The GMC: expediency before principle: Summary of responses

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7485.254

BMJ 2005;330:254 (29 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7485.254

Letter

The GMC: expediency before principle

Summary of responses

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—The three articles discussing the forensic examinationof the General Medical Council conducted by Dame Janet Smithas part of her inquiry into the issues arising from the caseof general practitioner Harold Shipman sparked considerablecontroversy.^1-3

Most respondents focused on the GMC rather than the report,although some took issue with the suggestion of having moremedical members appointed than elected to the council. Anotherworry was that the conflict was playing into the government'sand Department of Health's hands and becoming politicised, tothe detriment of the medical profession.

One strand of the debate was whether the remit of the GMC shouldin fact be protecting patients (in addition to regulating doctors).Sufficiently strong self regulation would arguably protect patients,which would, in turn, protect doctors. Mostly, however, theGMC was severely criticised. Anecdotal examples of the GMC'sconduct, especially towards those who expressed criticism of. . . [Full text of this article]

Birte Twisselmann, technical editor

BMJ