Should “a dangerously incompetent anaesthetist” be a councillor?
Written by Mark Pack on 22nd April 2008 – 12:04 pmBrian Hendley is the Labour candidate in Davenport and Cale Green ward, Stockport Council. Given his background, this raises some questions as to what standards we expect of councillors and would-be councillors:
“Striking Dr Hendley off the medical register on Friday, committee chairman Professor Kenneth Hobbs said: ‘The consequences of your failings were that the lives of patients under your care were put at risk. The nature of the findings against you, both on this occasion and on your previous appearance before the committee, are extremely serious. It would not be safe to allow you to continue in medical practice.’” (BBC, 10 December 1999)
“A dangerously incompetent anaesthetist allowed to keep working after his mistakes gave a patient gangrene went on to make serious blunders in more operations - causing at least one death. Brian Hendley, 42, who had been observed to be a ‘problem trainee’ as far back as the 1980s, worked in operating theatres in a long series of hospitals.” (Daily Mail, 24 January 2001)
“Mr Hendley was disciplined by the General Medical Council in 1997 but was allowed to continue working. Two years later he was struck off after further blunders, including the death of an overweight patient from a heart attack.” (Daily Telegraph, 16 June 2001)
“A disgraced anaethetist is to remain struck-off after a series of disastrous blunders” (The Northern Echo, 4 November 2001)
Posted in Opposition watch
22nd April 2008 at 12:43 pm
7-9 years ago he was deemed incompetent in his job.
Er, what’s this got to do with his ability to serve as a councillor?
22nd April 2008 at 1:02 pm
All this shows is that the guy is an incompetent anaesthetist and says nothing about his abilities (or lack thereof) as a councillor.
An example of ignoratio elenchi, I suspect.
It’s no different to asking “should an incompetent plumber be allowed to be councillor”?
22nd April 2008 at 1:19 pm
A non-story.
22nd April 2008 at 1:23 pm
Those defending Mr Hendley should familiarise themselves with R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79.
http://www.corporateaccountability.org/dl/manslaughter/law/adomako.doc
The issue is one of character, not ability to do the job.
22nd April 2008 at 1:30 pm
Mark is right to raise this issue. If someone has endangered life in this way surely there should be questions over their suitability for public office. How could such a person be a Cabinet member for Health/Social Services or even a member of a Health Scrutiny Committee? I know of two councillors (two different parties) who have been disgraced over drink-driving - why isn’t this the same?
22nd April 2008 at 1:33 pm
Because people who drink-drive willingly break the law?
22nd April 2008 at 1:47 pm
This story is a waste of space.
Lets debate the real issues.
What about Jimmy Carters talks with Hammas for example?
22nd April 2008 at 2:16 pm
If it’s true that he kept working after blundering and repeatedly tried to get back on the medical register, I’d say that’s an issue of (lack of) judgement.
22nd April 2008 at 2:22 pm
I think his displays of misjudgement were rather more serious and repeated than some of the comments suggest.
For example (from The Sun’s report), “A mum who went for a back op told yesterday how she lost a thumb and four fingers after a blunder by a medic … [Brian Hedley] had trouble inserting a line into her arm and the spotted her right hand was turning blue. But he failed to act or even tell the surgeon, despite being alerted by a nurse three times. Linda woke from the op in agony and had to have all her right fingers and tumb removed when gangerene set in. Complications then let to another four years of painful sugery.”
I think acting sensibly when someone warns you about something serious being wrong is the sort of skill we should expect of a councillor?
22nd April 2008 at 5:11 pm
You know, I have never in six years as a councillor been asked to anaesthetise someone.
22nd April 2008 at 5:21 pm
Nonsense David: every time I read one of your comments I’m completely anaesthetised.
22nd April 2008 at 8:43 pm
“to see how he can argue to be responsible if he ignored professional advice.
I wouldn’t trust him with my Council Tax!”
Following professional advice sanctioning their conduct is not always sufficient for a Dr to avoid being negligent though. So in some cases it IS responsible to ignore professional advice.
This is a silly post by Mark IMO. Do we now start judging people’s ability to be councillors by their performance in other fields. It was that sort of attitude that we opposed when we opposed the code of conduct provisions that allowed a councillor to be disqualified because of conduct in their non-councillor role.
We have at least one current Lib Dem councillor who was re-elected after serving a term of disqualification from office - by the standards set out above he wouldn’t be fit to serve either.
If you want a pop at Labour then lets look a few miles up the road in Oldham where Labour kept their majority by taking into their group (and keeping) a councillor who had been convicted of benefit fraud.
http://tinyurl.com/555lok
He also gets a special allowance as a community champion under Labour’s slightly gerrymandered community councils (one per ward in the Labour dominated inner wards, 1 for three wards in Saddleworth and Lees which straddles two counties!)
http://tinyurl.com/669ot6
22nd April 2008 at 10:01 pm
I agree, this is a non-story.
Let the electorate decide, that’s democracy.
22nd April 2008 at 11:37 pm
Mark,
could you just post the links to our former leaders forced resignation over alcoholism please. Oh and the whole shadow home secretary in rent boy storm as well? NO? perhaps the score upon score of similar stories that exist about people the Lib Dems have put up or even had elected?
I notice the time stamp is 12.04 and i hope you wrote and published this on your lunch hour. because if it was on the party’s dime then I’d throw up
23rd April 2008 at 12:28 am
perhaps in 7 years he will have changed. Perhaps not. Either way, the electorate will decide.
As this is a strong Lib Dem Ward, I would think we will win without muck-raking.
23rd April 2008 at 9:10 am
Hywel: I think there is a big difference betweeen saying “here is something it’s reasonable for the electorate to consider” and “here is something that the Standards Board should use to ban someone from office”. I agree with you that the latter should be very narrowly defined, but that doesn’t mean the former should be as narrowly drawn.
A more general question: the person was struck off for mistakes which, amongst other things, resulted in one person dying and another being maimed for life (loss of most of their hand). If you don’t think those mistakes are serious enough for it to be reasonable for voters to bear them in mind when voting for a councillor, how serious would the mistakes have to get? Or are there no mistakes that someone makes outside of politics which impinge on your judgement of their ability to be a councillor?
23rd April 2008 at 9:53 am
Indeed.
This conduct is exactly the sort of thing that voters should be made aware of (preferably on the ballot paper!) so that they can make their own decision.
23rd April 2008 at 10:03 am
There is a very big difference between “should x be a councillor” and “should x be elected”.
I’d strongly object to preventing anyone from standing as a councillor, but that doesn’t mean I’d vote for them.
In the end the electorate has their own reasons for voting or not voting for someone, be they political/ethical/racial/homophobic/sexist or simply using a random number generator.
Everyone should be allowed to run… if we ban people from running we are perverting democracy.
23rd April 2008 at 10:39 am
Just for clarity Martin, the headline was meant in the sense of “be elected as…” rather than “banned from standing/office”
23rd April 2008 at 11:33 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/24/narm24.xml
I wouldn’t trust this man with my Council Tax?
23rd April 2008 at 12:22 pm
“Just for clarity Martin, the headline was meant in the sense of “be elected as…” rather than “banned from standing/office”
Well presumably as Liberal Democrats we wouldn’t vote for a Labour candidate.
25th April 2008 at 11:34 am
Mr hendley cost the Tax Payer £500,000 and we could have spent that money on better services instead of his blunders.
He contunied to practice even thopugh he had been told not to. He ignored proifessional advice, needed training in “Interpersonal Skills” and abused a loopphole in the law to carry on practicing.
He should tell the people of Davenport and Cale Green Ward about his past he has not told them about.
2nd May 2008 at 1:04 pm
And what about O conner in manchester
should the lib dems have taken him on?
Does a real diservice to the party!
A crook!
dont see anyone shouting about him!
http://www.nemadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/425066_excouncillor_to_stand_as_ukip_candidate