the X-rays were part of the normal diagnostic examinations carried out by the paediatric department. On 1 November, the complainant got in touch with his Member of Parliament and asked him to find out who had arranged for the children to be x-rayed, why the examinations had been carried out, and what the outcome was; and the Member did this on 6 November when he wrote to the Regional Authority. 14. On 8 December the regional administrator acknowledged the Member’s letter and apologised for the delay; and on the same date information was sought from the health district. The DGA replied to the Regional Authority on 11 December enclosing a copy of a report which had been provided by the consultant in response to the mother’s original complaint and saying that as there had been a suspicion of baby battering it was his view, and that of the consultant, that ‘any approaches should be dealt with in very low key’ because of the continuing need for the family to receive support from the social services department. 15. On 19 January 1976,the Member asked the Regional Authority for a reply to his letter of 6 November 1975 and on 20 January the regional administrator responded by saying that the case was ‘not without some complication’ and that he hoped to be able to reply by the end of that week. His further reply dated 2 February gave the original reasons for calling the children to hospital (paragraph 6 above), and said that, in the boy’s case, ‘x-rays were ordered partly to assess his bone age, which is in fact compatible with his chronological age. In addition the pictures show no evidence of fracture’. In the girl’s case, x-rays had been taken because of “bruises and also again to look at the bone age’. The letter also mentioned the need for the hospital service to be fully alert to the possibility of the mis-treatment of children. 16. The Member was not satisfied with the answer and wrote to the Regional Authority on 16 February saying ‘As I understand it . . . the appointment for [the boy] concerned his feet and for [the girl] her speech. I find it extraordinary that the children were x-rayed for the reasons given in [your] letter. Are you really trying to tell me that it is normal to x-ray people looking for evidence of fractures who make appointments concerning their speech’. He went on to say that it seemed obvious that the hospital authorities had connived with the local authority and had taken advantage of the hospital visit to have the children x-rayed even though the complainant and the mother had made it quite clear that they objected to this. He also complained about the delay in replying to his first letter.