Thursday 15 July 2010

Freedom of speech 2

When exercising the right to freedom of speech the one body an individual is likely to be wary of offending is his own employer. Expressing adverse opinion, publicly criticising and whistleblowing are acts all likely to be perceived by an employer as disloyalty. Laws protecting these individuals are in place but seem to be poorly applied and lack teeth. Fear of speaking out is therefore not unjustified even though any employer taking action against an outspoken employee is acting unlawfully.


The simplest sanction that can be used is the threat of disciplinary action if the employee repeats the “offence” and most employees will take the easy option of shutting up rather than fight their corner. The emotional and financial cost of taking legal action against this bullying should not be underestimated, particularly since the employers are likely to have considerably more money to spend on legal representation. It is still a sad fact in this country that justice tends to go to him with the deepest pocket. So the balance here is heavily in favour of the employer.


As an illustration; A few years ago a NHS Consultant Anaesthetist published, in a since discontinued journal, two articles, one about midwives, and the other about nurses. Both articles made perfectly valid points, presented in a highly scathing manner and inevitably some people took offence. It is worth mentioning here what redress people have in law if they feel offended. None whatsoever. None of us has any right not to be offended, nor any right to expect action to be taken against those who offend us. To repeat the legal judgement Article 10 applies not only to information or ideas that are favourable and inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or a sector of the population.” Stephen Fry expresses this concept succinctly here.

If those offended wished to respond they could have answered the criticisms made, or written an equally scathing article about anaesthetists. As always however the small minded and the stupid take refuge in authority. Complaints were made to the doctor’s employer. The correct course of action would have been for the employer to point out to the complainants that the doctor had a contractual (as well as a legal) right to speak his mind, quoting para 330 of terms and conditions. Instead they chose to get heavy and threatened the doctor with disciplinary action. Sadly the doctor succumbed to this pressure.


So the complainants and the employers effectively won. The articles have all but disappeared and it has taken no small effort to find them again. But I have, and as an exercise in freedom of speech I will be reproducing them in full on this site in the next few weeks.

8 comments:

  1. What will happen to that Consultant Anaesthetist when you publish what he decided to withdraw then? In excercising 'your' freedom of speach, would it be right to cause this doctor harm?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The articles were not withdrawn, the author simply toned down. I intend to exclude the Doctors identity from the articles, unless he wishes otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, it is not "my" freedom of speech, it is "ours'. yours too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have whistleblown on two occasions. In both instances, I was regarded as the 'bad guy' and eventually left my then place of employment.

    Despite not being a physician 'I will do no harm;' nor will I stand back while it is being done.

    I would do the same tomorrow! I will not have my conscience compromised!

    Anna G.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, it is not "my" freedom of speech, it is "ours'. yours too.

    Despite not being a physician 'I will do no harm;' nor will I stand back while it is being done.

    ----

    Yes, I would speak too, if it kills me - but that's if I am the one doing the speaking about something that I feel will correct an injustice and needs to be said. So long that no innocent bystanders are harmed in the process - I feel this consultant may be harmed even if Dr Zoro published anonymously, as his employers are aware of what he's written already.

    So, is this material so important and is likely to save lives when published to warrant the possibility of causing harm to this innocent consultant?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Free speech does not have to be justified, if it does it is not free. I also think it pretty unlikely that Dr X will come to any harm over an article he wrote some years ago, and which, since it is already available on the net, he is not able to control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Free speech does not have to be justified, if it does it is not free."

    Not about this consultant anymore but in principale, there is 'nothing' absolute in life, but one has to consider the 'for and against' of everything and try to strike a balance before making a decision and taking action.

    And that's also what 'free' means. Freedoms come with responsibilities, otherwise man would still be living in the stone age; an anarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting..... I will look forward to reading these articles and will save comment until then except for; I am curious why you would resurrect something from a "few years ago" which may or may not be relevant to todays NHS?

    ReplyDelete