Our thanks to Stu for this. It would be hard to imagine a worse example of women’s unprofessionalism, craven selfishness, lying, dereliction of duty, and in-group preferencing, regardless of the potential consequences for wider society. Unusually, I’ll comment on most of the piece.
The three women collectively put the lives of the British public at risk of outbreaks of Ebola, the highly contagious and swiftly lethal disease which killed so many in West Africa, and for which this country is wholly unprepared to handle.
The women’s offences – in reality, crimes – were compounded by wholly inadequate punishments. The doctor was suspended for one month, the senior nurse for two, while the nurse (who was carrying the Ebola virus, and showing a sign of it upon arrival from West Africa) received no punishment. The start of the piece:
A doctor who misled other medics about Pauline Cafferkey – a nurse who developed the Ebola virus – has been suspended from practising for a month.
Dr Hannah Ryan took Ms Cafferkey’s temperature at Heathrow Airport on returning from West Africa where they had volunteered to help.
But despite a high temperature – a warning sign of the virus – Dr Ryan agreed to a lower value being recorded.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal said she was guilty of serious misconduct.
Dr Ryan said she was in a state of “disbelief, fear and panic” at the time.
Ms Cafferkey was then allowed to travel home to Scotland, carrying the virus and putting others at “unwarranted risk” the tribunal heard. [Many fellow passengers could have caught the highly infectious virus, starting outbreaks across Scotland.]
The Scottish nurse fell ill the next day and survived a long period of illness with Ebola and its complications.
Other excerpts:
Returning on 28 December, Dr Ryan and Ms Cafferkey had landed at Heathrow, “keen” to be home for the Christmas holiday period, the tribunal heard.
They queued to get clearance from Public Health England medics to be allowed to leave.
Trying to help PHE staff with the process, Dr Ryan and Ms Cafferkey agreed to take and record their own temperatures. [This is outrageous. It invited people to lie, for personal convenience. The PHE staff who agreed to this should be disciplined, but they won’t be.]
Dr Ryan had then taken Ms Cafferkey’s temperature and got a reading of 38.2C – higher than normal.
But a lower temperature, 37.2C, was actually recorded and Ms Cafferkey was then allowed to catch her connecting flight to Glasgow to go home.
And later when a consultant rang to investigate what had happened at the airport, Dr Ryan gave a “dishonest” response about her involvement, the tribunal was told.
The tribunal ruled that while there were “extenuating circumstances” for her actions at Heathrow, [or was there just an explanation for her dereliction of duty, not ‘extenuating circumstances’?] her behaviour five days later when she took the call, was “deeply deplorable”.
Dr Ryan told the hearing: “Pauline Cafferkey was my friend and someone I cared about and was really worried she might die.” [The obvious thing, then, was to let her board a plane, rather than be detained for observation and possible treatment. Give me strength.]
Dr Bernard Herdan, chairman of the tribunal, said: “Since the tribunal is satisfied the risk of repetition of your misconduct is low, and there is no risk to patient safety, it has concluded that a one-month suspension will be sufficient to mark the seriousness of your misconduct and to send a message to the profession that dishonesty by a doctor cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.” [‘Sufficient to mark the seriousness of your misconduct?’ This is what happens when the medical profession polices itself. The public can go to hell. Herdan should be disciplined for these appalling remarks.]
In September 2016, the Nursing and Midwifery Council cleared Ms Cafferkey of misconduct over claims she had hidden her infection, after a panel ruled that her judgement had been impaired by her illness. [Her temperature was raised by one degree Centigrade. Another woman not being held accountable for her dangerous wrongdoing, as if she were a young child.]
In November, another colleague, senior nurse Donna Wood, was suspended by the NMC for two months. The panel found Ms Wood suggested a lower temperature be recorded on Ms Cafferkey’s screening form so they could pass through checks at passport control more quickly. [What was the point of the checks, if not to intercept cases such as Cafferkey’s?]
All three women should have been fired, and charged with putting the lives of the public at risk. All three should be in prison today. Had they been men, I expect they would be.
The BBC piece carries the headline, “Medic suspended for ‘dishonesty’ over Ebola temperature”. Why the speech marks around ‘dishonesty’? The dishonest was never in doubt.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I cannot claim any scientific basis for this but after many years in Care and Health services I would observe that women are much more likely in my experience to interpret rules in the light of what their personal views are. Men appear far more willing to follow rules and apply regulations consistently. This goes from constant battles over clothing hair and personal jewelry in contravention of health and safety , to disappearing on personal errands when on duty to such manipulations for friends and family.
To the all too frequent scandals in Hospitals/Care homes where male managers are sacked or resign and female managers cling on bleating that its not my fault/responsibility because they didn’t directly do anything. To me the problem is responsibility. I believe it to be nurture, but few women believe themselves to be responsible, where the “buck stops”. And this response shows that this is a societal view as the punishments in this case show. As you say the point is they were responsible for a huge and dangerous risk to the public, they acted irresponsibly and this is Ok if they’re women because somehow their upset is more important that the very real risks their action posed. I think one can be absolutely certain that male doctors and nurses would get no such understanding.
LikeLike
This case made my blood boil without knowing this. It should be made clear to those who choose to go to work in a plague zone that if they get sick they will NOT be casevaced back. They will be nursed alongside the unfortunate local population.
LikeLike
The usual arguments with female offenders… She was under a great deal of stress…etc
LikeLike
A perfect example of the moral weakness that so many women have. Their emotional attachment to people who they know or with whom they have something in common, completely overwhelms any ability to consider the implications of their actions on wider society.
It’s a kind of moral myopia which we have also seen in the MMR vaccine hysteria, individual mothers refusing to have their children vaccinated, but expecting to benefit from ‘herd immunity’ from other children receiving the vaccine.
And of course it’s what is at the bottom of the lack of empathy which many women have for men as a group.
In this case the implications could have been disastrous and these women should not only have been struck off, but jailed.
LikeLike