CARES response to unwarranted allegations and public letters regarding health service concerns!
CARES have no intention whatsoever of becoming embroiled in local politics. Since the inception of the group we have been careful not to permit political issues to have any sway over our vital campaign to seek full restoration of emergency hospital services for local children. Nevertheless, due to the very nature of politics we have been accused on several occasions in the press etc of supporting political parties and their various agendas. Because of this we have now decided to address these important issues via this particular page which is devoted to bypassing frequently biased media hype.
24/01/05
A response to the Champion newspaper article {Children’s A&E campaigner to
stand in election}, dated 30th March 2005, by Editor Martin Hovden wherein Mr
Bill Givens (Your Party candidate) is reported to have made claims concerning
political favouritism against CARES. Mr Givens was stated by Mr Hovden as
previously claiming that CARES had become “a mouthpiece for the Tories.”
Local mother and hospital cuts campaigner Mrs Angela Weatherby has sent the
following response to the Champion.
“I read with total disgust the article in last weeks Champion by Mr Bill Givens.
He accuses Mr Bigley of using CARES for political gain; he also accused MP John
Pugh of the same last year yet whilst reading this article it is clear the ONLY
person doing this is Mr Givens himself. He is using CARES whom he is no-longer
part of NOT due to the 'Tories' as he claims but due to his own lack of
communication and own political affiliations. If Mr Givens bothered to do his
research he would discover that the Southport Party is very much involved within
the CARES Group more now than ever. If Mr Givens wants the truth out then let's
do it.
1) He was NOT a member of the CARES Campaign group on the march of 2003 he
was the alternate for the member of the Southport Party.
2) He had NOTHING to do with the organisation of the march.
3) He was NOT the spokesperson at the hospital he harassed the hospital
officials which is TOTALLY different from being a 'spokesperson'.
4) The photo shown has been edited as there were NO photos taken of ANY CARES
representatives on there own.
5) The letters that were sent to the other members of the 'original' CARES Group
were written by Mr Givens but signed by the two co-chairs whom had believed they
could trust him.
He has done nothing but accuse other people of doing exactly what he himself is
guilty of. He has been described as having integrity I beg to differ on this, a
man with Integrity does not do the type of things that Mr Givens is doing. The
Champion newspaper along with others has in the past accused Mr Mark Bigley of
using the CARES Campaign for political gain.
Martin Hovden said, and I quote: “The actions of Mr Bigley are the worst kind
of political opportunism I have ever seen.” If this weeks article is not
exactly that then this is the worst form of bias I have ever had the misfortune
to read. If Mr Givens wishes to reply to my letter then he knows my address, I
am not getting into a public slanging arena with him he can approach me on a
personal basis.
Yours
Angela Weatherby
--------------------
To the Champion Editor from a local campaigner regarding statements in election literature:
Sent: Sunday, 03 April 2005
Dear Editor
I write to you sincerely regarding the most important issue currently still affecting Southport, which is the ongoing campaign for reinstatement of our children’s emergency services and the stomach-churning political skulduggery surrounding this situation. I am infuriated but regrettably not shocked by the disgusting amount of misleading political spin that we are now seeing from the office of Southport’s MP, John Pugh.
I recently (03/04/2005) received Mr Pugh’s latest Lib-Dem political bulletin through my door entitled: ‘We need an MP who gets results for Southport’ wherein he states:
“Despite the Conservatives helping to break up the local mum’s campaign, we will see some new facilities, but the fight still has to go on,”
This is a most outrageous and reprehensible piece of black propaganda, especially coming from a sitting MP who has a sincere duty to preserve the rights of ‘all’ his constituents. It does his own personal quest to cling on to power in this town plus his individual dignity no favours at all in my opinion.
I believe he owes thousands of ordinary Conservative parents and grandparents that have generously aided the ongoing hospital campaign, via signing petitions and marching etc, a full apology for this misleading public invective. Furthermore, as a local ‘dad’ who has fought this draconian NHS decision since its instigation I find Mr Pugh’s outburst incredibly chauvinist. Countless other ‘men’ have also helped so please Mr Pugh stop trying to grab some sort of moral high ground via calling this vital movement a “mum’s campaign”. Women are certainly not second class-citizens that need to be treated like herded sheep you know! I personally am not at all interested in back-biting local politics but can assure any resident that along with the Southport Party the local ‘Conservatives’ involved have literally bent over backward to assist in the hospital cuts battle. Plain, democratic and fair reason was given by campaigners as to exactly ‘why’ they could not possibly work with John Pugh and some of his coterie at the time of his ejection from the Steering Group Committee yet for Mr Pugh to now make such claims is entirely misleading, inconsistent and flies in the face of the full facts. Recreating the hard reality of the situation may now seem like a good means to win desperately needed votes but it certainly was ‘not’ how events actually unfolded.
Such actions from an MP who ‘should’ be fighting for all his constituents are repellent and a real example of ‘political engineering’ of the most unpleasant kind!
Sincerely
Pat Regan
One irate local ‘male’ parent campaigner!
---------------
The following was printed in the Champion newspaper on 19th April 2005. It was written in response to allegations by Mr Bill Givens.
Dear Editor
RE: 'PETITION STORM', CHAMPION 13TH APRIL 05
As one of the volunteers who helped count hospital petition signatures I am quite staggered that Mr Bill Givens, the YOUR PARTY candidate, is seeking to make a big issue over the hospital petition totals.
Mark Bigley, as a member of CARES, is totally aware that the full petition count and recorded reference to source is widely available for all to see on the CARES website – so why ever would he claim otherwise?
I am sorry but Mr Givens does his political ambitions no favours at all by apparently criticising other hospital cuts campaigners in this unwarranted fashion. To infer that Mr Bigley's election literature would claim the petitions to be only “Conservative” – based is ludicrous in the extreme and just smacks of straw-clutching, political point-scoring.
The finalised figures of the petition count are as follows:
Southport Visiter Petitions: 6,820
Pine Pixies Pre-Schools Petitions: 5,730
John Pugh Petitions: 2832
Miscellaneous Petitions: 1,209
CARES Petitions: 1,051
Adam Jankowski Petitions: 839
Hesketh Bowling club: 51
Petitions as counted to date at: 13th November 2003.
http://www.cares.ukhome.net/petitioncount.htm
I do hope that the Champion editor will have the good grace to publish this clarification for public edification with available totals in the name of fair play and accuracy.
Thank you
Pat Regan
----------------------
A letter to CARES from Mr John Shawcroft
Received - 24th Jan. 05
How much avoidable suffering will have to occur before our hospital bosses come to their senses 20.000 people signed the Visiter petition against the closure of children’s A & E while more than 4.000 people held a protest march.
We are now informed that the old Infirmary on Scarisbrick New Road is to be demolished the reason given is that it is “no longer useable” with a Health Village being built on the site. This Health Village will not replace the full A & E services for children that we had at the new hospital with x-ray machines etc. This is a further dilution of services to the Southport’s residents and visitors alike.
The emergency ambulance drivers will now have many options after picking a family up from a road traffic accident. Father or Mother go to the hospital; one child not seriously injured to the Health Village; a more seriously injured child to Ormskirk with probable further transfer to Alder hey. Imagine the predicament of the ambulance driver having picked up the casualties - where do we go first ? We appreciate that in the past patients who required more specialist care than could be given at Southport were quite rightly transferred to other hospitals in the region, e.g. Liverpool's Whiston Special Burns Unit etc. Remember we the taxpayers are paying these highly paid professionals to run our health service. If they insist on not reinstating our children’s A & E to Southport then we in turn must insist on stopping their salaries and giving the jobs to persons who will.
With all the electioneering going on in the next few weeks now would be a good time to bring the nonsense of our hospital services to national television. People may say that health services are being meddled with all over the country, so what chance of us getting a change?
It is up to us the people of Southport (population over 90.000) to make it clear that enough is enough and that we will not tolerate this ludicrous situation any longer.
Sincerely,
Mr John Shawcroft
N.B. We have recently found out that Whiston is to close this means yet another dilution in services and patients previously being transferred there will now have to attend Manchester hospital. More time, More pain over yet another senseless closure.
-----------------------
A letter to the Southport media and CARES from Mr John Lee. A drastically edited version of this response appeared in the Southport Visiter, Jan 24th 05.
It is with great regret tinged with a degree of inevitability that we witness even the inadequate midwife led maternity service in Southport set to close shortly, perhaps for ever.
Our MP claims on his web site that it is as a result of
his pressure and that of the Libdem group "SOS" that the reduced level of
maternity services was introduced at all, but I have reason to doubt the truth
behind this boast. There is certainly, however, some reason to believe that the
hospital board would have taken more seriously the concerns of this town against
its proposals if the Libdems had been prepared to work with the original CARES
group, instead of being so pugnacious that they were reluctantly expelled.
Co-ordinated pressure from an ALL-PARTY pressure group, including the MP, could
not have been brushed away so easily. That was the original idea behind the
creation of CARES by The Southport Party and was very successful initially.
The recent press release by the original CARES group, who have held talks with
the hospital administrators, does give us some hope that the town's concerns are
now at last being listened to. They are slowly being to realise that the Shields
Report in its original form is not workable and that they continue to be seen as
the bad guys.
We can only hope that some satisfactory recovery can eventually be made from
this and other unnecessary damage done to our local health services and that we
Sandgrounders can once again be proud of our birthplace.
John Lee (A true "Sandgrounder")
8 Westmoreland Road
Southport
LANCASHIRE
----------------------------
A letter sent to the PCT concerning the closure of the Southport Midwifery - Led Unit and also presented to CARES (25/01/05) from Sarah Ward. Copies of this letter were also sent by Sarah to the Southport Visiter & John Pugh MP.
Dear Mr.
Winstanley,
I am writing to register my disappointment and disagreement with the proposed
closure of the Midwife Led Unit (MLU) based at Southport Hospital. I am a
first-time mother due to give birth at the MLU on the 8th of September, three
days after the proposed closure date, and am naturally upset that at such a late
stage in my pregnancy – having attended the MLU for all ante-natal appointments
from 20 weeks and with a birth plan dependent on the facilities that the MLU
provide – I have been so let down by the Southport and Formby Primary Care Trust
and Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust. The complete lack of
consultation, mere three-week lead-time between decision and date of closure and
lack of information for affected women (let alone the midwives involved, who
have been placed in a very awkward position) do not reflect well on either body.
Over and above the handling of the closure itself, I also find myself very
frustrated with the reasons given for the decision. There is overwhelming
anecdotal evidence that many Southport, Ormskirk and Formby women are either
completely unaware of the MLU facility during their pregnancies, or are being
fed negative or false facts about the unit from misinformed or unsupportive GPs,
one of whom amazingly treated a pregnant woman to a lecture on the dangers of an
MLU birth when asked about the option. In reality MLU births have been proven
to be both as safe as a hospital birth for women with straightforward
pregnancies, and also to offer a much greater chance of an intervention-free and
speedy birth experience.
Despite not being able to offer epidurals (and neither Ormskirk or the Liverpool
Women’s Hospital can always provide these either due to issues with anaesthetist
availability), I’m sure you’re aware that pain relief options for women at an
MLU are otherwise comprehensive, ranging from TENS machines and birthing pools
(one in each labour room compared to one pool shared by eight rooms at Ormskirk)
to gas&air and pethidine injections. In addition, post-birth, partners are not
restricted to visiting during set hours, one to one care is continued
(particularly important in assisting with breastfeeding) and length of stay is
completely flexible – with the best will in the world a busy hospital cannot
always provide this type of service. Finally, should any problems arise during
labour an MLU midwife accompanies the woman in an ambulance to Ormskirk at the
earliest stage. From my own experience, and that of the many women I have
spoken with on the subject, even where GP surgeries have informed pregnant women
of the MLU option for childbirth, the above benefits and facts have not been
outlined. A Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust spokesperson claimed in
the recent Southport Visiter article that “several awareness campaigns” have
been carried out over the last 2 years to promote the MLU – I would be very
interested to know exactly what these campaigns comprised of.
I feel that the Southport MLU has not been given a fair chance to succeed. An
expected target of 300 births per year is extremely high for a unit that has
been open for only 2 years (and only 12 months for first-time mums). The
argument is that 100 births a year at Southport is not sufficient to make the
service viable, but this is the standard target figure for other UK MLUs, which
are increasing in number all the time (belying the assertion that women are
rejecting MLU-births of their own accord). It is also important to note other
relevant comparisons such as with the Chorley MLU, which in its first few years
of existence was also handling around 100 births per year. Following an
awareness campaign and continuous local PCT/NHS backing the figures have now
rocketed to over 300 per year.
Ormskirk maternity unit is already handling more than its target birth level,
and the closure of the MLU at Southport will only put more strain on this
equally valuable service. Surely it would make more financial sense to improve
the viability of the Southport MLU by looking for ways to increase its use,
rather than close it altogether?
With this decision, in the short-term, you are letting down myself and the
80-plus other pregnant women currently due to given birth at the MLU. In the
longer-term you are letting down the Southport community as a whole, which
deserves a choice in childbirth options (in line with current government
policy). It is disgraceful, and potentially dangerous, that an area of
Southport’s size will now offer no other local childbirth option than a home
birth. If there is any way that this decision can be reviewed, or at least
postponed to allow for proper consultation, I would urge you to consider it.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this. Yours sincerely,
Sarah Ward.
--------------------------
Copy of a letter sent to Mark Winstanley, Chairman of the PCT
by Joanne Williams of the National Childbirth Trust (NCT).
2nd September, 2005
Dear Sir
CLOSURE OF MIDWIFE LED UNIT – SOUTHPORT
I was very disappointed to read in the Southport Visiter that the MLU in
Southport is due to close on the 5th September. I had my Son in the unit in May
and cannot speak highly enough of the midwives there. The care I had was second
to none. I feel very strongly that women should be given a choice over where
they have their babies, be it in a high tech obstetric unit or at home. For me,
the MLU was the ideal place as I have two other children and felt that the post
natal rest at the MLU would benefit me, as I do not feel that this would have
been available at home.
Publicity in recent weeks refers to an ‘awareness campaign’ to promote the unit,
but I am not aware of such a campaign and many other mothers I have met are also
completely unaware that the MLU exists. Even the recent public posters to
advertise which services are at which hospital, completely omits the MLU. How
are women expected to use the Unit if they do not know it exists? GP’s
certainly aren’t promoting the unit, and if they are they advise against it,
rather than discussing the benefits of giving birth there. From speaking with
my midwives during my pregnancy I understand that they have approached the
hospital Press Office with various promotional ideas but they have never been
given approval. It is as though the unit has been set up to fail. In other
parts of the country MLU’s are extremely popular once the benefit of giving
birth there is explained correctly.
Research has shown that women tend to labour
better if they are in a more relaxed environment which the MLU provides. If
they are more relaxed there less chance of an intervention and surely this is
cheaper than intervening with all the possible side-effects. Ante-natal care at
the Unit is excellent. I was able to make appointments day or night, weekdays
or weekends and this was very important as my other two children were greatly
re-assured once they had seen where I was going to have the new baby and who
would be looking after me. Visiting hours are also excellent as it was extremely
important for me, and no doubt other women with other children, to include them
as much as possible as soon as the new baby is born. My family was not under
any pressure to stick to restrictive visiting hours and this was a very
important in allowing my two older children to bond with their new brother.
Please also consider the advantages of the MLU in regard to breast feeding. One
to one care and support is given, day or night and this is really important in
the first few days of life. The NHS is trying to promote breast feeding by its
‘Breast is Best’ campaign and I am sure many women give up breast feeding simply
because the support they require is not there. There is evidence to show
numerous health problems can arise in formula fed babies, increasing the cost to
the NHS in the future. Surely this must be a consideration.
According to a recent article in the Formby Times, the annual target for the MLU
is 300 births per year. In my opinion the MLU have been unable to reach this
target due to the lack of knowledge of the unit. It is totally ridiculous to
expect the MLU to get up to 300 births per annum when it has not yet been open
for 2 years. A publicity campaign is required promoting the full benefits of a
natural birth in the MLU and local GP’s should fully inform their patients as to
their birth options. Fazakerly and Billinge have recently closed and
therefore Ormskirk is having to cope with many more patients than originally
anticipated. I understand that, despite the recent refurbishment the number of
beds at Ormskirk has not increased despite the increase of patients. Surely it
would make more sense to promote the MLU in order to take some of the pressure
away from Ormskirk. The lack of a transport link to Ormskirk are a major factor
which should be considered. From Formby the most direct route is over the Moss
and, whilst the Ambulance Service recommend labouring women to travel via
Southport, this is just not realistic when you are in the throes of labour.
Women will not extend a painful labour to travel via Southport to Ormskirk.
Many people I know have had quick
deliveries, two of them have 45 minute labours. They simply would not have made
it to Ormskirk and this is not acceptable. They only just made it to
Southport. Lives will be at risk if Southport MLU is allowed to close. Babies
will be born on the Moss in the back of cars and there is no end of dangers that
could beset labouring women made to travel to Ormskirk. The women of Sefton
deserve better.
I urge you to keep the MLU open and to promote the unit by a widespread
publicity campaign.
Yours faithfully
Joanne Williams
Cc: Southport Visiter
John Pugh Esq. MP.
Formby Times
--------------------------------
A copy of a letter by Mr John Lee sent to the Southport Visiter and the Champion; received by CARES 3rd Sept. 05. An edited version of the complete letter appeared in the Southport Visiter on 2nd Sept 05.
The
proposed "temporary" closure of the Southport-based Midwife Led Unit (MLU) will,
by all accounts, become permanent if ever implemented. This will mean that the
Sandgrounders species, of which I am a member, will eventually become extinct.
Over the many years that the whole sorry saga of fundamental changes being made
to our hospital, many people have suspected that we were being told lies by
those in charge. And now the truth has emerged - we have been told lies!
Our MP, John Pugh
maintains that the Libdem pressure group, Save Our Services (SOS) persuaded the
hospital administrators to install this MLU at Southport Hospital in 2003. But
Mark Winstanley, the Chairman of the Primary Care Trust (PCT) says that this was
planned all along. I do not know who is telling lies, but somebody is, and it's
the people of Southport who are suffering. Who knows how many lies still remain
hidden. The madness of reducing vital hospital services to this town must cease
immediately and that which has already been taken away must be returned,
including the Children's Accident and Emergency.
John Lee
8 Westmoreland Road
Southport
LANCASHIRE
for reference - see website of John Pugh at
http://www.johnpughmp.com/health.htm
see CARES website re Mark Winstanley's statement at
http://www.cares.ukhome.net/first_births.htm
--------------------------
A copy of a letter by Mr John Lee sent to the Southport press.
So now the decision has been made - even the inadequate and badly publicised
Maternity Led Unit (MLU) has gone as well as Children's Accident and Emergency.
What have the mothers of Southport done to deserve these displays of such total
contempt from our unelected hospital administrators? Why have they been deprived
of the truly local services they deserve and subjected to such inconvenience and
avoidable dangers to themselves and their children? I gain the definite
impression that the true cause is the inefficiency, incompetence and bureaucracy
of the hospitals, compounded by the interference of local politicians out to
gain glory for themselves. And it seems there is nothing we can do about it
(except perhaps at election time). Displays of opposition to the closure of this
town's previously excellent services fall onto deaf ears. I am appalled that the
wonderful Christiana Hartley maternity building, where my 2 children were born,
is no more and that all Southport's new babies are set to be born at Ormskirk
Hospital, described to me recently by one new parent as a "cattle market". How
is it that the alleged spending of so many millions of pounds has resulted in a
massive reduction of hospital services in Southport? Why does there seem to be
such an increase in the number of administrative staff? Why is it that we are
told how good our hospitals are when from personal experience, having waited 8
months already for an "emergency" operation, I know that suitably experienced
medical staff are often simply not available?
John Lee
8 Westmoreland Road
Southport
LANCASHIRE
---------------------
A copy of a letter by Mrs A Cobham to the PCT and Southport press.
24th Jan. 06
Dear Primary Care Trust Executives,
The trust is holding a public meeting on 1st February inviting the opinions of
residents on the merging of two trusts, as it appears this is a government
strategy they would like to press on with for economical reasons, rather than
for the good of our people.
The Southport Party would like to ask: "Is the Trust going to tell the people
what will really happen if this merger goes ahead?"
Southport residents have already lost vital services to Ormskirk hospital. Will
this further proposal mean we are going to have to travel even further for vital
health care, approx 20 miles to Aintree/ Fazakerley?
Is this what could happen?
1; Children's A & E moved even further to Aintree?
2; Adult A & E moved to Aintree?
3; Maternity moved even further, perhaps even to Liverpool?
4; Mental Health moved to Aintree?
We demand to know, as is our right, if these and other services will become even
more remote from our long suffering residents.
Will Southport be left with small units and not the full health care that a town
of 90,000 residents and millions of visitors warrants?
We require our lost services to be returned, not made even more remote.
We believe that if answers are not given to these questions then the
consultation will be the usual sham, and a travesty, with the decisions already
having been made beforehand.
Ann Cobham
The Southport Party
2d Bibby Rd
Churchtown.
---------------
An article written by and presenting the personal opinion of Dr Jim Ford.
6th March 2006
HEALTH ISSUES
For five years, we have had our own Primary Care Trust (PCT, the body, which
receives and spends NHS money from the government locally) in Southport and
Formby. I believe that this has prevented the transfer of even more of our
hospital services to Ormskirk under the misguided, and now discredited, Shields
Report. Now, just when the folly of Shields is being recognised, the government
is proposing to join our independent PCT with that of South Sefton. This means
that we will once more have to share our NHS funding with Bootle, Aintree,
Maghull and Crosby, with the likely result that yet more of our services will
end up being transferred out of the town to Aintree Hospital (formerly known as
Fazakerley). The Government has said that PCT’s need to be bigger to be more
effective, and must reflect local authority boundaries. But we know that local
authority boundaries are also changing soon with Lancashire and cities like
Liverpool, an especial target. We are not being given the option of joining our
PCT with that of West Lancashire, which would allow us to get back some services
such as Children's A&E and would also reflect the likely shape of local
government in future. We also hear that there are plans to combine our hospital
group with the Liverpool hospitals, which can only mean one thing - more
services ‘down the line’ and therefore far more inaccessible for our elderly
patients. As an NHS Consultant with five years experience as a senior policy
maker at the Department of Health, (some of you may also remember me as a local
GP in the eighties), I understand what needs to be done by our community to
safeguard our services. We must say “NO” to the organisations which will further
disadvantage our town following the ravages of the Shields Report and the
wasteful transfer of hospital services to Ormskirk. Only when we have had this
damage repaired should we be considering further alliances, and any alliances
should be to the advantage of patients, not bureaucrats.
Dr Jim Ford
------------