I have received a large number of emails from members of the public as a
result of the inaccurate way my comments were reported in the 10 June
edition of the Mail on Sunday. There is a parliamentary convention that
I should only respond in detail to correspondence from my own
constituents. However I hope that the following statement clarifies my
position and I am glad to have this opportunity of setting the record
straight. If you are constituent, I am happy to correspond with you on
any further points you wish to raise if you would please provide me with
your full postal address and indicate you are a constituent in the
header.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
The remarks attributed to me in the 10 June edition of the Mail on
Sunday were an inaccurate reflection of the lengthy conversation I had
with the reporter on Thursday night. This included the example of a
soldier who had had his hand successfully reconstructed after having
three ribs removed for the purpose. He would have lost his hand were it
not for the skill and dedication of the clinical staff involved - the
very staff whose morale is being constantly undermined by the barrage of
unjustified criticism coming from the media who regurgitate and
exaggerate old stories. I am informed that some staff have got so fed
up with this situation that they are looking for new jobs and such is
their skill that they will be snapped up by other hospitals. What good
will that do our troops? You will note that the particular incident
which apparently justified the headline "Muslim Women Abuse Soldier at
Troops Hospital" took place a month ago and was described by the soldier
involved as being a minor incident. Though I would condemn any
inappropriate intervention, I am told the use of the word "abuse" does
not reflect what happened. There has been another allegation that a
soldier was abused by a Muslim nurse, yet there has never been a Muslim
nurse on any of the wards where soldiers have been treated.
I informed the reporter from the MoS about this type of inaccurate
reports and I also told him of my recent meeting with one of the injured
men whose case has been given a high media profile (unfavourable to the
hospital). At the point I met the soldier, he was returning to the ward
after a weekend away, including a visit to a football match. He remains
in the ward despite the hospital's view that he is ready to be
discharged to military-run rehabilitation. At the different stages in
his treatment, he has been in three separate wards appropriate to his
condition at the time. Surveys of military personnel who have received
treatment at Selly Oak have been overwhelmingly favourable - none of
this is reported because it does not fit the picture that has been
painted by those seeking to undermine the work being done at Selly Oak.
They care more for a good story than the damage they are doing. They
are not concerned about any effect on morale caused by giving our armed
forces such a negative impression of the quality of care they might
expect to receive should they be injured!
The decision by the MoD to base hospital care of military staff in the
NHS was taken, not to cut costs, as stated in the article, but for
clinical reasons. Health care has become more specialised and the range
of specialties and depth of experience required to provide the full
range of care required by the military (such as that described above)
can only be provided by a large acute teaching trust.
Also the training and education of the clinical military staff needs to
be undertaken in an environment where the full range of injuries and
illnesses are seen and treated. This is to better equip the military
clinicians to deal with any eventuality when deployed at times of
conflict. The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Selly Oak provides
both these functions
It seems that recent events have sought to overturn these principles and
that considerations other than clinical need are being brought into play
to determine where injured military personnel are cared for and where
military clinical staff are placed to gain experience. These issues
should be best left to those with the knowledge and skills to make those
judgements based on the clinical needs of the patients i.e. the doctors
and nurses looking after the patients. Similarly the placement of the
military staff should be the responsibility of those who have
responsibility for the training and education of the military clinical
staff. Anything else must surely compromise patient safety, both for
those patients in Selly Oak and for those injured in the frontline
before they can be returned to UK. Yet, it is clear from my
conversations with senior members from the Armed Forces medical staff
that their views are being overridden as a response to the media
coverage, which has been stimulated by some factions in the MoD who
opposed the closure of the military hospitals. It is in that context
that I used the word "fiefdom". At no point did I say that the soldiers
wanted a fiefdom.
The reference to "clutter" also gives the wrong impression. When I
visited the ward where 12 of the 20 military patients in the hospital
were being treated (and remember their numbers can vary substantially
such that any "dedicated ward" could one day be half empty and then next
full to overflowing) I was struck by how many staff, in particular
military staff in full uniform, were on the ward. I have been told that
this is usually in double figures and on one recent occasion it was
possible to count 19 non-clinical uniformed military staff on the ward!
There is no doubt that the ward is old and cramped as is all the
accommodation in this hospital but a new hospital is currently being
constructed and by 2010 all patients will have first class facilities.
Meanwhile I do not consider it conducive to recovery, or to security, to
have so many people milling around.
In conclusion, the coverage in the MoS was deliberately slanted to give
the impression that I was not concerned about wounded soldiers coming
back from Iraq and Afghanistan when, in fact, the opposite is the case
and I was trying to put a true reflection of the excellent work that has
been going on at Selly Oak. I should also point out that the hospital
also provides elective treatment for military staff that are not being
deployed overseas. However, given the reputation of this particular
paper, I suppose I should not be surprised at the manner in which my
views have been misrepresented. I will of course be writing to them in
an attempt to put the record straight
LYNNE JONES MP
DT_Xtremez_27: