Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[-Harters-]

Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.

To be honest, I'm not sure that the communication between GP's and specialist consultants has moved on much further today. Unless that's just my view. 

In any event it seems that the dose was going to be halved by the consultant anyway. So surely all it means is that a qualified local GP independently came to the same conclusion as a specialist consultant?

[Jane]

To be honest, I'm not sure that the communication between GP's and specialist consultants has moved on much further today. Unless that's just my view. 

In any event it seems that the dose was going to be halved by the consultant anyway. So surely all it means is that a qualified local GP independently came to the same conclusion as a specialist consultant?

Hartly, on the whole I would probably have to agree with your assessment on communication between gp and consultant.

With regard to your second paragraph. I see that Dr F. concurs with what Dr W. prescribed on behalf of Dr A. If I may quote a certain Miss Rice Davis "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" What ever he private thoughts about the massive reduction, he was unlikely to have made public. I would be really interested to know what dosage he would have recommended had his advice been sought.

[-Harters-]

Hartly, on the whole I would probably have to agree with your assessment on communication between gp and consultant.

With regard to your second paragraph. I see that Dr F. concurs with what Dr W. prescribed on behalf of Dr A. If I may quote a certain Miss Rice Davis "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" What ever he private thoughts about the massive reduction, he was unlikely to have made public. I would be really interested to know what dosage he would have recommended had his advice been sought.

Well, that's anybodies guess. The other thing to bear in mind is that the reduction was at Sheilas request, the GP concurred that a lower dose was appropriate, this view is shared by another GP and a specialist consultant.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

[Jane]

Back in the mid 70s I was prescribed some wonderful pills which were guaranteed to make excess pounds (lbs!) melt away. I believe they were marketed as "Ponderax." They were amphetamines. My doctor explained that under no circumstances was I to stop taking them at once. The daily three were reduced to two for a month, after which the dose was further reduced to one for another month before I could finally stop taking them. If all that care was taken with my meds, surely, as ill as Sheila had been and was capable of being, greater care should have been afforded her.

[-Harters-]

Back in the mid 70s I was prescribed some wonderful pills which were guaranteed to make excess pounds (lbs!) melt away. I believe they were marketed as "Ponderax." They were amphetamines. My doctor explained that under no circumstances was I to stop taking them at once. The daily three were reduced to two for a month, after which the dose was further reduced to one for another month before I could finally stop taking them. If all that care was taken with my meds, surely, as ill as Sheila had been and was capable of being, greater care should have been afforded her.

That's what I'm having difficulty with. What was wrong with her care, nothing as far as I can see. 

[Jane]

That's what I'm having difficulty with. What was wrong with her care, nothing as far as I can see. 

Well, of course, it is only IMO, but given how closely my withdrawal was monitored in 1975, considering her illness, I would have expected at least the same, but hoped for more, for Sheila in 1985...........although I will allow that if she didn't make appointments, failed to keep those she had made, or simply fell through her safety net by moving between London and Essex, monitoring her would have proved difficult. However, whether such monitoring was necessary is something on which, I feel, we will fail to agree.

[-Harters-]

Well, of course, it is only IMO, but given how closely my withdrawal was monitored in 1975, considering her illness, I would have expected at least the same, but hoped for more, for Sheila in 1985...........although I will allow that if she didn't make appointments, failed to keep those she had made, or simply fell through her safety net by moving between London and Essex, monitoring her would have proved difficult. However, whether such monitoring was necessary is something on which, I feel, we will fail to agree.

That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.

Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.

[mertol22]

That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.

Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.

Can you confirm Sheilas treatment at St Andrews Hospital Northampton was a sucess ?

[Jane]

That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.

Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.

Having looked back over Dr As statement, it seems that the dose she recommended was 150mg, a more reasonable first reduction from 200mg. It seems that Dr W took it upon herself to further reduce the dose to 100mg. I might not have questioned this had she been Sheila's regular gp, but she'd never seen her before and how closely she studied her notes can only be guessed at. We clearly have opposing views on what amounts to adequate care.

[Jane]

Good Evening -The Jam-

Dr F's wit stat, bottom of last page, states:

"I do not wish to infer that the treatment of Sheila's case has been neglected by any individual or profession.  She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, n/heed advice or take medication"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193

Thanks for that, egap. I was beginning to think I'd got something very wrong. It had less to to with being right than showing it, IMO, as yet another area of Sheila's life where she was let down.

[ajross]

A couple of interesting points from reading further on are that Colin seemed to think that Ralph and June were aware of his (very) occasional pot smoking although of course they were probably not aware of the 'occasional' part and this could have been an influencing factor in the arguement of the night which is often disputed and contested.

Another very interesting point given the information and opinions of people on JM identifying the bodies is that Stan Jones seems to have really pressured Colin to go which he said he couldn't do. His girlfriend, Heather (who sat through the whole thing taking notes and interestingly witnessed part of JBs statement giving) offered to go and indeed wanted to and Jones seems to have been rather adamant in his refusal.

Which brings me to another point, Stan Jones - he is portrayed as an arrogant, forceful, intimidating and callous man. He seems to have been determined to run the show and gave very revealing evidence and facts to try and persuade Colin to go to identfy the bodies. Given that the defence argued that JM made up her testimony and got information from newspapers, it would be intriguing to know where she was during this exchange. The dynamic between Jones and JB is also most bizarre as explained by Colin. What is more, Caffell says he could barely understand a word of what Jones said as he spoke so quickly, if this was true of CC then could it not be true of others? It would be good to know exactly how long Jones spent inside WHF that morning as my impression was that he wasn't there for very long and yet he seemed to know (or think he did) a lot of details, some of which were contradicted by other officers at Goldhanger that morning (such as one of the twins having been shot through the cheek)

And that is it for tonight other than, the portrayal of the media is shocking and practices that are being investigated at the Levenson inquiry are really no better or worse than the overbearing and unethical tactics used then. I am also surprised that Mike thinks that this book is fair on JB but then he looks at it through very different eyes.

[-Harters-]

Good Evening -The Jam-

Dr F's wit stat, bottom of last page, states:

"I do not wish to infer that the treatment of Sheila's case has been neglected by any individual or profession.  She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, n/heed advice or take medication"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193

Thanks for that, egap. I was beginning to think I'd got something very wrong. It had less to to with being right than showing it, IMO, as yet another area of Sheila's life where she was let down.

Point taken about missing appointments.

However, it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is nothing which indicates otherwise.

Whether Dr Wilkinson had seen Sheila or not before, is unimportant, the continuity of care is achieved by access to her medical notes, not necessarily by the medical proffessional present at any particular appointment.

[mertol22]

Claire Powell paints a very different view of JB Ajross, with what ive read so far chapter 7.

[Jane]

Point taken about missing appointments.

However, it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is nothing which indicates otherwise.

Whether Dr Wilkinson had seen Sheila or not before, is unimportant, the continuity of care is achieved by access to her medical notes, not necessarily by the medical proffessional present at any particular appointment.

It would be less than accurate to assume that medical note are always accessed, let alone digested, and ensuring that a patient FEELS cared for goes a long way in the healing process. I still feel it unacceptable that a gp who had no knowledge of her patient saw fit to countermand the advice of a gp who did and who subsequently presented it to the patients consultant as a fait accomplis..........and on that note I'll wish you a pleasant evening and say good-night.

[ajross]

Many  thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.

I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.

This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.

I may have said this before but in 2006 I was working on a mental health ward and we took one of the patients (for they were in-patients) to St James in Leeds for ECt, 10 sessions, 3 times and in all honesty, it was like a conveyor belt. No sooner had they finished with us than they started on another. The treatment was a very strange thing to see.