Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
GMC - time to go
- susanne mccabe (10 October 2006)
-
GMC:An Inevitable Change
- Jay Ilangaratne (11 October 2006)
|
|
|||
|
susanne mccabe, n/a cf56su
Send response to journal:
|
It is sad that the GMC is seen to have four different interests at heart dependant on membership of each of the four named constituencies. It rather proves that it is time to set up a new organisation altogether. None of the tweakings of membership of the Council in recent years has led to an organisation that can be trusted by any of the four parties individually or collectively. There are inevitable potential conflicts of interest within the systems and culture of such an historically biased organisation as the GMC. Whatever comes next must be even less secretive, cumbersome and archaic still. e.g People have a right to know who is handling a case and to investigate any possible conflict of interest by those handling cases, including the 'teams' who carry out the initial stages of investigations. Appointees, lay or otherwise, to any Council or similar should not simply be the same faces tranferring from one Committee to another, should not have any past as well as present conflicts of interests/associations or relationships which would not be considered appropriate if they came to light. Surprisingly the competence and commitment of those working at 'lower' levels have not been monitored adequately by the GMC, even though their actions can have a bearing on the way cases are handled. Those working at the very early stages of dealing with cases, at the interface betwen the organisation and 'the public' need to be appropriately trained and free of any defensiveness towards the organisation and its members or against those who contact it or are referred to it, those doing the basic administration need to be adequately trained and not appointed on short term contracts post university etc Competing interests: Have handled referral of cases to the GMC |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder www.medical-journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
As a public body, the GMC's functions and decision-making need to be both independent and impartial in line with Article 6.1,European Convention on Human Rights. Having a medical majority in its decision making committees, clearly gives the reasonable perception that the balance could tilt in favour of the profession,however much the public may trust doctors as a professional group. Given the dictum that justice must not only be done but also seen to be done, maintaining a medical majority is no longer a viable option.If the status quo is maintained,then an avalanche of appeals against GMC's decisions could reach the High Court on the basis of an 'Article 6.1' breach,alone;that is unlikely to be good for either the GMC or medical profession.Thus,the GMC's proactive decision is a sensible one rather than waiting for enforced legislative changes in this regard. One sincerely hopes, other professional groups like barristers and solicitors would follow suit, if they haven't already taken such positive measures in relation to self-regulation. Competing interests: None declared |
|||