Leading Surgeon Claims Unfair Dismissal After Whistleblowing

Top Surgeon Joseph Meirion Thomas, a cancer specialist at Royal Marsden Hospital in London, claims he was forced from his job after writing a series of articles criticising the NHS that he was told had brought the institution into ‘disrepute’.

Dr Thomas, 69, believes that the main article which provoked the backlash against him was a piece claiming that GPs do not offer personal services or go out of their way to assist patients outside of working hours. When this article was published in November 2014 it sparked a reaction from doctors across the UK who condemned the claims as unprofessional and without truth.

Dr Thomas also believes that in response to his article many GPs contacted the chief executive at Royal Marsden Hospital threatening to stop referring their patients to them should Dr Thomas not be punished for his writing.

The result of this was that Dr Thomas was required to sign a document that forced him to agree to publishing no further articles, and soon found himself dismissed from his position at the hospital in March 2015.

Explaining his position Dr Thomas has written expensively about his experiences in a series of recent posts for The Spectator, in which he declared:

For speaking frankly about the NHS, I was first silenced and then pushed out. My offence was considered unforgivable […] If the NHS can treat a senior cancer surgeon this way, what chance does a nurse or a junior doctor with grave concerns about the health service have?”

His efforts to arrange a new contract that would allow him to remain employed on a part-time basis so that he could finish a research project for skin cancer patients was denied, causing him to feel that his patients’ health had been jeopardised just so he could be punished. He asks “Was this action in the best interests of my patients?”

The effects of the doctor’s whistleblowing has apparently reached even further than his role within the NHS as he claims he has been denied use of the title ‘professor’ on the supposed grounds that this honorary title he gained with Imperial College London is no longer valid due to having expired. This is an action rarely enforced except in cases where a doctor has proven to be involved in malpractice or scandal.

The hospital’s reaction

The doctor’s treatment by the hospital led him to launch a discrimination claim against his former bosses in which he claims to have been bullied and harassed. This claim was denied by top personnel at the globally renowned Royal Marsden Hospital, who assert that the content of his articles represents only his own ‘personal views’ and are not based on sound evidence, thereby constituting a ‘misrepresentation of the facts’.

The NHS Trust also states that the doctor’s claims are without merit because there was no official disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The Trust also claims it never tried to censor Dr Thomas, instead simply requesting that he share his articles with them prior to publishing so that NHS officials could assess his concerns while preparing for the public reaction it might generate.

Officials also claim that the only response made in regard to the doctor’s employment status was to issue him with a seven day period of paid leave following publication of the articles so that he and the hospital could effectively manage the heated response to the claims.

The Trust also protests claims that Dr Thomas made in which he states he was refused permission to contact his patients to explain his sudden absence after being dismissed.

The NHS also claim the exit of Dr Thomas from Royal Marsden Hospital was part of his planned retirement, which he failed to acknowledge in his claims against them. In a statement released a spokesperson claimed: “He fails to disclose that a succession plan had been put in place with his involvement and support well in advance of his retirement date of March 2015 to ensure a smooth transition for patients”.

Changes for whistleblowers

The controversy surrounding Dr Thomas comes just months after UK employment law legislation underwent sweeping new reforms designed to highlight the plight of prejudice against whistleblowers, with the goal of creating a better working atmosphere for whistleblowers to speak out without fear of reprisal.

Planned changes include UK organisations soon having to employ an official whose job is to advise and protect whistleblowers with their concerns.