The Complaint- the outcome

We have finally received official confirmation of the outcome of the complaint against Gam made by a speech pathologist at a particular hospital (all unnamed, of course). Given how vague certain 'ethics' provisions are I feel I'd better not quote directly from any correspondence received from the relevant bodies (except where it pertains to me and except for a single section in the Speech Pathology Australia code of ethics, but I'll get to that later). Suffice it to say that the Board resolved to take no further action. Their conclusions weren't wholly satisfactory to me, and we aren't privy to the details of the investigation without making a Freedom of Information request.

What I can say is that the complaint blew out to something very broad- when I spoke on the phone with the Investigating Officer I was told of multiple posts that were cause for concern (most of them written by me, as it turned out). I removed them. Then Gam was told that there were copyright issues with stuff he'd written on here and on SPathBlog. That, I'm not afraid to say, was utter bullshit. SPathBlog, while long defunct, is still up and you can see for yourself that Gam wrote it effectively as a diary of what he did in class. In some cases he used pictures, obtained via Google searches, as illustration for his commentary. These entries, supposedly, were UQ 'course materials' and therefore protected by copyright. When I asked for details of the specific posts that were the subject of complaint, I was refused them. Eventually, after our lawyer made enquiries, the complaint was narrowed down to a single blog post written by Gam. Honestly, I have my doubts about whether the scattergun approach taken to the initial multiple complaints would have been abandoned if we hadn't engaged a lawyer. I'm very glad we did.

Our lawyers actually laughed when we told them about the copyright complaint, and for good reason. When I found out later, via our lawyer, that the Board wasn't pursuing the copyright claims, I figured they'd actually read the Copyright Act of 1968 and realised how baseless and stupid the claim of copyright infringement actually was. As it turns out, however, the UQ legal office "is considering pursuing the copyright and general misconduct issues involving the 'spathblog' and 'todaysapatheticyouth' blogsites" and the Board cites this as their reason for not investigating it further (i.e. not that the copyright complaint was a pile of crap and utterly baseless from the very beginning).

This is where it got a bit strange for me, as our lawyer told me that he'd been told by the Investigating Officer the uni knew who I was. Now, I don't share a surname with Gam, and I find it a bit strange that any of the UQ legal office would even know who I am- I'm one of 30000 or so students. But I did make the mistake of including my surname in my email correspondence with the Investigating Officer, figuring I have nothing to hide. The only person in this case that I can definitely say knew my name was the Investigating Officer. I'm not sure how that information would have wound up in the hands of UQ's legal department... because I really find it hard to believe that this blog is so widely read at the university that I've been recognised and my details passed on to the UQ legal department by some random lecturer or student that I happen to know. Especially since I've had very little to say about my own experience at UQ that isn't positive... Hmmm. Anyway, as far as anyone may be investigating 'misconduct issues' on my part here I'd like to echo the words of that inimitable moron, George W Bush: Bring it on.

Not that I'm holding my breath- the lawyer said to me back in April that he'd been told that I could "expect a letter" from the uni regarding my own part in the so-called copyright issues (no mention at the time of 'misconduct'). I'm still waiting. Actually, I'm going to phone UQ and see if their legal department has ever heard of me... partly out of curiousity and partly because it would be nice to know if I really do have a sword hanging over my head. Mind you, I'm quite sure UQ's legal department has heard of the copyright act, and sheer pragmatism should reign in the event of any decision to discipline me for badmouthing UQ in this blog. Like Caroline Overington, they'd likely find out that the blog's audience suddenly broadens thanks to the publicity generated for it by the complaint.

Finally, I'd like to point out two very pertinent facts, the first is especially for the complainant, who named Gam by his full name in their complaint and thus knew who he was and how to contact him. As the first section of the 'Complaints' page on the Office of Health Practitioner Registration Boards notes:

If you are dissatisfied with an aspect of a health practitioner's service or conduct, you should try to resolve the issue with the practitioner first (direct resolution). All health practitioners should provide a suitable means for patients to report grievances.

I think it's pretty damn clear that that didn't happen.

Secondly, Section 5.4.6 of the Speech Pathology Australia Code of Ethics, titled Independent debate, states:

We defend and promote our own rights and the rights of our colleagues to participate fully and openly in public debate.

Given the outcome it might be suggested that the right to debate outlined in Section 5.4.6 has been upheld, but we had to spend a lot of money on legal fees in order to be sure we could obtain a fair outcome for Gam. And according to the findings, there is still the issue of 'copyright' and 'misconduct' hanging over our heads at UQ (although that should probably concern me more because I'm still a student there). I would say that 'right' outlined in the Code of Ethics is on pretty shaky ground.