Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Nigel Dudley Dishonest doctors should not continue to practise BMJ 2002; 324: 547b [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

GMC unbiased?

neil elliot   (5 March 2002)

Re: “Dishonest doctors should not continue to practice”

Tushar kanti Bhadra   (26 March 2002)

"Dishonest Doctors Should Not Continue To Practise".

M. Shaukat Ali   (22 April 2002)

GMC unbiased? 5 March 2002
neil elliot, member of public Glasgow G53 7HN Send response to journal: Re: GMC unbiased?	I agree with the sentiment that those who are dishonest should be disciplined and dealt with by the G.M.C. I would however take issue with the GMC's ability to deal with this impartially. It is my experience that the complainant has to provide documented evidence, while the doctors word seems enough for the GMC. this is of course my experience of the GMC and there may be others whose experience differs. The public does seem to have no confidence in the GMC. Part of this problem is that everything goes through the GMC in London and this makes it impossible to sort out difficulties and complaints as both sides never meet till well into the various stages. What I would propose is that each health authority take on the responsibilities of policing the doctors in their area. They could hold informal hearings in front of a panel which would determine the required action on the complaint. Both doctor and complainant would represent themselves and the GMC would act as final arbitor in cases of appeal. I believe that this would not be costly and would give all sides a proper forum to air grievance and doctors a proper chance to explain their actions.
Re: “Dishonest doctors should not continue to practice” 26 March 2002
Tushar kanti Bhadra, none. Send response to journal: Re: Re: “Dishonest doctors should not continue to practice”	Dear Dr. Smith (Re: “Dishonest doctors should not continue to practice”) I refer to the letter of Dr. Nigel Dudley published in the BMJ of 2 March 2002. Although I fully agree that– I am very concerned that it is the GMC should be judging them. If Dr.Manzur had stolen and was in Saudi Arabia – his hands would have been chopped off. In UK it is done differently – by Judges- under different laws – administering justice. The GMC is just not that. Dr.Dudley has a lot of misconception about the GMC and its Professional Conduct Committee. The GMC perhaps gave him the impression that the PCC is an independent impartial body. But that is not what it said to the Employment Tribunal – of Bhadra V the GMC to be excluded from being prosecuted. The Ruling of the ET there was that the PCC is a “subsidiary part of the GMC” . The tribunal Ruled thus- “ It is hard to see how the committee could have any status, in respect of third parties, independent of the GMC.” In simple words the PCC is the same as the GMC, in practice. How can a practitioner therefore, argue against the prosecuting part of the GMC bringing the charge against the practitioner before the PCC part acting as the judge and jury of the same GMC ? There is gross violation of natural justice – let alone the article 6 of Human Rights Act of ECHR. In the past, the Privy Councils used to believe that the GMC-PCC is fair, open and honest and correct in medical Science. It was a presumption and was not evidence based and an easy way and bound to be biased against the Practitioner on the dock, without a hope. It has perhaps changed recently. There needed to be a different system for fairness to the Practitioner – rather than being taken as guilty as found by the PCC where medical matters ( highly specialised subject) – is concerned. It cannot be right that the Privy Council Judges should accept everything that the PCC endorses against a practitioner, particularly knowing that the PCC is not independent of the GMC. The Privy Council may have a duty to make its own investigations. What evidence does Dr.Dudley have to enable him to proclaim that the GMC had been acting properly? There are large no of doctors who do not believe that. I request you to publish this letter in the BMJ for proper transmission of an alternative experience. Yours Sincerely Mr.T.K.Bhadra MS FRCS Chelmsford, Essex CM1 2PP
"Dishonest Doctors Should Not Continue To Practise". 22 April 2002
M. Shaukat Ali, Consultant Physician Queen Elizabeth Hospital, London. SE18 4HQ Send response to journal: Re: "Dishonest Doctors Should Not Continue To Practise".	Editor; Dr. Nigel Dudley's comments in your letters column have been a total misrepresentation of Dr. Manzur's case about dishonesty of doctors which, to say the least, cannot be condoned in any aspect of a doctor's practice, either in the NHS or outside. However, it is necessary to point out that Dr. Dudley has missed two vital points in the Manzur case while reaching his judgment. Firstly, when the Professional Conducts Committee of the GMC finds a doctor guilty of Serious Professional Misconduct, erasure of such a doctor from the register is the ultimate punishment, the most lenient punishment being a reprimand and in the middle comes suspension of registration on conditions. The ultimate punishment is reserved for doctors like Rodney Ledward or Harold Shipman and not for petty crimes. Secondly, the Lordships in the Privy Council did not in Manzur case, overturn the GMC's findings of him being guilty of Serious Professional Misconduct, which was of course, upheld and merely overturned the punishment of erasure on the grounds of being, "unduly harsh and disproportionate", while the Lordship's took into account all the circumstances surrounding the case, which were not appreciated by the GMC. I was rather surprised that Dr. Dudley would make so much out of the Manzur case and totally forgetting the case of the famous Cheltenham GP, who not so long ago had criminal conviction with twelve months suspended imprisonment for defrauding the NHS of tens of thousands of pounds for satisfying his addiction need of heroine up to 166mgs a day by writing thousands of false prescriptions in the name of his dead patients and close friends, but did not face erasure from the GMC register, thereby showing that not every such case of dishonesty deserves the ultimate punishment of erasure. Dr. M. Shaukat Ali, FRCP Consultant Physician Queen Elizabeth Hospital, London. SE18 4QH. References: 1. Dudley, N. Dishonest Doctors Should Not Continue To Practise. BMJ 2002; 324; 547-548 (2 March) 2. GMC, Professional Conduct & Discipline; Fitness To Practise. December, 1993. 3. Dyer, C. Doctor Wins Battle Against GMC's Decision To Strike Him Off. BMJ 2001; 323; 1388 (15 December).