The Death of Max O'Mara - Missing Files in London

[Gary O'Mara]

The matter of Max O’Mara’s death and the subsequent cover-up by Finnish officials has, as I have documented here, reached well beyond the xenophobic borders of Finland. The matter is now in London where the GMC has ‘lost’ Max’s files, files which are the subject of my complaint in Strasbourg.

Originally HYKS pathologists Paetau and Haltia extra-judicially changed the original cause of Max’s death and contacted a ‘dear friend and colleague’ in Glasgow to get them off possible criminal charges for faking outcomes in a child’s cause of death investigation.

The so-called Glasgow expert, Professor David. Graham, acting as expert witness fro the State of Southern Finland, and who underscored, so far, three death certificates and 1 addendum, has been the subject of my complaint at the GMC in London.

The saga continues:

The GMC is the health regulator in the UK

British expert witness for the State of Southern Finland Profess

A copy of a statement released on a prominent NHS site in London follows:


Wednesday, July 29, 2009
General Medical Council Loses Data

Sometime ago, the General Medical Council issued a press release. The BSI certified the GMC to have the best security standard. Since then, the General Medical Council has been found in breach of the Data Protection Act not once but twice. Mr Gary O Mara who writes the piece below found out that the GMC could not locate his data. Does the GMC therefore deserve a BSI award? In the next decade, the General Medical Council is due to deal with increasing amounts of data due to revalidation and increasing complaints. Is data at the GMC safe?

BSI certifies GMC to world’s best information security standard [General Medical Council Press Release]



The British Standards Institute (BSI) has presented the ISO 27001 (Information Security Standard) to the General Medical Council (GMC).

The ISO 27001 security standard involves an audit of the many ways information is handled within an organisation. This involves checking information is accurate, ensuring that confidentiality is maintained and that information is available when it is needed.

Compliance with this standard provides assurance that the GMC is using best practice in handling information safely and securely. Achieving the standard is not a one-off event but involves ongoing assessment and review, and undertaking corrective action where necessary to ensure the effectiveness of procedures.

Neil Hannah, Managing Director of the BSI, presenting the award to the GMC said:

"The GMC is one of just a small but growing group of organisations who have successfully achieved this standard. Others include the Food Standards Agency, BUPA, Camelot, Betfair, BAE Systems, Capita, HBOS, Paypoint and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.


"This standard is widely considered to be the most comprehensive set of security best practice controls available and encompasses everything from people to physical environment to IT systems."

Neil Roberts, Director of Registration and Resources for the GMC, commented:

"We’re very pleased to be receiving this award, it is a measure of the progress we have made since 2003 in upgrading our systems and enhancing the security culture throughout the GMC.

"The nature of our work means that the GMC holds sensitive information about doctors and others. We have a duty to ensure that we handle all such information appropriately to minimise any risk of a security breach and for this reason, we wanted our systems and procedures to be audited against a benchmark that is respected worldwide.


"In the last four years we have made major investments in our infrastructure and our people, funded primarily through savings emanating from the relocation of work to Manchester and a host of other initiatives aimed at improving productivity. Certification to ISO 27001 is tangible evidence that this approach is bearing fruit and that we take very seriously the task of improving our capacity to provide doctors, employers, patients and the public with the information they need in a safe and secure manner."

The GMC completed work on implementing this standard within its Fitness to Practise directorate in 2006, and is now rolling this standard out across the rest of the organisation.


Gary O’ Mara's Experience with the General Medical Council.


Recently I requested the General Medical Council (GMC) to provide a copy of the original Lay screener’s statement, in connection with my complaint concerning expert witness statements written by Professor David I. Graham, a NHS pathologist of SGH Glasgow. The professor’s putative, etiological statements, written pro bono for the State of Southern Finland, were in response to the mysterious death of my 5-year-old son Max Oscar O’Mara in Finland.

From Mr. Julian Graves in Manchester, I received the following email:

Unfortunately despite having conducted an extensive search for the data you require, I have been unable to trace the relevant data.

I'm sorry to send you what will be a disappointing reply. Please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have any queries regarding this matter.


Disappointing is a word the GMC regularly uses; they told me that I might be “disappointed” in the Lay screener’s statement; now they tell me I might be disappointed in not being able to locate in the archives the same Lay screener’s statement.

Much like with the Kafkaesque-types in the medico-legal world in Finland, who allow the publication of multiple death certificates for a child, without ever holding an Inquest into his death, the GMC is similarly free of any responsibility for transparency or competence; and their weasel words are of no use at all, as I continue to seek to find out how my child died such a tortuous and obscene death at Töölö Hospital in Helsinki.

As a minimum, I would have thought the GMC was capable of retaining the original Lay screener’s statement, quite apart from the childish nostrums of, amongst others, Paul Philip, Jackie Smith and Neil Marshall, as I began to push for answers in this unconscionable matter.

Given the GMC’s lack of knowledge about child morbidity in general and their reckless attempts to avoid any responsibility for the morbid machinations of the NHS’s Professor Graham, the loss of the entire file is unhelpful to say the least.

It is possible that, on reflection, some of the nomenklatura at the GMC, like Paul Philip, whose own bureaucratic circumlocution is of Booker Prize value and while macabre, was, nevertheless, not up to neuropathology 101 no ifs or buts about it. And on hearing that the matter of Max’s cause of death was going to be tabled in Strasbourg, any reference at all to the GMC’s insane ruminations over Professor Graham’s statements, as pro bono expert witness for the State of Southern Finland, might indeed create some anxiety at the GMC’s portal in Euston Road in London.

As far as the background to the case is concerned, I have, to date, documented compelling evidence that the actual cause of my child’s death, however tragic and avoidable, developed into a half-baked, systemic cover-up by leading Finnish officials, including the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman herself, Ms Riita-Leena Paunio.

Ms Paunio, and others, in order to save a largely incompetent and morally suspect Finnish social and health system, insinuated Stalinist-like, that Max had suffered from congenital brain disease and died of a bleed.

Max did not have an Inquest; the Finnish police resorted solely to microscopy, and Mengele-like genetics, in order to arrive at a fake cause of death which has required, so far, the publication of multiple death certificates.

I would also remind the GMC, and the Finns, too, of the nature of policing in Finland. It goes like this: first, the police arrive at a cause of death then go about making up the evidence, including using medical fraudsters, in Max’s case, like Dr. Ilkka Kaitila and child-fiddlers like the neuropathologist, Dr. Anders “kivempi” Paetau. Arraigned before the courts, the charges were dropped quid pro quo, based on the medical rogues giving the police expert medical statements which, when later tested, turned out to be false and misleading statements about a child’s death.

However, the truth of the matter was that Max suffered a traumatic, external brain injury in the school yard, resulting in a contusion haematoma and a subdural haematoma, each evacuated in surgery by a Finnish neurosurgeon.

Complicating the matter even further was the fact that Max was infused with massive amounts of Thiopental while in intensive care at Töölö Hospital in Helsinki. Whether this was through sheer incompetence or it was the State’s policy of paediatric euthanasia I cannot say, but, given the doses involved, it is hard to discount the latter.

The amounts of Thiopental given to Max were more than what is regularly infused in the condemned on Death Row in the USA ( Lancet April 2005/ Töölö Hospital notes).

So, when it came to the so-called autopsy in Helsinki, the evidence of my child’s violence to the head and toxic poisoning, in a State-run school yard and a leading Finnish teaching hospital respectively, was expunged from the public record and not investigated; documents such as forensic toxicology statements were hidden in the archives of Ms Paunio’s imitation leather bag and nothing bad ever happens in Finland.

The upshot in Helsinki was that the clinicians at Töölö, who had saved Max’s life with expert brain surgery, kept quiet about their involvement with thiopental infusions as well as the boy’s catastrophic sequelae, including cardiac arrest and end-stage renal failure. And when the first death certificate was published, the cause of death had nothing to do with the clinical evidence available to everyone, including Ms Paunio.

The Finns, ever nervous about false statements over the causes of Max’s death, shrank from their original cause of death; secretly changed typologies of brain disease and contacted Professor David I. Graham, a dear friend and colleague in Glasgow, to help them off thin ice in Helsinki.

I only ask that the GMC provide a copy of the original four-page statement written, apparently, by a leading Lay screener, Ms Lisa Edge who, herself, has disappeared from the pay role at the GMC. The GMC have a file protection policy and, it seems, they have failed to fully follow their own dictums. Whether my complaints to the Information Commissioner, or to the CHRE, will make any difference I cannot say.

In fact, the last time I wrote to the CHRE, in May 2008, I requested Rosy Varley to review the GMC’s performance in connection with my complaint concerning Professor Graham’s activities and the Finns in the case. A functionary there kindly wrote back in June 2008 telling that the regulator, the CHRE, had no authority in the matter. I did not receive the actual correspondence until November 2008; such is the diligence of some folk.

How a child can die suddenly, without any connection to epidemiological data, and to publish (3) three death certificates and (1) addendum, is hard to imagine. But having written some 25 documents in the matter the GMC now, when the case has reached some degree of objectivity in Strasbourg, drops its bundle and cannot find the paperwork.

It is not hard, therefore, to insist that the cover-up is just a routine matter in a world of make believe.

Only at the GMC.

Gary O’Mara
Sydney
Australia
Tel:[phone]