8 June 2022: Lister - E

I can’t help wondering if there is any family connection with some of the past more famous Lister people. For example, one from Wikipedia lists …

“Joseph Lister was a British surgeon, medical scientist, experimental pathologist and a pioneer of antiseptic surgery and preventative medicine. He revolutionised the craft of surgery in the same manner that John Hunter revolutionised the science of surgery.

“From a technical viewpoint, Lister was not an exceptional surgeon, but his research into bacteriology and infection in wounds raised his operative technique to a new plane where his observations, deductions, and practices revolutionised surgery throughout the world.

“Lister's contribution to medicine was two-fold. He promoted the idea of sterile surgery while working as a surgeon at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary by successfully introducing phenol (then known as carbolic acid) to sterilise surgical instruments, the patient's skin, sutures, and the surgeon's hands. However, his most important contribution was recognising the key principle that underlay the change in surgical practice, namely converting a chance observation into a meaningful application of the scientific principles proposed by Louis Pasteur.

“Lister's work led to a reduction in post-operative infections and made surgery safer for patients, distinguishing him as the "father of modern surgery". He would, in 1903, give his name to the Lister Institute of Preventative Medicine.” (Now, where have we heard of that august body before in the contaminated blood context?)

Meanwhile, back to core participant questions:

On the idea of supporting HBV infected people; he said “No”.

On a letter about slowness in Hep C testing; he could not recall the details but thought it was related to a disagreement over priorities. At the time the DH was pushing blood collection bodies to have a better customer focus towards donors.

On the call between Alan Milburn and Malcolm Chisholm being more a matter of political expediency or of policy; he said his job was simply to see if a case could be made for Scotland not having devolved power to act alone. He said the political issue was a matter for the politicians.

(Note: Things ground to a temporary halt as the laptop suddenly went to the blue screen of death for no obvious reason, then took a couple of minutes to reboot.)

On the clarity over document destruction dates; he said the dates were clearly marked.

On the name of the person who ordered the document destruction (with a difficult to read handwritten note of an interview involving Mr Lister being displayed); he could not say anything because he also could not read much of it and did not recognise the partially readable names mentioned.

On the matter of the secretary who destroyed Dr Metters’ papers; he did not know if she was ever interviewed by anyone.

The Chair asked about the idea of avoiding a “witch-hunt” in relation to the secretary who destroyed the records of Dr Metters because he wanted to understand what was meant by the almost throw-away comment that it could have been a failing of a senior staff member for not supervising the secretary, and the overall issue of apparently unsupervised destructions. The witness had no explanation for why the secretary’s actions were not investigated more widely. He speculated on whether or not there was a reason for the destructions of those particular boxes, but he did not know what they contained so couldn’t say if there was any reason why they were lost. The conclusion was reached that it appeared the Review itself was inadequate.

Mr Lister had nothing to add to what he considered to be his comprehensive statements. (Well, good for you, but I thought self-praise was no recommendation.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A