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. 

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'.