Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Clare Dyer's suggestion that the Human Rights Act is increasing the
numbers of appeals that succeed against the GMC is incorrect.
In 2001, four appeals have been allowed against the sanctions imposed
by the GMC (but not against the findings of professional misconduct) and
in a fifth case the matter was remitted for further consideration. Eight
were dismissed. In none of the 13 cases, did the Privy Council rely on the
Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights which it
enacts in support of its decision.
In the Baba case, where the case was remitted on the basis that the
doctor's health had affected his ability to instruct his lawyers, there
was no reference to the Act or Convention. General principles of fairness
sufficed.
In Hossain, there were three incidents of failure to visit patients
and a diagnosis failure in a fourth case. There was also a failure to keep
adequate records. The Convention was not referred to here either in the
decision to vary the erasure sanction.
In Bijl, the doctor carried on an operation for far too long and then
returned home while his patient was still bleeding. Paragraph 3 of the
judgement makes clear the Privy Council's view that the Human Rights Act
has made no difference to the Privy Council's exercise of its powers to
review GMC decisions under the 1983 Medical Act.
In Srirangalingham, the problem related to general competence and re-
training. There is no reference to the Human Rights Act in the decision to
vary a suspension.
In the latest case of Manzur concerning receiving £728 through
dishonesty for which he was convicted and fined. Again, there is no
reference to the Human Rights Act.
There are some patterns to these cases. The Privy Council dismissed
all "sex" and health related appeals giving them short shrift.
In Manzur, Bijl and Hossain, much was made of the doctor's
distinguished records and advanced ages. Srirangalingham is unique in that
it related to coherence in fashioning a re-training programme. In the two
clinical problem cases, the GMC had to produce more evidence of
incompetence to counteract the glowing character references. Something
similar was needed in Manzur
Baba is an exceptional problem which could arise before any tribunal.
The Privy Council went out of its way not to criticise the GMC.
All the judgements are on the privy council website and could be the
subject of a more detailed analysis in a future issue of the BMJ.
When a member of the GMC 94-99 I became increasingly concerned about
the abuse of the disiplinary processes. Thankfully the Privy council now
seems to have similar doubts and has apparently overturned 3 erasures in 2
months.This is not good enough and a responsible BMA would demand an
inquiry. Oh but I forgot, BMA leaders are also in the GMC so fat chance of
jobbing doctors being protected.
Human Rights Act irrelevant to Privy Council decisions on GMC appeals
Clare Dyer's suggestion that the Human Rights Act is increasing the
numbers of appeals that succeed against the GMC is incorrect.
In 2001, four appeals have been allowed against the sanctions imposed
by the GMC (but not against the findings of professional misconduct) and
in a fifth case the matter was remitted for further consideration. Eight
were dismissed. In none of the 13 cases, did the Privy Council rely on the
Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights which it
enacts in support of its decision.
In the Baba case, where the case was remitted on the basis that the
doctor's health had affected his ability to instruct his lawyers, there
was no reference to the Act or Convention. General principles of fairness
sufficed.
In Hossain, there were three incidents of failure to visit patients
and a diagnosis failure in a fourth case. There was also a failure to keep
adequate records. The Convention was not referred to here either in the
decision to vary the erasure sanction.
In Bijl, the doctor carried on an operation for far too long and then
returned home while his patient was still bleeding. Paragraph 3 of the
judgement makes clear the Privy Council's view that the Human Rights Act
has made no difference to the Privy Council's exercise of its powers to
review GMC decisions under the 1983 Medical Act.
In Srirangalingham, the problem related to general competence and re-
training. There is no reference to the Human Rights Act in the decision to
vary a suspension.
In the latest case of Manzur concerning receiving £728 through
dishonesty for which he was convicted and fined. Again, there is no
reference to the Human Rights Act.
There are some patterns to these cases. The Privy Council dismissed
all "sex" and health related appeals giving them short shrift.
In Manzur, Bijl and Hossain, much was made of the doctor's
distinguished records and advanced ages. Srirangalingham is unique in that
it related to coherence in fashioning a re-training programme. In the two
clinical problem cases, the GMC had to produce more evidence of
incompetence to counteract the glowing character references. Something
similar was needed in Manzur
Baba is an exceptional problem which could arise before any tribunal.
The Privy Council went out of its way not to criticise the GMC.
All the judgements are on the privy council website and could be the
subject of a more detailed analysis in a future issue of the BMJ.
Adam Samuel
Competing interests: No competing interests