Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
To arms! slay the GMC.
- William T Stevenson (21 March 2004)
-
Re: To arms! slay the GMC.
- Tessa L Heyworth (22 March 2004)
-
Something is Better Than Nothing
- Muhammad Naseer Khan (22 March 2004)
-
GMC Response
- J L Tupper (23 March 2004)
-
Suspension of doctors
- alan h. holmes-watson (23 March 2004)
-
Re: GMC Response
- William T Stevenson (25 March 2004)
|
|
|||
|
William T Stevenson, Consultant Radiologist Burnley General Hospital BB10 2PQ
Send response to journal:
|
I am proud to join Dr Dearlove in his call for the abolition of the GMC. His comparison with the BBC is appropriate because both organisations seem blinkered in the belief that if they are condemned from all sides, they must truly be right. At least where the GMC is concerned, due consideration should be given to the explanation that the widespread criticism is made because it is deserved. The GMC has attained the distinction of being assumed to be incurably pro-doctor by the general public, and rabidly anti-doctor by many doctors. The cases of Wisheart, Neale, Ledward etc. rather support the former view. My own experience of making a fairly serious complaint to the GMC was that it's response is governed largely by a consideration of the seniority of the parties concerned. This is why the GMC is unlikely to take timely action in cases such as the Bristol Heart Scandal because the principal miscreant was The Medical Director and the principal complainant was only an anaesthetist. If we are to believe the 'leaks', the GMC revalidation proposals are about to receive heavyweight criticism, and the proposals are, in my opinion, hopelessly ineffectual. There is much 'form' in the sense of a collection of meaningless paperwork about mere attendance at untested CME events, and little substance. Many doctors, including myself, have never been 'appraised' and even if they had been it would have been a worthless formality. The GMC believes it hold a 'trump card'. It blusters "if we go you'll get government regulation". Shock, Horror! We should surprise the GMC with the revelation that many of us would prefer an averagely incompetent government bureaucracy to the present bunch of duffers with their financial irregularities, huge emoluments to officers, unconstrained compulsory fees, misconduct cases in the hands of people who have been previously struck from the Register, and so on. Competing interests: I am an NHS consultant with a dim view of the GMC, who has had no GMC proceedings against him. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tessa L Heyworth, Consultant Radiologist Stepping Hill Hospital SK2 7JE
Send response to journal:
|
I agree completely with Dr. Dearlove and Dr. Stevenson. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Muhammad Naseer Khan, Clinical Attachee James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough,TS4 3BW
Send response to journal:
|
GMC is the institution which evaluates the safety of doctors for the safety of patients. Its not the only medical council in the world. All countries in the world have such kind of medical council having the same theme as it has. The bigger the responsibility,the bigger is the chance of criticism and this is the case with GMC. I have certain suggestion to improve GMC credibility. 1- Work in collobration with the NHS.Dont declare that GMC and NHS are two different things. If they would work in close collaboration then no doubt both will face such kind of criticism. 2- Don't dismiss the doctor if GMC receive the complaint untill and unless it's confirmed. That doctor during the confirmation of complaint can be put under surveillance. 3- Those who put wrong complaints should be questioned and they have to justify for this otherwise they will bear all the expenses for this enquiry. In short I will suggest that GMC should give up a wild goose chase and beating the air and its all actions should be targeted and productive for the benefit of doctors and patients. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
J L Tupper, Media Relations Manager GMC
Send response to journal:
|
It would appear that Mr Dearlove is again confused about the role of the GMC. We do not rely on evidence solely from hospital trusts when we are investigating claims about a doctors’ fitness to practise. The doctor has the right to respond to any claims that are made, and we will consider this when deciding what action, if any, may be appropriate. Mr Dearlove goes on to repeat his unsubstantiated claim that the GMC is packed with “Whitehall appointees”. Sixty per cent of the GMC’s membership is elected by doctors on the medical register. This is one of the benefits of professionally-led regulation. The GMC is undergoing the biggest period of reform in its history, which ensures it is an organisation that is fit for purpose and well able to carry out its statutory functions. These changes have been introduced following a large scale consultation process with both the public and the profession, and have the backing of the Government. Competing interests: GMC Staff Member |
|||
|
|
|||
|
alan h. holmes-watson, retired Dee Why, NSW 2099
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, re: Storm in a tea cup( or soup bowl) Today I saw this article in a local paper .At first I thought it a joke, but apparently not. SURGEON DISPUTE
16:00 - 22 March 2004
It is alleged Terence Hope took an extra helping of croutons in the staff canteen without paying for them on Wednesday. The £80,000-a-year neurosurgeon was sent home on full pay. Speaking today at his home in Hemington, Leicestershire, Mr Hope said only: "The patients will suffer." He would not confirm the details of his suspension. Hospital officials said Mr Hope's actions were being investigated, but would not comment on the claims made against him. How much longer will the Medical Staff in the NHS tolerate this type of treatment ? More bureaucrats than beds in the whole of the NHS ! Senior Consultants having their mouths stopped with gold, with secretive merit awards, and nebulous titles, professorships and the like,whilst the service and standards reach levels akin to 3rd world. WAKE UP BRITISH DOCTORS, you do not need the NHS .The BMA and the
profession fought long and hard against it in the beginning. It makes
interesting reading to see how the senior members of the profession
were`bought' if one takes the trouble to research the facts around it`s
formation.
| | | | | Inbox Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William T Stevenson, Consultant Radiologist Burnley General Hospital BB10 2PQ
Send response to journal:
|
It is unsurprising that the person entrusted with the GMC response is the 'Media Relations Manager', presumably because the BMJ is deemed to be equivalent to The Sun, Right? (Actually, the doctors do know a little more than the general public about the Business, even when transmogrified to 'Mr' as Dr Dearlove has been.) This tactic enables the GMC Upper Echelons to maintain an Olympian detachment from the trivial cares of the toiling masses below, and yet faintly perceive the winds that blow. I hope they're listening. My own quarrel with the GMC is only too well substantiated: how I laughed when, long after I had complained about the conduct of a senior doctor in another Trust, all I received from the GMC was a request for access to my personal health records! The GMC's eventual judgement is difficult to describe as anything other than stupid, and was essentially "the more senior doctor must be the more correct". This was well after most of the big GMC scandals, when it was apparently well on the way to becoming the Lean Mean Fighting Machine we know today. Who was it who let loose the Neales and Ledwards, and whose revalidation proposals will have no effect on the appearance of any future Shipmans? The GMC accepts no responsibility for the latter, but he does seem to represent an extreme case of an absence of 'fitness to practice'. If I was as inept as the GMC in my work, and as unrepentant, I would worry about being hauled up before the GMC. Unfortunately, the GMC fears no such Sword of Damocles, being preoccupied with observing it's own medical advice to 'keep taking the fees'. Competing interests: I am the author of another Rapid Response on this subject |
|||