An investigation costing £13m (why so much) seems to have unearthed another Shipman: "The 'brusque and indifferent' doctor is said to have shortened hundreds of lives with her prescription of diamorphine, according to a forthcoming report."
And yet we get: "However, the GP inquiry is not expected to turn over the case to police, reported the Times.
A source told the publication it wouldn't press for criminal investigation because 'it is not in our remit.' "
Surely the Police HAVE to be involved? Or am I reading this wrong?
As I read it, the enquiry has not found any deliberate attempt by the GP to harm or kill her patients, so they appear to have concluded that her actions do not warrant police intervention.
Of course, the police, now they are aware of the situation, may take a different view, so it is by no means certain that this lady is simply going to be able to walk off into the sunshine of a blameless retirement.
Seems a bit like useless or bent senior police, fiddling priests, expenses cheating politicians and so on, once in a while one has to be brought to our attention so we know that nothing's being swept under the carpet.
As I see it all the patients were terminally ill or near to a natural death anyway. He just eased their passing. This happens many times every day. There is a fine dividing line between the amount of morphine needed to control severe pain and what will kill someone. Especially if the patients is already weaken by illness.
Shipman was very different. He went to see healthy but elderly patients and injected them with huge does of morphine. Then claimed ''Sorry but I'm afraid he/she has just passed away''. In many cases Shipman visited patients without even an appointment saying he was just checking they were OK, then killed them with morphine. He was intentionally killing them, so it was a clear case of murder.
When it comes to serial killers, one of the few constants that frequently (with a few notable exceptions) seems to come up is the sheer bumbling incompetence of the authorities when it comes to detecting or catching them.
Shockingly, this behaviour was being investigated as early as 2002 - just after Shipman was tried! You would think that case might have caused some extra vigilance.