A coroner’s office should be beyond reproach.
A trusted source of information, offering a service to the public at one of the worst times in their life.
They deal with bereaved families, it’s a vital role, legal safeguards are in place to protect not only the coroner’s service, but those whom are bereaved.
So perhaps East Lancashire Coroner’s office, would like to answer the following questions?
- Why did the Chief Coroner of East Lancashire ignore written evidence and negative test results, then instead chose to believe the word of the pathologist from Royal Blackburn Hospital (Dr Richard Prescott), whom did not declare that he not only had professional colleagues (Mr David Chang) whom had diagnosed dad, but also sat on the very same HPB MDT and played a part in the diagnosis made by Royal Blackburn hospital?
- Why did the Chief Coroner of East Lancashire refuse the family an inquest, then admit that the findings of his own pathologist (Dr Richard Prescott) review of the negative test results, couldn’t be used to make a decision about an inquest, as he was not a practising cytopathologist?
- Once revealed by the pathologist (Dr Richard Prescott) that cause of death was Bronchopneumonia (bacterial infection), why did Mr Richard Taylor (Chief Coroner for East Lancashire) then give Dr Prescott permission to take extend the time for his report and take samples from dad’s pancreas and have them tested? (the final opportunity to justify his own diagnosis, from when he sat on Royal Blackburn’s HPB MDT meetings)
- Why did Richard Taylor, East Lancs Chief Coroner, refuse to give any opinion, when it was revealed to him by the family that Dr Richard Prescott had not only not declared any conflict of interest (in carrying out the post-mortem), but also made representations to the Deputy Coroner (whom has his office at Royal Blackburn hospital) that he was, “completely independent from the living side of the hospital” – when Dr Prescott knew all along that this claim was false and misleading?
- Why would Mr Richard Taylor tell the family, “If you are not happy with the post-mortem, I suggest you take it up with the hospital”?
- Why would the Chief Coroner’s office ignore the family’s requests to release a copy of dad’s full file?
The East Lancashire Chief Coroner’s office have dad’s file, it took barely a week to get it back to their office from the archives (as confirmed by Richard Taylor’s secretary).
“I will have to ask Mr Taylor before it can be released, but it shouldn’t be a problem, he’s on leave until next week.”
Fair enough, but three weeks later, no file, no release, East Lancashire Chief Coroner’s office are ignoring all phone calls or emails from the family and the mysterious dad’s file that they have in their office, is nowhere to be seen. Why?
Not a single effort to explain what’s going on to the family.
Under General Medical Council (GMC) rules, any possible conflict of interest MUST be declared, BEFORE a pathologist carries out a post-mortem for a coroner.
With any conflict of interest the Chief Coroner (Richard Taylor) makes the decision.
Dr Richard Prescott (pathologist at Royal Blackburn Hospital) declared he was “completely independent from the living side of the hospital” despite knowing that he made the diagnosis and was directly involved in the care pathway (or lack of) for dad, alongside Mr David Chang (clinical lead of Royal Blackburn’s HPB MDT).
If there is bigger conflict of interest than this, what could it be?
Why exactly did Richard Taylor, East Lancashire Chief Coroner, decide that Dr Richard Prescott (Royal Blackburn hospital’s pathologist) was fit to carry out dad’s post-mortem (having no conflict of interest), ignoring representations from the police, the family and dad’s GP?