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 2008;336:231 (2 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.39471.702141.3A
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In his open letter to the president of the General Medical Council (GMC) about the case of David Southall, Wheatley refers to a previous inquiry conducted by "a panel far better qualified and more competent than your own on child protection issues."1
I was responsible for setting up that panel. As president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health I was asked in 2000 to assist Southalls employing trust in its investigation of complaints about his child protection work, by putting forward names of paediatricians who would be willing to review and report on his practice.
In a letter to the trust and subsequently in a journal article,2 I set out the principles that I believe should govern such investigations. The investigators must be unbiased and have no rigid a priori opinions on the key issues. Actual or perceived conflicts of interest arising from, for example, previous clinical
David M B Hall, professor emeritus of community paediatrics
1 University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN
d.hall@sheffield.ac.uk