Category: News and Views
Well the Shipman Enquiry published it's 6th and final report today, and it concluded that in fact, Harold Shipman had in fact murdered some 250 people, starting during his time as a hospital doctor, to the time he worked as a GP. What shocks me the most is that all this happened, and no one knew. Hoc could a doctor murder 250 of his patients, admittedly over a long period of time, but he did it none the less, and no one ever even suspected that anything was up. It is true to say that it was done suttley, that some of the patients had been old ... etc, but even so, his death rate must have been higher than most? and also, drugs are issued to doctors, how did no one notice that he was using an excessive amount of morfeen? A couple of these patients actually died in his surgery - how was it not seen as strange that patients could go in, and not come out again? patients dying in doctors' surgeries is an extremely rare occurrence, why was this not looked into. I just find it totally shocking, and ... well somewhat disturbing, that a local, and by all accounts well respected gp was able to carry out these crimes, over a long, long period of time, and no one had any idea.
I'm sure someone had an idea of his murderous intentions however Doctors are still seen as having the ultimate power that of life and death I can only surmise that he was able to convincingly cover his tracks,1 psychologist even suggested he may have suffered from Aspergers syndrome a form of Autisim, if so, how was he able to treat patients you will probably find there were those who knew and remarkably chose to turn a blind eye so saving him the difficulty of inumerable inquests where he would have been found out.
All I can say after reading this is "What the hell?" That is really shocking, not to mentioned fucked up. I mean, who intentially kills 250 patients, or people for that matter! That's just plain wrong! He should be put to death, the same way he killed all of those innocent people!! an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth!
well that would make you the same as him he kills 250 people, you in turn kill him, how does that make you a better person hmm? But to answer your question he had the power over life and death he killed, purely because he could, he was exercising that power and viewed himself as a respected Doctor, to be invincible untouchable and not once did show any remorse or regret...I think he arrogantly assumed he might get away with it because so many of his patients were elderly and that alone would account for the high death rate...
Ok, here is a quote from Terry Pratchett, I know this does not seem like good taste to some of you and this has nothing to do with this horrendous case and the victims of this doctor, I just often wondered about this quote. This is from a book named Feet of Clay when they were talking about the difference between human and race horse doctors. The books have a very strange sense of humour but often come up with very interesting observations, this is one of them:
"When a human doctor, after much bleeding a cupping, finds that a patient has died out of sheer desperation, he can always say, "Dear me, will of the gods,
that will be thirty dollars please," and walk away a free man. That is because human beings are not, technically, worth anything. A good racehorse, on
the other hand, may be worth twenty thousand dollars. A doctor who lets one hurry off too soon to that great padlock in the sky may well expect to hear,
out of some dark alley, a voice saying something on the lines of "Mr. Chrysoprase is very upset," and find the brief remainder of his life full of incident."
Ok, this appears a bit tasteless, but isn't it true to a certain degree? Of course not to those who know the human but .. well, it's a point. Hehe, I'm trying to come off here pointing this out without offending folks so, hehe, my appologies if I did.
cheers
-B
You didn't offend me Wildebrew, but I'm afraid I don't think the quote is sufficiently proximate to the topic and in any event it's perhaps the wrong example to use in this context. Now, first thing's first: Harold Shipman cannot be put to death, because he is already dead, although under the Lawlordian model for reimplementing the death penalty he would have been one of the exceptional cases to be sent to the gallows. To answer your question, Sugarbaby, the reasons why he was not discovered for so long were twofold: first, Hyde where he practised is a very small community. Dr Shipman was known to everyone, tremendously well-respected and nobody had a bad word to say about him. Secondly, the indicator that i doctor is doing wrong in this manner is the amount of death certificates he signs. In 1992, Dr Shipman signed only 7 death certificates. However, over a period of years the numbers grew dramatically. Yet still nobody suspected him until around 1996 because the population of Hyde, as of other places such as eastbourne, is elderly by comparison with other parts of the country. Then in 1996 other GP's, I believe, grew anxious because they were having to witness so many death certificates issuing from dr Shipman's surgery. even then, though, it took another two years to prepare the indictment because so many people were not willing to believe these things of their good doctor, not because he was a doctor, but because of his outstanding stature in the community and his being regarded by many as a good friend. The monitoring procedures in the NHS undoubtedly have to improve, and great improvements have been made ever since the Shipman case, but when he first began his medical career at the Brook Health Centre a few years ago now there probably were not the safety mechanisms in place. I actually think that Dr Shipman was the sort of person against whom we can't really legislate, like Frederick and Rosemary West or the Yorkshire Ripper. In short, whatever we do, the fixation that these people have with killing is both extremely rare and at the same time almost impossible to legislate against, it being such a driving force and motivation for them.
I wonder if there were signs in the childhood behaviour of these people that would indicate a tendency towards excitement at the mere thought of killing.I suppose its idealist at best to think that some type of therapy could have been used, to reveal such a disordered need for power, and in turn prevent them from taking so many lives.
LawLord
Well, I guess it's hard to explain the connection to this quote (and it's not fully appropriate I must admit or relevant shall we say), the point is we take everything doctors say for granted and don't question their authority, especially when it conerns people (and that's awkward because to us that should be the most precious or important thin in our lives/society, at least on a personal level). We question and study opinions of all sorts of other experts, salesmen, internet sites etc, but somehow when it comes to the doctor his/her words are final and always to be trusted.
I guess that was my main point. This case was tragic and I still don't understand the man's motivations, I guess just the power over life and death were what he really fancied.
Chjeers
-B
I guess no one could ever really know what motivates someone to kill people like that. Yeah I guess maybe there's a power over life and death thing, but somewhere, something must have gone wrong because for most of us, the thought of killing someone else is not one we would ever consider.
Sugar Baby we might not consider or act on the motivation but the capacity to kill is within each of us,some or most of us recognise the evil of taking life...I remember a quote from criminal psychologist who was interviewed after the Jeffrey Dahmer case and he said
............................................................
"We think these people are born with something missing in their minds..some cognative response that ordinarily prevents a normal individual from commiting acts of violence ect,if we can detect this missing link in childhood maybe we can attempt to prevent them from commiting murder".
............................................
If you look at individual cases of serial or single killing think there is always a definative moment or a really stronginfluence that turns an ordinary person into a killer, there was a shocking case in Scotland recently Jodi Jones 15 killed by Luke Mitchell he was 14 at the time,he was clearly disturbed from early childhood and very little was done until in the end he killed his girlfriend...
but it's that recognission process isn't it. I mean there are a lot of disturbed kids out there, for one reason or another, but how many of them become murderes?
that's a good point and I think thats where the problem lies there are just too many screwed up children versus a great lack of help and in many cases belief that this child is showing signs of strange aggressive behaviour... in the case I mentioned Mitchell's behaviour was clearly disturbing when he categorically refused to visit a psychiatrist his mother stuck her head in the sand and refused to admit her son was ill...which undoubtedly lead to his crime.
what makes a child a murderer though, what triggers that need to kill. When Robert Thompson and John Vennables killed James Bulger it was implied that it was all down to the kinds of videoes they watched, but surely there must be more to it than that?
Ah nwo the Robert Thompson and John venables case is one that I can comment on with a degree of authority, having discussed it with criminologists and the lawyers who argued it alike. It did seem that both boys were disturbed from a very early age: withdrawn, one nursery school teacher said. However, a lot of children are like that, as she immediately went on to say, and hardly any of those who are turn out to be murderers. I think we should all remember that these two ten-year-olds were the youngest murderers ever, excluding toddlers etc. who are below the age of criminal responsibility. My point is this: you cannot, with the best will in the world, legislate for everybody: we could not legislate against Dun Blaine; we could not legislate against frederick and Rosemary West, the Yorkshire ripper, the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the murderer of gavin Hoply, Harold shipman, or indeed Thompson and Venables. even if, as they have rightly done since Shipman, a profession becomes tightly regulated as a consequence of one of these phenomena, you can never have a fool-proof net.
Sugar Baby there is some suspicion that damage to the frontal lobe in the brain can trigger profound changes in an individual's personality and capacity to tell right, from wrong,shortly after the damage occurs they lose the capacity to love or understand human emotion and/or interaction, much like a psychopath they are unable to empathise and more worryingly they do not seem able to rationalise why they commited a violent act, to them its completely normal....
but surely if that's the case, then people like that do not belong in society. Robert Thompson and John Venibles were released some two years ago and were given new identities, and there was a lot of speculation that they had been given a new life in a foreign country. But who's to say that they will not re-offend.
hmmm maybe if i could get my old mate dave blunkett smashed he'd tell me where they are now, grin
Well he wouldn't because he doesn't know and can't know. Now, as to the sentences and their release I agree that the sentences were too short. However, i do not agree that they should have been locked up forever: adult offenders maybe, but I can't think of a country in the world where they lock youngsters up forever. Michael Howard said fifteen years, and that to my mind was long enough. As for their release, the judges had no choice. The european Court of Human Rights said it was unlawful for the home secretary, i.e. Michael Howard at the time, to ignore the tariff set by the Lord Chief Justice, who had at the time recommended ten years. So the judges had no choice. It's parliament that is to blame, and it's another reason why the Human Rights act 1998 is a dog's breakfast of a statute and why it should be repealed immediately.
well no i agree that they could not be locked up for ever, but the fact they were given new identities is just proof of the kind of society we live in isn't it.
I'm afraid they were given new identities because they would otherwise have been lynched by members of the public, and I'm afraid that cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Whatever our feelings may be towards Robert Thompson and John venables, we are not savages and should therefore leave the justice system to deal with them. There's also another reason, Sugarbaby: the fact is that the government is under a positive obligation to protect citizens from inhuman or degrading treatment, and Robert Thompson and John venables are citizens of Britain. Therefore, their identities had to be changed to honour our obligations under the human rights convention. It's the same sort of rationale behind why the government is under a positive obligation to protect prisoners both form each other and from themselves, which in turn is why it was such a disgusting and disgraceful thing for David Blunkett to say when Dr shipman committed suicide that he felt like opening a bottle of wine. The fact is that the home office had failed in its duty, and however odious Dr Shipman was, Mr Blunkett should have felt like preparing for the inquest rather than wetting his whistle. Not even the hard-line home secretaries of the Victorian era would have dared say something like that.
he's right though - it wasn't exactly a great loss to the world when he killed himself was it
No, it wasn't, but that doesn't alter the position. Mr Blunkett is in charge of the prisons and the safety of the occupants thereof. Now, in 2002, there were 91 prison suicides, and that is the highest figure both in percentage and numeric terms since records began. In that context, it is a disgraceful thing for any minister to say such a thing as that. There are a great many people we would rather be without, but the state is, and always has been, under a duty to protect them. I repeat, not even the hard-liners of the Victorian era would have endorsed the sentiments of the home secretary there. on the contrary, many would probably have blanched at the idea of a government minister taking such a cavalier attitude to a death in custody, given that deaths in custody have been known to finish home secretaries off in the past.
but just because others didn't say it, doesn't mean they didn't think it. yeh these deaths shouldn't happen, and in a lot of cases they are short-term offenders who would have got out of jail, but in the case of fred west and harold shipman, they would never have got out, so they did, in effect, save the taxpayers some money because now we don't have to pay for them to wrot in jail fo the next 30 years
Sugarbaby, I agree that they may well have thought it, notwithstanding the fact that they didn't say it. Mr Blunkett's crime in my view was not that he thought it, but that he said it. By virtue of his position, he must under no circumstances say something like that. at best it's a disgraceful thing to say, at worst it can give rise to complex litigation against either his department or himself which would cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. I can't accept your argument either based on the saving to the taxpayer caused by Shipman's suicide: first, that is no excuse for a government to deregate from its duty, nor is it an excuse for treating a potential breach of that duty lightly. secondly, what you say about the notion that Fred West and Harold shipman would never have got out of prison may well be right. It is highly probable that neither Fred West nor Harold Shipman would have got out, and absolutely certain on the evidence as it currently stands. but couldn't the same be said of the Birmingham six at the time of their convictions? WE all know what happened in those cases and had the convictions not been overturned, they would never have got out either, would they? thirdly, I'm afraid the logical extension of your argument based on the net gain to the taxpayer amounts to a suggestion that the government owes no duty to offenders we consider hopeless cases, and I repeat, that cannot be right. If in 1512, a public inquiry had to be held into the death of a man condemned to life imprisonment for habitual offending by the standards of the day, it cannot be right in 2005 that the government owes no duty to a serious or persistent offender. And can you imagine what horror there would have been if Mr Blunkett had tried to use a justification like that for his ill-chosen words? He would have had to resign, no question, and it may well have brought down the government. I'm afraid such utilitarian arguments will not work, and have been discredited long ago.