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;336:231-232 (2 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.39472.527940.3A
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Cattos analysis (previous letter) in response to Wheatleys open letter needs comment.1 He must accept that the GMCs decision about Meadow was incorrect. The High Court overturned the GMCs decision, stating that the GMCs judgment "approached the irrational." The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Courts action.2 Perhaps Catto would like to state that it was the GMC that erred.
Some readers may not realise that the eight paediatricians that Catto says were referred to the fitness to practise procedures were only a fraction of those actually referred to the GMC. The fitness to practise procedure is not the start of the GMC process but is a hurdle along the route. It would be useful if Catto told us exactly how many senior paediatricians had been referred to the GMC because of their work in child protection. A survey by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2004
Leonard H P Williams, consultant paediatrician
1 Bassetlaw District General Hospital, Worksop S81 0BD
leonard.williams@dbh.nhs.uk