Dear All I have reopened this petition but I wish to change the text to reflect the data so far. I have drafted the text below. I know this petition was set up for a Health Select Committee review but its clear they or other reviews cannot be relied upon. I would like to change the text to reflect a request for a public inquiry with set standards as opposed to arbitrary ones set for the convenience of the DH reputation. If anyone has any suggestions to alter or add to the draft below, please email me through my website. If there is an objection to the text below, you are free to remove your signature. Please remember your signature will be supporting the text below. I'm not one for moving the goal posts but I felt it was more efficient as Mary did so much work for the original petition. I did not want that to go to waste. With thanks for your support. Thanks Dr Rita Pal www.ritapal.info Draft Text for New Petition to Replace this one Organisations within the NHS have failed miserably to investigate the concerns of medical whistleblowers. So far, each review instigated by the Department of Health such as the Speak up Review by Robert Francis QC has not had peer reviewed standards nor was it conducted with any scientific methodology. It's advisers had vested interests and undeclared conflicts that were not vetted or reviewed. Francis himself had represented as a barrister in the Bristol Inquiry against Prof Steve Bolsin ( a whistleblower). No medical organisation or cases were investigated or held to account. Historical cases were not assessed to see what changes in patient safety measures may be required. Flaws in past cases and a failure of accountability were not criticised or addressed. The suggestions made were in unconstructive, illogical and there is no evidence to suggest that improvements will be made in the area of patient safety. Great emphasis has been paid to litigation with no investigation into the prevention of whistleblowing reprisal or practical support for those raising concerns. It's for this very reason that an inquiry is urgently required to establish a body of reliable. evidence on this important subject.  From this, effective solutions could be developed to make sure the NHS changes in the future. Two areas that would be helped by this inquiry are preventable deaths and reducing the current high cost of medical litigation. Currently the NHS litigation bill is £15.7 billion.  There is a failure of accountability within the NHS to the public. These conclusions were drawn from the research paper Whistleblowing and Patient Safety: The Patient's or the profession's interest at stake? This can be downloaded here. "Our recommendations are firstly that the profession, through the GMC or BMA Council, should commission a Consultation Group on Reporting Poor Care. This Group will examine the consequences to all parties from incidents of reported poor care. Second, the Government should consider establishing a Health Select Committee Review of solely of Whistleblowing that would make impartial recommendations to Government and the profession. Third, the Government should consider setting up and resourcing a National Whistleblowing Centre similar to that in the US. We believe that only by open public scrutiny will constructive change be cemented into exemplary clinical practice"  Without a detailed public inquiry with set unbiased standards that includes interviews with a wide range of NHS Whistleblowers, no effective solution can be developed. So far, most junior whistleblowers have been excluded from consultations and inquiries. Evidence so far suggest that whistleblowers presented by the media have been given greater preference despite lack of findings to support their claims. No set standards to ensure whistleblowers are evidence based has been set down. This effectively means that stories were accepted without evidential vetting. This does not exclude vexatious whistleblowers. Moreover, Trusts should not be accused and vilified in the media without proper evidence. This will affect patient confidence, reduce compliance and result in a negative effect on patient safety. The role of the media in being fed negative stories to bolster whistleblower litigation has not been considered nor has it been addressed. Flawed stories with no investigation being flaunted through the media is not in the public interest. Reviews and inquiries cannot and should not be vehicles for lawyers to cash in on an already failing health service. The system has offered lip service ineffective solutions to appease the media and the public at large without any input from experienced whistleblowers. There has been no assessment on the economical impact of the institutional failure to scrutinise patient safety concerns raised legitimately by well meaning health professionals. In reality, the medical establishment's culture has not changed as demonstrated by the Bristol, Shipman and Mid Staffordshire Inquiries. The Mid Staffordshire Inquiries has only taken a broad brush approach to whistleblowing and made recommendations that have no evidence to demonstrate their success. The Speak Up Review was I'll thought out and merely designed to bolter public confidence. It offered nothing constructive although it sought to stigmatise whistleblowers by branding them as victims as opposed to individuals who require practical assistance with the effects of whistleblowing. Many aspects of whistleblowing such as indirect gags were not examined by the Inquiry. In the interest of patient safety, we must insist that a full blown public inquiry is undertaken immediately. It is important that solutions are developed to effect a change in order to improve things for future patients and staff. It is in a public's interest to investigate why the Department of Health continues to hold lip service reviews and refuses to hold a public inquiry. There is no doubt that the Department of Health holds endless files on whistleblowers that have never been opened or scrutinised. It is time for a transparent public inquiry to protect the public. Regards Dr Rita Pal Declared conflict - Has seen parts of the damning Department of Health files held on me where DH officials discussed prosecuting me in 1999 to set an example. It's a pathetic situation when junior doctors are targeted by officialdom to conceal poor health care.