Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Benefits of an independent tribunal
- Peter C Arnold (4 March 2007)
-
Bottomless Regulatory Brigandage . . .
- Joseph . C . Obi (5 March 2007)
-
'Independence & Impartiality' vs Doctors' Interests
- Jay Ilangaratne (6 March 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Peter C Arnold, Former GP Sydney, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
UK doctors should welcome the transfer of the right to judge and de- register doctors from the GMC to an independent tribunal comprising legal, medical and lay personnel. This change, demanded by the profession in New South Wales in 1986, resulted in legislative amendments setting up just such a Tribunal under the Chairmanship of a District Court Judge. Parties have a right of appeal to the NSW Supreme Court. The advantages for both public and profession are that it is transparently clear that unpopular doctors are not scapegoated and that the misdemeanors of leaders of the profession were not swept under the carpet. The independent Medical Tribunal has the trust of all. A significant advantage for the NSW Medical Board (=GMC) is that it has not, since 1987, had to face public opprobrium about being either too lenient or too severe, as has been the unfortunate experience of the GMC over recent decades. Peter Arnold
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph . C . Obi, Hardline Regulatory Critic & Downing Street Petitioner http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/AbolishGMC
Send response to journal:
|
An Independent Clinical Tribunal will (most certainly) go a very long way (indeed) in ethically eliminating most of the 'Bottomless Regulatory Brigandage' which has since become so characteristic of the British Medical Establishment - over the past 150 years or so. The current President of the General Medical Council (who publicly fought so hard to shamelessly thwart the honest efforts of those of us who defiantly supported such an Impartial Adjudication Process) should now be bold enough to honourably reconsider his position. Competing interests: Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK) currently Chairs the General Medical Council Abolition Movement. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Founder www.medical-journals.com
Send response to journal:
|
A public body like the GMC has a legal duty to ensure that its functions and conduct meet the strict requirement of 'independence and impartiality'. Being an elected member, one becomes accountable to their electorate(doctors) not only by implication as Mr Johnson says, but also on some occasions explicitly. So when Johnson says professionally led regulation was never a right, perhaps he is accepting that a change of composition of the adjudicating panels is necessary. Johnson's argument that there must be an equally substantial risk that public confidence in the independence of their doctors is undermined if patients believe them to be under state control is highly tenuous at best because the need to ensure 'independence and impartiality'(as required by law) far outweighs any competing perceptions/interests of the public. In any event,Johnson has not produced any actual evidence to support his contention that there is an equally substantial risk of public losing confidence as he has suggested.Why should the public lose confidence when the Government is trying to improve the level of judicial quality of a panel which adjudicates complaints from the public? Johnson adds,It does at least open up a route for the GMC, as the body that sets standards of conduct and competence, to appeal against the findings of disciplinary panels if they fail to uphold those standards appropriately. It is not clear whether the GMC would have the proper legal authority, or would be strictly necessary to embark upon as suggested by Johnson. First, it is well established now that the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (CRHP) is the relevant body with a lawful right to appeal against the decisions of disciplinary panels. As Johnson put it,given the prosecution would be decided and prepared by the GMC itself, it is somewhat confusing as to how the GMC could appeal against the findings of a separate disciplinary panel.If that's to be the case, then wouldn't that be the role of the CRHP? Perhaps, Johnson would care to clarify. 2.03.07 Competing interests: None declared |
|||