Receiving an apology from a public authority - advice

[mikeg]

Why are public authorities so reluctant to apologise for behaviour that was completely wrong? I understand it's for fear of being sued, either that or professional arrogance but I'd just like to know why they aren't more 'user friendly'. I work in customer service and spend half my life bending over backwards and apologising for things that are beyond my control. Why are our supposedly accountable public services not the same?

I'm actually seeking practical advice here, I have no interest in claiming monetary compensation but do want an apology from the National Health Service. I've engaged with them as much as possible and tried various different tactics but it all comes down to the same old arrogant 'we think we were right to do this' even though in some cases they were demonstrably wrong. In particular I would like advice re the following.

1. Male genital mutilation, carried out at a young age without full personal understanding and consent
2. Libellous comments written on medical records ( I would like this removed but so far this has come to nothing, do the NHS think they're exempt from defamation law? It seems so)
3. Detention without charge or trial for a period of two weeks in February 2010 and actively misleading me as to my rights in this.

I don't really have funds for a solicitor but this is a matter of personal dignity to me. Does anyone else have experience of obtaining a meaningful apology from a public institution (not necessarily the NHS)?

 

[deltic]

As you state the main reason is due to fear of being sued which is usually linked to their insurance policies which can forbid them from doing so as it then means they are admitting liability.

If you want to take the matter further I suggest you set out your case clearly and simply to your MP and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This should include the resolution you are seeking, ie an apology.

​

 

[AlterEgo]

1. Male genital mutilation, carried out at a young age without full personal understanding and consent

It depends on what you describe as mutilation here, but if it is a “bog standard” male circumcision carried out when you were a child then your full understanding and consent would normally be considered secondary to your parent or legal guardian’s understanding and vicarious consent. If it is not, then you’re definitely better off speaking to a dedicated support group, if you can find one.

1. Libellous comments written on medical records ( I would like this removed but so far this has come to nothing, do the NHS think they're exempt from defamation law? It seems so)

I think you would need to substantiate how those comments are libellous, and, given the confidential nature of medical records, how a libel has actually been committed at all.

1. Detention without charge or trial for a period of two weeks in February 2010 and actively misleading me as to my rights in this.

If this was sectioning under the Mental Health Act then Detention Action or Mind are best places to advise how to proceed from here.

I don't really have funds for a solicitor but this is a matter of personal dignity to me. Does anyone else have experience of obtaining a meaningful apology from a public institution (not necessarily the NHS)?

The NHS is a special case because they will normally not apologise to simply make you feel better, or validated. They will apologise if their procedures were unlawful, wrong or violated, and it would be up to you to show evidence of the same and make an appropriate complaint so that can happen. Apologising runs the risk of admitting legal fault, which for the issues you raise, are quite fraught for the NHS.

I recommend using the charities as a useful stepping stone and seeing if there are support groups where people have specific experience, especially of points 1 and 3. This is your best way to effect change in this scenario if you feel wronged.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Male genital mutilation, carried out at a young age without full personal understanding and consent

One assumes you're referring to male circumcision, in which case the procedure will have been consented to by your parents or your legal guardian. I'm unsure what you would realistically expect the NHS to say.

Libellous comments written on medical records ( I would like this removed but so far this has come to nothing, do the NHS think they're exempt from defamation law? It seems so)

Comments on medical records would not usually be defamatory.

If you disagree with a medical diagnosis or opinion you have the right to request it be amended. If it is inaccurate it may be amended, otherwise it may be noted that you disagree with the medical diagnosis or opinion. The ICO website explains more: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...dpr/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/

It is worth noting that the fact you disagree with an opinion does not make it inaccurate.

Detention without charge or trial for a period of two weeks in February 2010 and actively misleading me as to my rights in this.

One may assume this was a "voluntary" stay in a mental health hospital, and this is one area where the NHS can be a bit naughty. "You have to stay here or we'll detain you under the Mental Health Act" was, and probably still is, a fairly common tactic. A tactic which, unfortunately, removes many of the obligations placed on the NHS and social care services under the Act, which can be problematic upon discharge.

However this occurred 12 years ago and the limitation period for medical negligence is 3 years.

 

[najaB]

Male genital mutilation, carried out at a young age without full personal understanding and consent

If by "at a young age" you mean when you were a child then, unfortunately, your parent or guardian was able to consent on your behalf.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s worth mentioning that the OP questions whether the NHS believes they’re exempt from defamation law. It seems like the NHS may have a privilege exemption, albeit qualified, where medical records are concerned.

Archived Petition: To remove the Defence of Privilege for Defamation in NHS medical records

NHS patients have no legal right to sue for Defamation for proven false statements in their medical records. The Access to Medical Records Act 1990 denies access to their records under S.5.1 of that Act. If access by a High Court Order is obtained and the records contain proven false...

petition.parliament.uk

Even if defamation, libel or slander were a real possibility, asking a public body to acknowledge such an act and apologise for it without recourse to the legal system is a non-starter, I’m afraid.

 

[mikeg]

Thanks for your advice.

It seems like the NHS may have a privilege exemption, albeit qualified, where medical records are concerned.

Okay so that's rather scandalous.

If by "at a young age" you mean when you were a child then, unfortunately, your parent or guardian was able to consent on your behalf.

Which is even more wrong. I should be the person making the decision. To clarify I oppose both male and female genital mutilation on superstitious grounds and also medical grounds where less invasive interventions were available. For some reason male genital mutilation is viewed as 'okay'. Which is interesting, why do men matter less than women in this?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s worth mentioning that the OP questions whether the NHS believes they’re exempt from defamation law. It seems like the NHS may have a privilege exemption, albeit qualified, where medical records are concerned.

It is also a criminal offence to falsify medical records, and that applies to clinicians as much as anyone else.

I should also note the linked petition appears to predate GDPR, which changed a lot of rights to access personal data.

My understanding is that medical opinion isn't an outright privilege, it is qualified, but you would need to demonstrate malice to bring a claim. A reasonably held medical opinion would not normally be defamatory.

 

[ComUtoR]

I should be the person making the decision.

In general, I would agree.

To clarify I oppose both male and female genital mutilation on superstitious grounds and also medical grounds where less invasive interventions were available.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by Male and Female genital mutilation as well as 'less invasive measures' I'm not sure how circumcision could be 'less invasive' I am also unsure about the reasons why each of them exist without displaying some extreme cultural stereotypes. I am not religious so I could not tell you any religious reasons why each exist. However, on a general basis, I do understand there are cultural reasons why.

I do understand where there may be a medical reason for circumcision and I think this could be explored beyond the religious debate and I think that would be my starting point of discovering the reasons why it may have happened.

For some reason male genital mutilation is viewed as 'okay'. Which is interesting, why do men matter less than women in this?

I don't think they matter 'less' but the reasons for each are significantly different.

 

[najaB]

Which is even more wrong. I should be the person making the decision.

In principle, yes. But under the law parents/guardians have the final say where any medical procedure is concerned.

For some reason male genital mutilation is viewed as 'okay'. Which is interesting, why do men matter less than women in this?

While I don't see either as 'okay', though they are both called 'circumcision' they are in fact vastly different procedures.

Male circumcision has limited effect on sexual health being the removal of just part of the foreskin and, arguably, has some limited health benefit whereas female 'circumcision' often is the complete removal of the clitoris and/or labia and has a high death rate as a result of the procedure itself and massively impacts on sexual health. Women who have been subjected to FGM are, in most cases, left completely unable to have a normal sex life, suffer from increased rates of infections and run a higher risk of miscarriage and stillbirth.

 

[ComUtoR]

Male circumcision has limited effect on sexual health being the removal of just part of the foreskin and, arguably, has some limited health benefit whereas female 'circumcision' often is the complete removal of the clitoris and/or labia and has a high death rate as a result of the procedure itself and massively impacts on sexual health. Women who have been subjected to FGM are, in most cases, left completely unable to have a normal sex life, suffer from increased rates of infections and run a higher risk of miscarriage and stillbirth.

You missed out 'Patriarchal Society'