9 Replies to “Scientific progress requires open-minded enquiry”

  1. As an unpaid carer picking up the pieces after dehumanising psychiatric treatment and unsafe practices I am concerned to see more evidence of the patriarchal nature of Healthcare Improvement Scotland. I speak from personal experience, having been excluded from attending a Scottish patient safety programme exchange recently, for no good reason, apart from the statement that if I attended then others wouldn’t.

    I wonder why Dr Robson can accuse Dr Gordon of oppression and then do the very same thing in his correspondence, by his censuring tone and using words like weapons eg “this individual” “Waste” “scaremongering” “damaging behaviours” “He has made everyone uncomfortable”. It reads like a character assassination rather than an appropriate professional response. Like a teacher’s letter to a parent about a misbehaving child.

    And then to find out that Healthcare Improvement Scotland has no social media policy for staff, after Dr Gordon confirming this in an FOI request, really takes the biscuit. Showing up the personal nature, in my opinion, of the complaints raised about Dr Gordon to his employers NHS Forth Valley, and an attempt to silence his critical voice. The very voices of professionals in mental health services that we, the public, want and need to hear. Warts and all. For we are more than capable of making up our own minds as to who is talking sense and who has nothing to hide.

  2. I have to thank Chrys Muirhead for alerting me to this disgusting attempt to suppress critical views. So, Dr. Gordon, you’re having an effect on the wellbeing of the staff? Good for you. I’m sure this means some of them find the points you raise uncomfortably logical, and have less blind faith in the Guidelines. If so, their discomfort is therapeutic. If not, they should ask themselves: What would they tell a patient who was distressed by every constructive, respectful criticism that came his way?

    I’m quite used to hearing critics in psychiatry silenced by the suggestion that their ideas will frighten “vulnerable patients.” (As a VP myself, I have nothing but gratitude for the critics.) I hadn’t realized the staff of psych facilities had also become vulnerable and delicate creatures, who must not be “upset” by discussions of the problems in psychiatry they may be seeing right in front of their own faces every day.

    It seems all too similar to the attacks facing Dr. David Healy in Wales (see http://www.davidhealy.org) A decade ago he was hauled in front of the GMC for articulating irresponsible ideas that harmed patients, etc. Now they are after him on more sophisticated grounds, raising a scandal around two cases where the psych service mishandled patients — cases where his role was nothing but positive, and the relatives think he was just grand. This attack seems similar — rather than attack your ideas, imply that you’re “behaving inappropriately on social media” or some crap.

    Best of luck — I hope it goes nowhere! There’s a whole posse of prominent doctors who have sent an open letter to the BMJ opposing this demented dementia policy. So you are hardly alone.

    Johanna Ryan, RxISK.org

  3. Employers have a duty of care towards an employee re. health, safety and wellbeing, which includes protection from bullying etc .

    Dr Robson was clearly not only in breach of his duty of care towards you Dr Gordon, but was enticing/practically ordering others to act in the same bullying way. His distortion of your concerns is unprincipled & his character assassination really amounts to defamation.

    Anyone reading his letter and your response will recognise his totally unprofessional behaviour. It’s unjust and galling that he can get off with it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.