Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;331:352-353 (6 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7512.352-c
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORWalsh and Benson say that changes to UK professional regulation have lacked strategic direction, that the current reviews offer an opportunity for fundamental reform that can regain public confidence, and that public and political faith in the professions and their regulators is lower than ever before.1 However, despite a small number of high profile (and very frequently cited) cases, the public continues to give doctors an approval rating of some 90% in the BMA's annual poll. Politicians, lawyers, and journalists tend to receive trust ratings in the order of 20%. It is these latter groups whose voices are loudest in calling for ever increasing regulation of doctors.
The public are wise enough to recognise that the appalling crimes of Shipman were a one off. This evil man would have sailed through any revalidation process, and it is bogus to cite his uniquely evil deeds as an argument to
Stephen F Hayes, freelance general practitioner
Bitterne Walk In Centre, Southampton stephen.hayes1@virgin.net