I have some experience of the GMC and its mental thought processes and policies from a lay mans’/complainants point of view, and I was not impressed.
Below are some of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel decisions, I make no comment, but leave the decision to you.
Mind you, the title may give a clue.
And of course the FTP Panel “courts” are being removed from the GMC and handed over to the The Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator but the pre FTP decisions are still going to rest with the GMC, who will decide which doctor is going to be referred to the new body,
There is a short or sometimes long synopsis of each decision.
First the blurb:
Bolton v The Law Society (Court of Appeal 1993) in which Lord Bingham stated
“The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of an individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.”
The Panel has a duty to protect the public interest. This includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour as set out in the GMC’s document ‘Good Medical Practice’. The Panel recognises that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although they may have a punitive effect.
Good Medical Practice, published by the GMC on 13 November 2006, and the supplementary guidance referred to therein entitled "Reporting criminal and regulatory proceedings within and outside the UK".
FTP Panel drunken driving- suspended
FTP Panel serious professional misconduct-sex with a patient-suspended
FTP Panel misconduct-attitude toward colleagues-conditions
FTP Panel possession of class A drug-suspended
FTP Panel assault- suspended
FTP Panel suspended-dishonesty-prescribing for herself-suspension lifted.
FTP Panel suspended to date of ftp-16 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child 5years on the sex offenders register-suspended for a further 8 months
FTP Panel professional performance was seriously deficient. Conditions were imposed on your registration for a period of 12 months. Your case was then reviewed in May 2003 and at that hearing the Committee varied the conditions on your registration for a period of five months. However this hearing was adjourned until June 2005 when it directed that the conditions on your registration be varied until 13 August 2005. Accordingly the Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend your name from the Medical Register for 12 months. This will ensure that patients are not put at risk of harm, and that the public and the public interest are adequately protected.
A Fitness to Practise Panel will resume consideration of your case before the end of the period of suspension. It will then consider whether it should take any further action in relation to your registration. You will be informed of the date of that hearing, which you will be expected to attend. The effect of the foregoing direction is that unless you exercise your right of appeal, your registration will be suspended 28 days from when this notice is deemed to have been served upon you. A note explaining your right of appeal will be sent to you.
The Panel is not minded to impose immediate suspension but is prepared to hear submissions on this matter.
FTP Panelconvicted of Assault by Beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which you were sentenced to six months' supervision and 120 hours unpaid work in the community. You were also convicted of failing, without reasonable excuse, to surrender to custody, contrary to section 6 of the Bail Act 1976, for which you were fined £250. Assault of your partner in a car park in August 2005. The Panel has noted from the notes of the Legal Adviser to the Magistrates Court, on which you wished to rely, that in the course of the assault you grabbed your partner around the throat and hit her a number of times. It has further noted that the assault was conducted in front of your young daughter. The GMC has conceded that assault by beating, or common assault, is at the lower end of the spectrum of assault offences. The effect of this direction is that Dr Vaghela's registration will be suspended with effect from today and, unless he exercises his right of appeal, the substantive suspension for nine months will take effect 28 days after notice of the outcome of this hearing is deemed to have been served upon him. The immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the substantive order takes effect.
FTP Panel possession on 23 November 2005 of 313 mg of methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA), a controlled drug of Class A, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Admitted and Found Proved, suspend your registration for a period of three months. The Panel having received submissions on immediate sanction, determined that it is not necessary for the protection of members of the public, nor in the public interest, nor in your interests to make an order suspending your registration forthwith.
GMC Role of the GMC
As I said, I will make no comment, but I am concerned that nothing will change.
Angus
Below are some of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel decisions, I make no comment, but leave the decision to you.
Mind you, the title may give a clue.
And of course the FTP Panel “courts” are being removed from the GMC and handed over to the The Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator but the pre FTP decisions are still going to rest with the GMC, who will decide which doctor is going to be referred to the new body,
There is a short or sometimes long synopsis of each decision.
First the blurb:
Bolton v The Law Society (Court of Appeal 1993) in which Lord Bingham stated
“The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of an individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.”
The Panel has a duty to protect the public interest. This includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour as set out in the GMC’s document ‘Good Medical Practice’. The Panel recognises that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although they may have a punitive effect.
Good Medical Practice, published by the GMC on 13 November 2006, and the supplementary guidance referred to therein entitled "Reporting criminal and regulatory proceedings within and outside the UK".
FTP Panel drunken driving- suspended
FTP Panel serious professional misconduct-sex with a patient-suspended
FTP Panel misconduct-attitude toward colleagues-conditions
FTP Panel possession of class A drug-suspended
FTP Panel assault- suspended
FTP Panel suspended-dishonesty-prescribing for herself-suspension lifted.
FTP Panel suspended to date of ftp-16 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child 5years on the sex offenders register-suspended for a further 8 months
FTP Panel professional performance was seriously deficient. Conditions were imposed on your registration for a period of 12 months. Your case was then reviewed in May 2003 and at that hearing the Committee varied the conditions on your registration for a period of five months. However this hearing was adjourned until June 2005 when it directed that the conditions on your registration be varied until 13 August 2005. Accordingly the Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend your name from the Medical Register for 12 months. This will ensure that patients are not put at risk of harm, and that the public and the public interest are adequately protected.
A Fitness to Practise Panel will resume consideration of your case before the end of the period of suspension. It will then consider whether it should take any further action in relation to your registration. You will be informed of the date of that hearing, which you will be expected to attend. The effect of the foregoing direction is that unless you exercise your right of appeal, your registration will be suspended 28 days from when this notice is deemed to have been served upon you. A note explaining your right of appeal will be sent to you.
The Panel is not minded to impose immediate suspension but is prepared to hear submissions on this matter.
FTP Panelconvicted of Assault by Beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which you were sentenced to six months' supervision and 120 hours unpaid work in the community. You were also convicted of failing, without reasonable excuse, to surrender to custody, contrary to section 6 of the Bail Act 1976, for which you were fined £250. Assault of your partner in a car park in August 2005. The Panel has noted from the notes of the Legal Adviser to the Magistrates Court, on which you wished to rely, that in the course of the assault you grabbed your partner around the throat and hit her a number of times. It has further noted that the assault was conducted in front of your young daughter. The GMC has conceded that assault by beating, or common assault, is at the lower end of the spectrum of assault offences. The effect of this direction is that Dr Vaghela's registration will be suspended with effect from today and, unless he exercises his right of appeal, the substantive suspension for nine months will take effect 28 days after notice of the outcome of this hearing is deemed to have been served upon him. The immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the substantive order takes effect.
FTP Panel possession on 23 November 2005 of 313 mg of methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA), a controlled drug of Class A, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Admitted and Found Proved, suspend your registration for a period of three months. The Panel having received submissions on immediate sanction, determined that it is not necessary for the protection of members of the public, nor in the public interest, nor in your interests to make an order suspending your registration forthwith.
GMC Role of the GMC
As I said, I will make no comment, but I am concerned that nothing will change.
Angus
3 comments:
'fraid not, Angus. It never does. And an awful lot of doctors would agree with you there.
Speak as one brought up by docs; grew up surrounded by same, as descended from veritable medical dynasty (most of them with sizeable social consciences which dictated their overall approach + many of their professional practices). Lots of drug/alcohol dependent medics around then BTW (not in family, I hasten to add).
They're not all bad. But I've noticed a huge increase in numbers of bad ones over the past 20 years or so. That said, a crash team composed of 4 docs and 2 trauma staff nurses spent a frantic 18 hours saving my life in resus' a few years ago. They can - and sometimes do - still work wonders upon occasion.
I hope this doesn't read as offensive or arrogant; it isn't meant to be. I probably know far less about the subject these days than you.
Not at all Phidelm, I am 100% behind 99.9% of doctors, we are all human, the GMC is the failure in these cases, and this is only a very small sample.
I think I agree with you, and that the abysmal politics of the GMC will continue to put the pubic and doctors in peril.
Yup, sounds as if the GMC is just like any other organisation that gets to a certain size and acquires a certain degree of power, ie it necessarily turns political - indulging in'abysmal politics' as you aptly put it.
All rather depressingly Orwellian, isn't it? Somehow, doctors OUGHT to be above all this ... but, of course, they're not.
Thank you for the blog: very thought-provoking.
Post a Comment