UK & World News
Ex-Army Doctor Struck Off Over Iraqi's Death
Former Army doctor Derek Keilloh has been found guilty of misconduct over the death of an Iraqi detainee in British military custody.
The verdict on Dr Derek Keilloh, 38, came after a 47-day hearing by the Medical Practioners Tribunal Service, described as a watershed case in military history.
Dr Keilloh, now a family doctor in North Yorkshire, was a captain and regimental medical officer with the British army, 1st Battalion, Queen's Lancashire Regiment, in war-torn Basra in 2003.
He had claimed that after being called in to examine Baha Mousa he had noticed only dried blood around the arrested man's nose.
Mr Mousa had been hooded, handcuffed and beaten by soldiers. He had suffered 93 separate injuries, including a broken nose, broken ribs and severe bruising to his face and neck.
In subsequent inquiries, Dr Keilloh stuck by his story under oath. But the 'fitness to practise' hearing found his conduct dishonest and misleading.
Mr Mousa was an innocent hotel receptionist and a father of two who had been arrested as a suspected insurgent. His wife had died of cancer some months earlier and his death left the couple's children orphaned.
The medical panel said that Dr Keilloh had been "a relatively inexperienced doctor unexpectedly thrust into a war zone at very short notice to supply the highest levels of clinical care with little support or supervision".
They said that his handover on arrival had been "ineffective and contained no written brief of procedures".
But it added: "Given the national and international importance of these investigations and the need to uncover the truth...your repeated dishonesty was wholly unacceptable."
It concluded that "given the gravity and nature of the extent and context of your dishonesty, it considers that your (Dr Keilloh's) misconduct is fundamentally incompatible" with continuing to practise as a doctor.
Hello, regular commenting on Orange News and Sport pages closes on Thursday 30 May 2013. We will continue to provide a commenting facility on major news and sport events on orangeworld.co.uk. Contact us via http://oran.ge/OWfeedback if you have any further questions. Thanks.
what do you think?
not if he was an innocent man that was murdered.correct decision.
Yes Penny but he's not accused of causing those injuries but or failing to save the life but sounds to me like that might have been too late in any case
Penny. That's what happens in war pity they wernt so quick finding those who kill our lads and girls
so in war Diane, its ok to kill innocent civilians is it? you better hope we never again get an occupying force here.
So you know he was innocent do you Penny. I care more for our troops.Getting murdered and maimed every day
I have 1 question Penny. Have you ever served in the Armed Forces? If not you don't know anything about fighting an insurgant force. They deliberately dress like the local population and covertly attack you and then clain innocence when caught. I am not saying Mr Mousa was an insurgant, but we will now never know, and no-one will ever confirm or deny this. The point of this is, the RMO did not kill this man, so how is it he is being punished for his death. Similar situation, medical staff called out to a vehicle accident in Bosnia in 97, carried out and followed the correct procedures on site. 1 later died in the military hospital, not with the injuries treated, but from a broken skull and he didn't complain of head pain the whole time. Do we now call for the the 19 year old medic who initially treated him, and charge him with his death?
Diane, the clue is in the report if you read it - " Mr Mousa was an innocent hotel receptionist and a father of two". Benny, if I'm reading the report correctly, he wasn't charged with the man's death, but lying repeatedly, including under oath.
El Bubsio,that's what the report says does not make it true,I will say again I feel for our troops being murdered and maimed every day.
i care for ALL innocents,not just the ones on the "right" side Diane AND VERY much for our troops!
Diane, supporting the troops is commendable, but blindly defending them when they commit crimes just shows your bias. The telegraph, independent and BBC all also describe him as innocent. His 93 injuries were sustained after he was captured due to the brutal beating and treatment he received from British troops. I agree that the troops have a difficult job to do, but that doesn't give them the right to be judge jury and executioner to an innocent man.
he is being punished Benny because he lied. in answer to your question no i have not served in the armed forces. I'm not sure what your point is about serving in the forces? Do you mean i would think its ok to kill civilians if i did,just because SOME of their population were dressing as civilians and committing atrocities. if this was your point i can assure you i would NEVER agree with the killing of innocents no matter what their county men had done or not done!
If some of you are so worried about innocent people in war zones why don't you go out there to help them. Then all pur troops can come home
Oh Diane, what a pathetic and desperate statement. By the same token, why aren't you out there fighting with the troops you claim to support so vehemently?
lol tis indeed the argument of a desperate person,whats next Diane "up yours ugly"? lmao
wow great comeback Diane! bet that took some intelligent thought!
Freya,that made me lol
Interesting the thumbs down from those who no doubt have only fought a war from the safety of their living room. Insurgent do not walk round with badges saying 'Insurgent' war is not nice never has been and never will be. Do you think Sadam's interrogators offered tea and biscuits - rem the Tornado crew shot down in Gulf War 1? I also wonder how many would give thumbs down if they ever saw one of our troops with their leg hanging off or full body injuries from an IED. Sorry but with you Diane and the other realists
Blue, try reading the report again. The man was NOT an insurgent. Let's face it, if this had been some random guys beating up and killing an innocent man, everyone would be screaming for them to be hung, drawn and quartered. Why is up suddenly okay if it's soldiers doing it? Also, this decision was nothing to do with war zones and battles. This doctor lied under oath about the extent of an innocent prisoners injuries.
My first question here is why evidence is this based upon? This didn't even occur in this country, does the GMC have the power to rule on events in another country? Why has he been struck off? I've been in resuss situations, what injurys are there is secondary to restarting the patients heart! This all sounds incredibly dodgy to me
Called a scapegoat me thinks
A decision made by people who have never been put in that situation, so could not possibly comprehend what pressures he was under. Another example of those that serve/served being screwed over. Makes you wonder why you even bother/bothered.
This has nothing to do with a battlefield situation or the like. He was called in to examine a prisoners and then repeatedly lied about the extent of his injuries. Given the description of Mr Mousa's injuries, it's pretty much impossible he could have simply made a mistake.
There is an appeal proceedure, he should use it
This comment has been removed for violations of our Terms and Conditions.
No, he was struck off for failing to report the man's injuries properly and lying under oath. An innocent man at that, making the "these people" part of your rant rather stupid. Try and get your facts right before you start foaming at the mouth.
I feel sorry for Mr Mousa's children, losing their mother to cancer only to have their INNOCENT father tortured to death by animals in British army uniforms aided and abetted by Keilloh, they are a disgrace to their uniform.
To the thumbs downers, kicking a handcuffed and hooded man to death is the action of cowards, not heroes.