The problem with deifying "whistleblowers"

The problem with deifying "whistleblowers"

Everyone agrees that it's right that whistleblowers, especially in the NHS, should be applauded and protected. Not everyone agrees on who is a whistleblower though. If we deify anyone who claims to be a whistleblower, then we risk allowing the plain incompetent or incapable to play the whistleblowing "card" to avoid dismissal, even when it's clear there are valid reasons for concern.

Let us consider a hypothetical situation. A member of a inspection body is acting strangely, enough to warrant assessment by a doctor with regards to mental health. The person appears to be paranoid, and has her colleagues at their wits end. So if that person then claims to be a whistleblower, should we just accept that? Or would we be concerned that a person is acting erratically and even irrationally at times is in such a position of responsibility?

The whistle blower's version of events may be strongly contested. The BAILLI report of the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing of Drew v. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust (Religion or Belief Discrimination : no sub-topic) [2013] UKEAT 0378_12_2009  describes a rather different situation to that has been reported in the media. Rather than Dr Drew being suspended for simply expressing Christmas wishes or once quoting St Ignatius, the picture appears to be one of an extended failure to work effectively with colleagues and keep his personal faith personal. Whatever the rights and wrongs of expressing faith in the workplace, it would have been easy enough for Dr Drew to comply with the Trust's requirements.