As it stands, our son was seven years old before he was finally examined satisfactorily by a team of paediatric gastroenterologists in a series of consultations which would at last lead to appropriate treatment. Understand that for seven years he had been in severe pain with seriously dysregulated bowel movements.
 
In his early years he had diarrhoea up twenty times a day with his urine blistering his own skin. Did you read this in the medical notes? The only respite he had had being during a trial of gut bacteria which had helped with the production of normal stools for the first time in his life.

From the outset Professor Walker-Smith was totally professional, an old school doctor, highly intelligent and experienced with a clarity of judgement unclouded by his compassion.

At all times he was reasoned and cautious in his approach to our son’s treatment, which culminated in a thorough clinical investigation and treatment regime.

As a result, our son has had a childhood unmarred by constant pain and regression. Indeed, had he not received the treatment he had at the time, it is our opinion as a family, that he may well not be with us today. Neurologically, however, he has never recovered and he remains desperately and profoundly disabled.

Every clinical procedure on my son was carried out with care and respect. How can I be so sure? Because at all times I was allowed to remain by my son’s side.

Professor Murch, then Dr. Murch, one of the clinical team was equally professional in his approach, affording me every confidence.

Mr. Wakefield, the researcher whom I had first contacted had shown immediate concern for my son’s health and wellbeing. He suggested that William be referred to Professor Walker-Smith at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and was also the epitome of professionalism.  

Until we arrived at Professor Walker-Smith’s door we had not experienced this level of professionalism. On occasion we had been dismissed by callous, disinterested, inept and uncaring medics to whom the investigation of such a troublesome youngster appeared to be too bothersome.

At the same time however, and I hope you took note of the correspondence, doctors at Great Ormond Street, together with my local team were all very concerned about our son’s health and were united in wanting a full clinical investigation.

So what precisely have any of the doctors done wrong?  Our son was thoroughly clinically examined (many years too late I might reiterate), he was prescribed treatment which was immediately efficacious, he was monitored appropriately and with my full consent, attempts were made to discover the cause of his condition. 

I find it exceptionally curious that in all these past months, no-one has seemed remotely interested in hearing what really happened all those years ago nor even concerned about how our son has fared since. Forgive my naïvety but isn’t this what medicine and the upholding of medical standards is about?

I can only hope that as an objective panel you will re-visit the case and the outrageous accusations with a cautious eye.  There are many doctors who should have been in front of you for their misdemeanours; Professor Walker-Smith, Professor Murch and Mr. Wakefield are nonesuch.

Should you wish me to come to the GMC to discuss any aspect of my son’s care with you, in camera, I will do so if it helps clarify matters.

I have my own views as to why these three most excellent, innocent and caring doctors have been brought to trial in such a brutal way. When it was announced that they were to be called to the GMC, my feeling was that it would be over in a short time as it would immediately be recognised that there was no case to answer.  I had always believed in truth and justice and that false accusations, Chinese whispers, playground bullies and death by media would all eventually be rooted out

Perhaps then, you might appreciate why the announcement that you, the panel, found these three doctors guilty on all counts left me speechless.

Rosemary C.T. Kessick