Monday, 17 December 2018

Medical Council admits to further fabrications:



 Medical Council forced to admit to further fabrications:


During 2017 I discovered that the Medical Council had written to outside third parties that they had examined and dismissed my complaint -

"an allegation that Dr Noel refused to treat Mr. Trent as Mr. Trent previously missed appointments"

As I never made any such complaint I requested the Medical Council withdraw this fabrication

During 2018 and despite my denial Ms W. Kennedy, Director of Corporate Services for the Medical Council informed me that they had reached a decision, regarding this complaint, to add a note to the effect that they had no evidence that I had missed appointments.

Since this meant the Medical Council were still insisting that they had such a complaint from me and that they had investigated it and dismissed it, I demanded they produce it.

During Dec 2018 The Data Protection Commissioner wrote and informed me that the Medical Council now admitted that they never had any such complaint from me and therefore could not produce any documentation.

So seven years after 'my' complaint was dismissed the Medical Council are forced to admit to further falsifications and fabrications, just like they were forced to admit to other falsifications and fabrications by the Information Commissioner in 2014.

The Medical Council are now in their eighth year of covering up for Tallaght Hospital's Dr J. Noel.

How could the Medical Council 'see' documentation, evidence, complaints etc that never existed?

How could Ms Kennedy add a note to a complaint that never existed?

Quite simply the Medical Council started out to cover-up for Dr Noel and nothing, even the truth, was going to get in the way. As proven, they would fabricate anything necessary to obtain their goal.

williammtrent@yahoo.ie

Wednesday, 4 April 2018

Hospitals are not obliged to investigate serious complaints:

Tallaght Hospital refused to interview their staff member I gave as a witness.


Ms H. Dixon rules that the hospital were right to refuse to interview my witness:


To cover up their culpability in leaving me crippled for life by Tallaght Hospital and their Dr J. Noel, the hospital claims I did not follow Dr Noel's instructions and my claims to have done so are lies. The hospital still stands by this, supported by the Data Protection Commissioner, Ms H. Dixon.
In rebuttal of the hospital's claims I identified, as my witness/proof, the staff member I had dealt with to support my complaint to the Hospital.
From 2010 to 2018 all documentation released shows that this staff member was never interviewed for the 'investigations' by the hospital or the Data Protection Commissioner and, obviously, had never denied dealing with me.
Ms H. Dixon has now closed my complaint to her, ruling that the fact that Tallaght Hospital had never involved the staff member I identified, was acceptable and fair process.
Ms Dixon is factually ruling that the hospital [any hospital] does not have to investigate very serious complaints that are backed by evidence - even though my health has been seriously damaged.
Justifying the exclusion of the identified staff member it's indicated to me that failure to interview the identified staff member is of no consequence as it's up to me to prove I'm not a liar and not up to the hospital to prove their claims that I'm a liar.
Ms Dixon insists that it's not good enough for me to identify and say, this is the staff member I dealt with. Ms Dixon says I have to prove I dealt with this staff member and it's not up to the hospital to speak to the staff member.
This clear bias conduct of the Ms Dixon is nothing new, but a question comes to mind - why exclude this hospital staff member for 8 years if she does not support my claims?
Ms Dixon has yet again made her stance very clear, she will protect the hospital and ensure they are not accountable - Thereby confirming what a coroner went on record as saying, that Tallaght Hospital “sounds like a very dangerous place to be for anybody, let alone a sick patient”.
What I and other pensioners are being told is that unless you have the finances to launch legal action, you have no Rights.

Monday, 5 March 2018

Data Protection Commissioner cites non-existent evidence:


 Ms H. Dixon claims to have evidence that does not exist - again


Refuses to produce 'evidence' and let me defend myself:


Data Protection Commissioner Ms H. Dixon claims she has documentary evidence [signed by me] that proves I've changed my story regarding Tallaght Hospital and lied.

I have denied that I have ever altered my claims from day one and therefore she cannot have documentation, created by me, to support her claims.

But like the Medical Council she refuses to produce said evidence and refuses me the opportunity to respond to it and defend myself.

She informs me that she has closed the file on this, yet another of my complaints and I'm therefore not entitled to a formal decision on my complaint as promised by the Data Protection Act.

I therefore say she has falsified evidence - just as the legal decisions proved the Medical council had done.

Unfortunately unlike the Medical Council, the Information Commissioner does not cover her, so I cannot force her hand and she uses her falsehoods to help Tallaght Hospital cover-up leaving me seriously disabled for life.

Everything else aside - I'm in my 9th month of being housebound because of Tallaght Hospital and their Dr J. Noel, but Ms Dixon does not see her job as to uphold my Rights and the law, rather to protect those who have crippled me.


# In another case - Since 2012 the Data Protection Commissioner has refused to protect my Rights relating to the illegal release of my medical records by Tallaght Hospital to outside 3rd parties against my wishes.

Throughout the free world including Ireland these Rights are enshrined in law to protect patients - but Ms Dixon makes an exception in my case and breaks the law to protect Tallaght Hospital and Ms E. Hardiman.

Saturday, 17 February 2018

Tallaght Hospital, supported by Ms H. Dixon, rely on records that don't exist

Tallaght Hospital, supported by Ms H. Dixon, rely on records that don't exist


Refuse to produce letters they claim they wrote to me:


Ms Dixon the Data Protection Commissioner [D.P.C.] informed me that I had been twice given the written opportunity, by Tallaght Hospital, to object to them handing over my confidential medical records [c200 documents] to non-medical outside third parties and as I'd failed to object, they handed over my medical records.

As I had no knowledge of any such notifications to which I failed to respond/object to, and as if they existed they should have already been released to me under previous Freedom of Information [FoI] requests, I made a formal FOI request to the hospital.

This was made the more important as Ms Dixon had refused to give me sight of said documents and I believed they did not exist.

The hospital requested I supply proof of identification and I referred them to my certified birth cert previously lodged with and accepted by them.

They informed that that was not good enough and requested I supply current identification [a driver’s license or passport] and until I do that they would not process my request. I don't have a driver's licence or passport.

Clearly D.P.C. and the hospital are working together, after all, if the hospital did write to me and I failed to respond, as claimed, what's the problem of producing said letters?

Exist or not, the letters would not suffice in law as a patient has to give permission, nothing less is legally acceptable.

This coupled with the D.P.C. refusing to protect my Rights regarding my medical records can only help the hospital get away with leaving me crippled.

This is not the only time that claims have been made that documentation exists but all parties refuse to produce them.


Clearly Ms Dixon and the hospital will, not for only time, make whatever false claims are necessary to dismiss my valid and serious complaints - just like the Medical Council did as proven by the Information Commissioner's legally binding decision. 

Sunday, 4 February 2018

Data Protection Commissioner - complaints and evidence can be arbitrarily altered:

Data Protection Commissioners view is that evidence can be arbitrarily altered.

And, formal statutory complaints can also be arbitrarily altered.

I had accused the Medical Council of arbitrarily altering my complaint and documentary evidence to the opposite to what it said in order to clear Tallaght Hospital's Dr J. Noel - who has left me crippled for life.

Dr Noel told the Medical Council he had offered me immediate treatment which I refused.

I stated Dr Noel had offered me treatment ASAP depending on when a bed became available and my evidence lodged was his hospital letter to my G.P. confirming that. I never received the treatment.

Medical Council internal documents showed they had materially altered what I said to show me agreeing that Dr Noel had offered me immediate treatment which I refused and that I said his letter to my G.P. which I lodged as evidence confirmed this.

Thereby substituting 'I refused treatment' - for - 'I did not get treatment due to Dr Noel's laziness and negligence'.

The Medical Council refused to rectify claiming they had documentary evidence proving what they said and even had their solicitor write to me insisting this. They refused to produce said 'evidence'.

The Information Commissioner's legally binding decision, that can only be varied by the high court, fully backed me and was that I had never said what the Medical Council insisted I had and they did not have the documentary evidence they claimed to have.

The Data Protection Commissioners preliminary view is that the Medical Council's actions of arbitrarily altering my statutory complaint and evidence were fit and proper.

The fact that a regularity body could even entertain such thoughts proves a serious lack of fairness and integrity because it formally denies due process by refusing a party the right to put their side of matters. It also means that integrity and ethics are purely discretionary.

What it also factually means is that the Medical Council has a right to alter complaints and evidence as they see fit - in my case, altered to clear the doctor who has left me crippled.

Dr Noel is guilty of, at least, negligence and falsification and once the Medical Council indulged in alterations, my legal Right to lodge the complaints I wished to have considered was illegally removed.

Up to now all this is approved by Prof. F. Wood, the Medical Council's president, who stands by the decision to clear Dr Noel and his submission that I'm a time wasting, lying patient who refused treatment - despite the evidence of his letter to me G.P.

Prof. Wood also refused to give me assurances that no one with a connection with Dr Noel or Tallaght Hospital would be involved in my complaints.

There's also the damage the false picture Dr Noel has painted of me adversely influencing others dealing with me [my ambulance transport to appointments withdrawn etc] especially as he is backed by the Medical Council, who are backed by the Data Protection Commissioner.
One must remember the Medical Council is a quasi-judicial body set up to protect patients and set standards for the medical profession.


Unfortunately in matters before the Data Protection Commissioner she claims to have documentary evidence I said things I deny saying, but like the Medical Council she refuses to produce said 'evidence'.